Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule; request for comments.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as “RUS” or “the Agency”, is issuing a final rule to establish the Rural eConnectivity Program. The Rural eConnectivity Program provides loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas. This rule describes the eligibility requirements, the application process, the criteria that will be used by RUS to assess applicants' creditworthiness and outlines the application process. In addition, the Agency is seeking comments on the final rule.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number RUS-20-Telecom-0023 and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number 0572-AC51 through
For general inquiries, contact Laurel Leverrier, Acting Assistant Administrator Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), email:
The Agency improves the quality of life in rural America by providing investment capital for deployment of rural telecommunications infrastructure. To achieve the goal of increasing economic opportunity in rural America, the Agency finances infrastructure that enables access to a seamless, nationwide telecommunications network. With access to the same advanced telecommunications networks as its urban counterparts—especially those designed to accommodate distance learning, telework, and telemedicine—rural America will eventually see improving educational opportunities, health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher employment.
On March 23, 2018, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115,141) (the 2018 Appropriations Act), which established a new broadband loan and grant pilot program, that was named the Rural eConnectivity Pilot Program. The 2018 Appropriations Act originally appropriated budget authority of $600 million to be used on an expedited basis. For fiscal year (FY) 2019, Congress funded an additional $550 million for the pilot through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Pub. L. 116-6). Once again, on December 20, 2019, Congress appropriated (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94)) $555 million to continue the program. In addition, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act provided another $100 million in grant funding for the program.
The Rural eConnectivity Program provides loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas. In facilitating the expansion of broadband services and infrastructure, the program will fuel long-term rural economic development and opportunities in rural America. One of those opportunities is precision agriculture. The use of this technology requires a robust broadband connection. The awards made under this program will bring high-speed broadband to the farms, which will allow them to increase productivity.
Since its establishment under the 2018 Act, RUS has implemented the Rural eConnectivity Program by issuing Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs). The round one FOA was published December 14, 2018 (83 FR 64315). The round two FOA was published December 12, 2019 (84 FR 67913), and included a request for comments under USDA's Regulatory Reform Notice published on July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32649).
The Agency received comments from six respondents on the round two FOA through USDA's Regulatory Reform Federal Register Docket ID:
For Round 3, Respondent recommends that RUS consider redefining “sufficient access to broadband” to mean any rural area in which households have fixed terrestrial broadband service delivering at least 25 mpbs/3 mbps with a limited exception as detailed in comment 3. Presumably, round 3 would not take place until at least 2021, and those networks funded by a 3rd round would not be built out until several years after. This would mean areas that fall between 10/1 mbps and 25/3 mbps would have to wait several years for meaningful upgrades.
The Rural eConnectivity Program funded networks should not overbuild existing networks or federally supported planned networks. General Field Representatives (GFR) did a good job of surveying existing networks. Contractors hired by USDA did not
RUS should make any area where the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is, at the time of application consideration, committing funding to build a terrestrial network ineligible for Rural eConnectivity Program Awards. This should include funding from ACAM, CAF-BLS, Alaska Plan, CAF II Auction, and RDOF USF High Cost Program funding streams. The one exception is areas funded by the Universal Service Fund (USF) high cost program where most of the area has 25/3 mpbs which some have less. The Agency should allow USF recipients to apply for funding to bring higher speeds that the FCC has mandated to the areas they already serve.
Respondent recommends that RUS allow applicants, working with Tribal entities, to certify fisheries in the same way the Rural eConnectivity Program allows farms to be certified. In some parts of the country, fisheries are key to economic development and broadband is just as important at sea for both safety and efficiency of production as it is on land. Placing fishing on equal footing with farming will provide additional geographical diversity to the applicant pool and ensure economically important coastal areas get the broadband they need.
The following comments apply to the application process:
Limit required data submissions to the corporate entity applying and the geographic area and/or project affected.
Limit information requests to reduce the amount of data sought from the applicant's parents and affiliates that is not critical to determining whether an award should be made and to information about the affected geographical area.
Clarify that an applicant need only submit information about non-funded service areas (NFSA) that are related to the proposed funded service area (PFSA), rather than all of the applications NFSAs.
Permit subleasing rights so that an applicant is not required to own the facilities used to provide broadband, so long as the entity owning the facilities is an affiliated entity that gives RUS sufficient financial security.
Publicly traded companies cannot share the forward-looking data RUS requires.
Allow providers alternate ways to establish their project capabilities, such as demonstrating financial viability through publicly available Securities and Exchange Commission filings, replacing the first lien on assets requirement with alternatives for security options, and implementing a budgeting methodology that is more flexible than the Capital Investment Workbook.
Defer network design and environmental showings until later in the RUS funding process and allow in-house engineers to certify projects.
Enable the widest possible participation by eliminating the ban on applications from broadband providers organized as partnerships or joint ventures.
The following comments apply to the award process:
Take stronger steps to ensure that funded areas are truly unserved, including: (i) Undertaking better coordination of maps and data with the FCC to avoid granting duplicative funding to the same area; (ii) considering an area to be “served” once a provider has built a broadband network there, regardless of whether it has yet secured customers in that area; and (iii) considering an area to be “served” if federal or state broadband funding has been committed to that area, or a provider has a binding commitment to build a broadband network there, regardless of whether those networks are yet built out (as long as the provider is meeting applicable build-out deadlines).
Adopt provisions to ensure a more technology-neutral scoring process, including eliminating any bonus points for networks that offer symmetrical speeds or providers in states who have authorized electric cooperatives to offer broadband service.
Allow automated certification for businesses served.
Do not deny entire applications when one area proposed to be served is ineligible, instead modifying the application to exclude the ineligible area.
Require that awardees comply with the FCC's pole attachment rules and fee restrictions.
The following comments apply to the challenge process:
Increase transparency in the challenge process by making maps available of eligible areas and keeping them updated.
Publicly post written decisions on challenges explaining RUS's reasons for granting or denying the challenge prior to an award being issued for the challenged area.
Allow for appeals of decisions on challenges prior to announcing an award—Update the map of eligible areas following the final resolution of each challenge and award and before applications are submitted for the next round of funding.
RUS should consider allowing subsidiaries to use facilities and assets of affiliates to satisfy application and program requirements.
The following comments apply to the application process:
Refine option for a company to apply for Rural eConnectivity Program funds using a dedicated subsidiary:
Consider reforms that would make it easier for companies to apply directly at the parent or operating company level.
Simplify the means by which an applicant's technical capabilities and financial viability can be confirmed such as using public information filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissions for financial viability or narrative or aggregated information about existing experience in the marketplace for technical viability.
Consider eliminating or substantially reducing application requirements relating to NFSAs. Submission of detailed information regarding NFSAs is more administratively burdensome for larger applicants.
Submitting detailed information and projections regarding services, investments and customers within NFSAs raises significant competitive concerns that outweigh any limited benefit.
Requiring applicants to submit forward-looking projections for NFSAs creates risks for publicly traded companies. Limit projections just to PFSAs—Simplify submissions for NFSAs.
Instead of submission of geospatial data through the mapping tool, should consider allowing applicants to submit a more general description of their existing footprints.
Consider de-coupling the requirement to submit mapping information for an applicant's NFSAs from the submission of other information such as customer count, service offerings and further business projections.
Rather than require applicants to identify competitive offerings from other providers within each NFSA, consider allowing applicants to provide narrative information describing the competition they face from other providers.
The following two comments apply to clarifying and narrowing the requirement to submit network diagrams to facilities involved in the proposed project:
Narrow the requirement to submit a network diagram only to the project(s) set forth in the application and any existing network elements that would be leveraged to support such new network facilities.
Clarify that applicants may provide a general narrative description in lieu of a diagram with respect to the remainder of their network.
Consider allowing providers to propose budgets rather than using RUS's online capital investment workbook.
Consider securities filings and other publicly available information to confirm applicant's financial viability.
The following two comments apply to simplifying changes to the application and evaluation criteria.
Remove discrepancy between fiber to the home (FTTH) and hybrid coaxial fiber (HFC) network designs—awarding points for symmetrical speeds affords significant advantages to FTTH versus HFC and it is inconsistent with “technology neutral.”
Allow applications to be supported by in-house engineers on the same terms as it permits program awardees to support particular construction projects with in-house engineering staff. Requiring use of an external, certified engineer adds unnecessary cost and complexity.
The following comments apply to terms and conditions:
Consider modifying the financial restrictions on grant recipients. The financial restrictions that the grant and security agreement impose impede the ability of financially stable providers to engage in commonplace transactions necessary for their business if they participate in the program at the parent level.
Consider narrowing the “Right of Inspection” to documents relating to the RUS-Funded project.
The following comments apply to allowing greater flexibility in contracting and vendor selection:
Offer awardees the option to proceed with their regular contracting and construction processes without requiring RUS approval for each process.
Consider capping contributions to a given project, which would cause the grantee to bear the risk of running over budget.
Narrow the current construction procedures requirement that applicants obtain RUS approval before contracting with an affiliate.
For the current and future rounds, we strongly recommend that state and county fairgrounds be included within the definition of essential community facilities. In California, fairgrounds continue to be essential in supporting the safety, health and well-being of residents—serving as evacuation centers and shelters during fires and floods. Of California's 77 fairgrounds, 36 (47 percent of all fairs in the state) have been activated as evacuation centers, fire camps, and animal shelters providing direct emergency response and public safety activities. Sufficient access to broadband connectivity at these locations is critical to provide individuals and families impacted by emergencies essential access to communication, banking and other services. Allowing state and county fairground eligibility as essential community facilities is a priority for our state to extend overall broadband connectivity and better prepares for future emergencies. A list of their fairgrounds with the addresses and coordinates was provided.
Over many years, RUS, which administers programs that provide infrastructure or infrastructure improvements to rural communities, has served with distinction through oversight from the USDA. Providing economic incentives to allow for broadband deployment in rural areas through the Rural eConnectivity program seems to be an appropriate use of federal funds.
Agriculture plays an important part in the American economy. Today, production and consumption occur practically simultaneously so a lack of good broadband service quickly turns to no service whatsoever. This program, which relies on an interplay of effort, may help to bring stable, permanent and dependable service and give an opportunity to aid in molding and directing a public enticement that recognizes the importance of farming; including small business enterprises to every branch of industry and commerce in the country.
This grant program, if implemented with checks and balances for compliance, has an advantage in that it affords an added means of raising funds
The RUS program should be reviewed periodically and continued as it serves the interest of Americans as a whole.
Respondent wholeheartedly agrees that the FCC and RUS will need to work together to avoid any result that would squander available funds, and that the agencies should establish, prior to initiating these new rounds of funding, which areas should be prioritized and ensure that duplicative support is not assigned to different providers for delivery of overlapping services. Such a negative result would upset the legitimate expectations of those submitting bids for funding that they would be the only recipients of federal support directed to deploying new service. Only through coordination of efforts can the two agencies maximize the benefit of the federal funds allocated and optimize the delivery of new or improved broadband capability to rural areas to close the digital divide.
In addition to the comments received under the round two FOA, the Agency collected stakeholder feedback utilizing various methods including, conducting phone and in-person interviews, hosting webinars, and hosting workshops across the country. Through these venues, the Agency regularly heard the following:
• Financial requirements were burdensome and could be streamlined to better serve rural communities.
• Specific required documents should be made optional due to their minimal impact on the viability of the applying entity and the proposed project.
• The Agency should consider higher minimum speed requirements in order to ensure systems do not become obsolete before the end of its composite economic life.
• The scoring criteria should remain flexible and continually be updated to include the most up-to-date, accurate, and available data.
• The public notice response period should be extended to longer than 30 days.
The Agency utilized the submitted comments, stakeholder feedback and experience gained from rounds one and two to develop this final rule, which will codify policies and procedures for administering the program. Changes that will be codified in the regulation include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The requirement for two years of unqualified, comparative, audited financial statements has been changed to unqualified, comparative, audited financial statements for the previous fiscal year of the applicant from the date the application has been submitted.
• The requirement that applicants must submit certifications from the appropriate state or tribal broadband office has been changed to a voluntary request.
• Under certain conditions, a subsidiary can use the unqualified, comparative, audited statements of their parent to meet certain eligibility requirements.
• The first two rounds of funding had restrictions associated with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) funding of the CAF II-903 areas. The Agency has elected to remove these restrictions as the FCC buildout requirements are implemented and these areas become ineligible. The Agency will continue to work with the FCC to maximize the funding that both the FCC and RUS make available to rural America.
• Additional sections, including the scoring criteria, eligible service area threshold, eligible award costs, and public notice response period were also adjusted since round one. These requirements will be determined on an annual basis and published in the
Based on the prior feedback received, the Agency is issuing this rulemaking as a Final Rule with comment. The Agency specifically requests public comment on the speed used to determine eligibility. Based on the speed requirements implementing the statutory requirements of the program of the Round 1 and Round 2 FOAs, the Agency required a minimum of 10/1 Mbps service in order to qualify for eligibility. For future rounds, the Agency would take into account comments received under this rulemaking to establish future speed requirements, which will be announced in the
This rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. In accordance with Executive Order 12866, a Regulatory Impact Analysis was completed, outlining the costs and benefits of implementing this program in rural America. The complete analysis is available in Docket RUS-20-Telecom-0023 on
The final rule will codify statutory language from the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act that established the Rural eConnectivity Program and the 2018 Farm Bill with respect to public notice and reporting requirements, as well as general policies and procedures for the program. The result will be consistent, predictable program delivery that allows the Agency to deploy reliable, high-speed broadband into unserved areas and fuel long-term economic development and opportunities in rural America.
The Agency estimates up to 500 organizations may be interested in applying for the Rural eConnectivity Program and approximately 200 awards will be made each funding round. The Agency estimates the total cost to applicants to be $19,426 per applicant respondent and $6,837 per award recipient respondent. The administrative cost to the Federal Government to administer the program is estimated to be $5,495,802.
On October 21, 2017, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Sonny Perdue released the “Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity.” The report was a product of the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, which was formed to identify legislative, regulatory, and policy changes to promote agriculture, economic development, job growth, infrastructure improvements, technological innovation, energy security, and quality of life in rural America per Executive Order 13790 (82 FR 20237). In partnership with local, state, and tribal leaders, and dozens of federal agencies, the report identified eConnectivity as one of five key catalysts to achieving prosperity in rural America.
In conclusion, the Agency notes that reliable, affordable high-speed internet is essential in today's global economy.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule.
This rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require a consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule related notice entitled, “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034) advising that RUS loans and loan guarantees were not covered by Executive Order 12372.
RUS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 (“Environmental Policies and Procedures”). The Agency has determined that (i) this action meets the criteria established in 7 CFR 1970.53(f); (ii) no extraordinary circumstances exist; and (iii) the action is not “connected” to other actions with potentially significant impacts, is not considered a “cumulative action” and is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the action does not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number assigned to the Rural e-Connectivity Pilot Program is 10.752. The Catalog is available on the internet at
This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of § 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
RUS is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Rural Development has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests government-to-government consultation, Rural Development will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress. If a tribe would like to engage in government-to-government consultation with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or
Additionally, Rural Development recognizes the challenges of deploying broadband in tribal communities. The Agency further notes that this regulation sets the framework for the administration of the Rural eConnectivity Program but does not set the priority point scale or content that will be used for scoring in upcoming application windows. The specific scoring scale for each round will be set and published in future funding announcements. In past instances, Rural Development has sought comment on the contents of the funding announcement. To ensure that Native American Tribes have a meaningful opportunity to provide input to the next upcoming funding notice, Rural Development will coordinate with USDA's Office of Tribal Relations to conduct at least one listening session to collect recommendations from tribes on how Rural Development's broadband programs can be improved to better meet the broadband challenges that tribes face, identify opportunities to leverage and coordinate assistance from
USDA Rural Development has participated in listening sessions and Farm Bill tribal consultations that have either specifically been focused on the Rural eConnectivity Program or have touched on the challenges with utilizing Rural Development's programs to finance broadband infrastructure throughout Indian Country and Alaska. For instance, on June 4, 2018, USDA's Senior Advisor for Rural Infrastructure, the Assistant Administrator for the Telecommunications Programs and Rural Development's Native American Coordinator hosted a listening session on the legislation authorizing the Rural eConnectivity Pilot program during the National Congress of American Indians Midyear Conference in Kansas City, MO, prior to the release of the first funding announcement for the program. Additionally, in May and June of 2019, the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service and Rural Development's Native American Coordinator participated in USDA Farm Bill consultations hosted by USDA's Office of Tribal Relations in Washington, DC and Reno, NV. Although the Rural eConnectivity Program was not the focus of these sessions, concerns from tribal leaders regarding broadband infrastructure and Rural Development's programs were shared at both events.
Over the last two years, Rural Development has targeted outreach to tribes during Round 1 and Round 2 of the Rural eConnectivity Program funding opportunities. For instance, in April of 2019, a tribal focused Rural eConnectivity Program technical assistance workshop was held on the Pascua Yaqui reservation just outside of Tucson, AZ. Subsequently, in January and February of 2020, Rural Development's Native American Coordinator attended the Round 2 Rural eConnectivity Program technical assistance workshops in Seattle and Denver. He hosted a breakout session at both workshops on collaborating with tribes and was available to answer questions of potential tribal applicants.
Rural Development's State Directors, Telecom General Field Representatives, and additional Rural Development staff have met with tribes on a regular basis to discuss tribal broadband projects, tribal broadband challenges and Rural Development programs throughout this period as well. For instance, in August of 2019, USDA Rural Development—Colorado hosted a broadband workshop in Durango, CO. Tribes in the region were encouraged to participate and Rural Development leadership used the opportunity to visit two nearby tribes to discuss their current development priorities and challenges—including access to broadband infrastructure.
Finally, Rural Development has looked to leverage interagency opportunities to provide outreach to tribes. For instance, Rural Development staff hosted 3 workshops at the inaugural National Tribal Broadband Summit hosted by the Department of Interior in September of 2019. The Administrator for the Rural Utilities Service also provided closing comments at the conclusion of the first day of the summit. More recently, on July 20, 2020, Rural Development staff participated in a Community Broadband Funders Webinar hosted by FEMA Regions 9 and 10 and provided information on Rural Development's telecommunications and broadband programs, including the Rural eConnectivity Program. Additional federal agencies that presented information during the webinar included Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications Information Administration and the Economic Development Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, HUD's Office of Native American Programs, Health and Human Services and FEMA. The webinar was not a tribal specific event, but tribes were encouraged to participate and some of the content was geared specifically to tribal participants.
Ongoing outreach, interagency collaboration, and project meetings with tribes helps inform RD leadership of ongoing tribal challenges and opportunities regarding broadband financing and infrastructure deployment. These types of interactions led to tribal application priority points in the first Rural eConnectivity Program funding announcement and special consideration for tribal broadband plans and tribal critical facilities in the application scoring criteria during the first and second Rural eConnectivity Program funding opportunities. Moving forward, this type of tribal collaboration, along with the tribal listening session planned for this rule, will help inform Rural Development staff in the development of future Rural eConnectivity Program funding opportunity announcements.
Rural Development, a mission area for which RUS is an agency, has reviewed this rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After review and analysis of the rule and available data, it has been determined that based on the analysis of the program purpose, application submission and eligibility criteria, issuance of this Final Rule is not likely to adversely or disproportionately impact very low, low and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes or persons with disability, by virtue of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this rule.
The Information Collection and Recordkeeping requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for approval under OMB Control Number 0572-0152.
Broadband, Community development, Grant programs—communications, Loan programs—communications, Rural areas, Telecommunications.
7 U.S.C. 1981(b)(4), 7 U.S.C. 901
(a) The Rural eConnectivity Program, hereinafter referred to as Program, provides funding in the form of loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations for the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas. One of the essential goals of the Program is to expand broadband service to rural areas that do not have sufficient access to broadband. This part sets forth the general policies, eligibility requirements, types and terms of loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations and program requirements.
(b) Additional information and application materials regarding the Program can be found on the Rural Development website.
(a) The following definitions apply to this part:
(b) Unless otherwise provided in the award documents, all financial terms not defined herein shall have the meaning as defined by GAAP.
(a) For the purposes of this part:
(1) Ninety (90) percent of the PFSA must not have sufficient access to broadband service;
(2) Applicants must propose to build a network that is capable of providing broadband service to every premises located in the PFSA at the time the application is submitted at a speed defined in the latest
(3) The Agency reserves the right to make funding offers or seek consultations to resolve partially overlapping applications. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information during the review process. If additional information is requested, the applicant will have up to 30 calendar days to submit the information. If such information is not timely submitted, RUS may reject the application.
(b) The amount and types of funds available for assistance, as well as the maximum and minimum award amounts will be published in the
The Applicant must certify to the following within the online application system:
(a) That it is authorized to submit the application on behalf of the eligible entity(ies) listed in the Application;
(b) That the Applicant has examined the Application;
(c) That all information in the Application, including certifications and forms submitted are, at the time furnished, true and correct in all material respects;
(d) That the entity requesting funding will comply with the terms, conditions, purposes, and federal requirements of the program;
(e) That a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or claim on the Application is grounds for denial or termination of an award, and/or possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001 and civil violations of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729
(f) That the Applicant will comply with all applicable federal, tribal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders, and programmatic rules and requirements relating to the project, and acknowledges that failure to do so may result in rejection or de-obligation of the award, as well as civil liability or criminal prosecution, if applicable, by the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
(a) To be eligible for funding, an Applicant may be either a nonprofit or for-profit organization, and must take one of the following forms:
(1) Corporation;
(2) Limited Liability Company and Limited Liability Partnership;
(3) Cooperative or mutual organization;
(4) States or local governments, including any agency, subdivision, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof;
(5) A territory or possession of the United States; or
(6) An Indian tribe, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Individuals and legal general partnerships that are formed with individuals are not eligible entities.
(c) Co-Applicants are not eligible entities. If two entities would like to partner with each other in delivering broadband to areas without sufficient access, then one entity must take the lead on submitting an application. Inter-company agreements can be used to account for revenues and expenses on the applicant's financial projections. However, based on the existing financial and security arrangements, the Agency may require that both, or other entities, be parties to the award documents, or guarantee the award.
To be eligible for funding assistance under the part, the Applicant must:
(a) Submit a complete application and provide all supporting documentation including unqualified, comparative, audited financial statements for the previous year from the date the application is submitted as detailed in § 1740.63.
(b) Demonstrate that the project can be completely built out within five years
(c) Demonstrate that the project is technically feasible as detailed in § 1740.64.
(d) Demonstrate that all project costs can be fully funded or accounted for as detailed in § 1740.63.
(e) Submit documentation which enables RUS to determine that the project is financially feasible and sustainable as detailed in § 1740.61.
(f) Demonstrate that the following service requirements will be met:
(1) Facilities funded with grant funds will provide broadband service proposed in the application for the composite economic life of the facilities, as approved by RUS, or as provided in the Award Documents.
(2) Facilities funded with loan funds must provide broadband service through the amortization period of the loan.
(a)
(2) If any part of the applicant's PFSA is ineligible, RUS, in its sole discretion, may request that an applicant modify its application, if RUS believes the modification is feasible. Otherwise, RUS will reject the application.
(b)
(i) Determine the overlap to be so insignificant that no agency action is necessary;
(ii) Request one or more applications to be revised to eliminate the overlapping territory;
(iii) Choose one application over another given the amount of assistance requested, the number of awards already chosen in the area or State, or the need for the project in the specific area due to other factors; or
(iv) Simply choose the project that scores higher or in the judgement of the agency is more financially feasible.
(2)
(ii) RUS Community Connect Grants. Service areas that received grants under the RUS Community Connect Grant Program are eligible if they do not have sufficient access to broadband, except for those grants still under construction. Service areas still under construction can be found on the Agency's web page.
(iii) RUS BIP Grants. Service areas that received a 100 percent grant under the RUS Broadband Initiatives Program are eligible if they do not have sufficient access to broadband.
(c)
(2) Service areas that have received federal grant funds, or funds from the Federal Communications Commission, to provide broadband service will be restricted from funding, if such funding is principally to construct facilities throughout the service area that provide broadband service at the threshold level of service. If additional service areas are restricted from funding, these areas will be identified in the funding opportunity announcement that opens an application window.
Award and any matching funds must be used to pay only eligible costs incurred post award, except for approved pre-application expenses. Eligible costs must be consistent with the cost principles identified in 2 CFR 200, Subpart E, Cost Principles. In addition, costs must be reasonable, allocable, and necessary to the project. Any application that proposes to use any portion of the award or matching funds for any ineligible costs may be rejected.
(a)
(1) To fund the construction or improvement of facilities, including buildings and land, required to provide fixed terrestrial broadband service, including fixed wireless service, and any other facilities required for providing other services over the same facilities, such as equipment required to comply with CALEA;
(2) To fund reasonable preapplication expenses in an amount not to exceed five percent of the award. Preapplication expenses must be included in the first request for advance of award funds and will be funded with either grant or loan funds. If the funding category applied for has a grant component, then grant funds will be used for this purpose. If preapplication expenses are not included in the first request for advance of award funds, they will become an ineligible purpose; and
(3) To fund the acquisition of an existing system that does not currently provide sufficient access to broadband for upgrading that system to meet the requirements of this regulation. The cost of the acquisition is limited to 40 percent of the award amount requested. Acquisitions can be considered for 100 percent loans.
(b)
(1) To fund operating expenses of the Awardee;
(2) To fund costs incurred prior to the date on which the application was submitted other than eligible preapplication expenses;
(3) To fund an acquisition of an affiliate, or the purchase or acquisition of any facilities or equipment of an affiliate. Note that if affiliated transactions are contemplated in the application, approval of the application does not constitute approval to enter into affiliated transactions, nor acceptance of the affiliated arrangements that conflict with the obligations under the award documents;
(4) To fund the acquisition of a system previously funded by RUS without prior written approval of RUS before an application is submitted;
(5) To fund the purchase or lease of any vehicle other than those used primarily in construction or system improvements;
(6) To fund broadband facilities leased under the terms of an operating lease or an indefeasible right of use (IRU) agreement;
(7) To fund the merger or consolidation of entities;
(8) To fund costs incurred in acquiring spectrum as part of a Federal Communication Commission (FCC) auction or in a secondary market acquisition. Spectrum that is part of a system acquisition may be considered;
(9) To fund facilities that provide mobile services;
(10) To fund facilities that provide satellite service including satellite backbone services;
(11) To fund the acquisition of a system that is providing sufficient access to broadband; or
(12) To refinance outstanding debt.
Applicants seeking assistance may request consideration under the SUTA provisions in 7 U.S.C. 936f.
(a) If the Administrator determines that a community within “trust land” (as defined in 38 U.S.C. 3765) has a high need for the benefits of the Program, the Administrator may designate the community as a “substantially underserved trust area” (as defined in section 306F of the RE Act).
(b) To receive consideration under SUTA, the applicant must submit to the Agency a completed application that includes all information requested in 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D. In addition, the application must identify the discretionary authorities within subpart D that it seeks to have applied to its application. Note, however, the following:
(1) Given the prohibition on funding operating expenses in the Program, requests for waiver of the equity requirements cannot be considered; and
(2) Due to the statutory requirements that established the Program, waiver of the nonduplication requirements cannot be considered.
(a) To ensure transparency for the Program, the Agency's mapping tool will include the following information from each application, and be displayed for the public:
(1) The identity of the applicant;
(2) The areas to be served, including identification of the associated census blocks;
(3) The type of funding requested;
(4) The status of the application; and
(5) The number of households without sufficient access to broadband.
(b) The Agency will publish a public notice of each application requesting assistance under this part in accordance with the requirements of 7 U.S.C. 950cc. All applicants must provide the following information, which will be posted publicly on RUS' fully searchable website, in addition to the status of the application:
(1) A description of the proposed broadband project;
(2) A map of the PFSA;
(3) The amount and type of support requested by the applicant;
(4) The estimated number and proportion of service points in the proposed service territory without fixed broadband service, whether terrestrial or wireless; and
(5) Any other information required of the applicant in a funding notice.
(c) The public notice referenced under paragraph (b) of this section will be published after application submission and will remain available for 45 calendar days on the Agency's web page. During this period, existing service providers are requested to submit the following information through the Agency's mapping tool:
(1) The number of residential and business customers within the applicant's service area currently purchasing sufficient access to broadband, the rates of data transmission being offered, and the cost of each level of broadband service charged by the existing service provider;
(2) The number of residential and business customers within the applicant's service area receiving voice and video services and the associated rates for these other services;
(3) A map showing where the existing service provider's services coincide with the applicant's service area using the Agency's Mapping Tool; and
(4) Test results for the service area in question for a minimum of at least the prior three months demonstrating that sufficient access to broadband is being provided. The test results shall be for different times of the day.
(d) The Agency may contact service providers that respond under paragraph (b) of this section to validate their submission, and so responding service providers should be prepared to:
(1) Provide additional information supporting that the area in question has sufficient access to broadband service;
(2) Have a technician on site during the field validation by RUS staff;
(3) Run on site tests with RUS personnel being present, if requested; and
(4) Provide copies of any test results that have been conducted in the last six months and validate the information submitted in the public notice response months.
(e) If no broadband service provider submits information pursuant to a pending application or if the existing provider does not provide the information requested under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, RUS will consider the number of providers and extent of broadband service using any other data available through reasonable efforts, including utilizing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration National Broadband Availability Map and FCC broadband availability map. That may include the agency conducting field validations so as to locate facilities in the PFSA and determine, to the extent possible, if those facilities can provide sufficient access to broadband. Notwithstanding, conclusive evidence as to the existence of sufficient access to broadband will be taken only through the public notice process. As a result, the Agency highly recommends that existing service providers in a proposed funded service territory submit responses to the public notice to ensure that their service is considered in the determination of eligibility on an application.
(f) The Agency will notify respondents who are existing service providers whether their challenge was successful or not and allow for an opportunity to respond.
(g) The information submitted by an existing service provider under paragraph (c) of this section will be treated as proprietary and confidential and not subject to disclosure, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 950cc(b)(3).
(h) For all applications that are approved, the following information will be made available to the public:
(1) The information provided in paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Each annual report required under § 1740.80(g) will be redacted to protect any proprietary information; and
(3) Such other information as the Administrator of the RUS deems sufficient to allow the public to understand the assistance provided.
(a) Federal Agencies are required to analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for Applicant projects or proposals seeking funding. Please refer to 7 CFR part 1970 for all of Rural Development's environmental policies. All Applicants must follow the requirements in 7 CFR part 1970 and are required to complete an Environmental Questionnaire, to
(b) Applications will be reviewed to ensure that they contain sufficient information to allow Agency staff to conduct a NEPA analysis so that appropriate NEPA documentation can be submitted to the appropriate federal and state agencies, along with the recommendation that the proposal is in compliance with applicable environmental and historic preservation laws.
(c) Applicants proposing activities that cannot be covered by existing environmental compliance procedures will be informed whether NEPA requirements and other environmental requirements can otherwise be expeditiously met so that a project can proceed within the timeframes anticipated under the Program.
(d) If additional information is required after an application is accepted for funding, funds can be withheld by the agency under a special award condition requiring the Awardee to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient for the Agency to assess any impacts that a project may have on the environment.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Interest rates for the different funding options that will become available will be included in the
(a) Direct cost-of-money loans shall bear interest at a rate equal to the cost of borrowing to the Department of Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity.
(b) The agency may offer 100 percent loans at a reduced interest rate, and in such cases, the applicable interest rate will be stated in the
Terms and conditions of loans, grants, or loan/grant combinations are set forth in the non-negotiable standard loan, grant, or loan/grant agreements and the corresponding note, and/or mortgage, if applicable, which may be found on the Agency's web page.
(a) Unless the Applicant requests a shorter repayment period, loans must be repaid with interest within a period that, rounded to the nearest whole year, is equal to the expected Composite Economic Life of the project assets, as determined by RUS based upon acceptable depreciation rates, plus three years. Acceptable depreciation rates can be found in the Program Construction Procedures found on the Agency's web page.
(b) Interest begins accruing on the date of each loan advance. Any deferral period for loans will be set in the
(c) All proposed construction (including construction with matching and other funds) and all advance of funds must be completed no later than five years from the time funds are made available.
(d) No funds will be disbursed under this program until all other sources of funding have been obtained and any other pre-award conditions have been met. Failure to obtain one or more sources of funding committed to in the Application or to fulfill any other pre-award condition within 90 days of award announcement may result in withdrawal of the award. The RUS may modify this requirement in the
(a)
(1) For Corporations and limited liability entities, the loan and loan/grant combinations must be secured by all assets of the Awardee.
(i) RUS must be given an exclusive first lien, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, on all assets of the Awardee, including all revenues.
(ii) RUS may share its first lien position with one or more lenders on a
(iii) Applicants must submit a certification that their prior lender or lienholder on any Awardee assets has already agreed to sign the RUS' standard intercreditor agreement or co-mortgage found on the Agency's web page.
(iv) RUS will not share a lien position on assets with any related party or affiliate of the Awardee.
(2) For Tribal entities and municipalities, RUS will develop appropriate security arrangements.
(3) Unless otherwise approved by RUS in writing, all property and facilities purchased with award funds must be owned by the Awardee.
(b)
(1) The government must be provided an exclusive first lien on all grant funded assets during the service obligation of the grant, and thereafter any sale or disposition of grant assets must comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
(2) All Awardees must repay the grant if the project is sold or transferred without receiving written approval from RUS during the service obligation of the grant.
(c)
(2)
RUS loan and grant advances are made at the request of the Awardee according to the procedures stipulated in the Award Documents. All non-RUS funds, to include matching funds and cash provided in lieu of RUS loan funds, must be expended first, followed by loan funds and then grant funds, except for RUS-approved pre-application expenses. RUS may modify this requirement in the
Awardees shall use in connection with the expenditure of loan and grant funds only such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies, as have been mined or produced in the United States or in any eligible country, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States or in any eligible country. For purposes of this section, an “eligible country” is any country that applies with respect to the United States an agreement ensuring reciprocal access for United States products and services and United States suppliers to the markets of that country, as determined by the United States Trade Representative. The Buy American regulations may be found at, and any requests for waiver must be submitted pursuant to, 7 CFR part 1787.
(a) Applications must be submitted through the Agency's online application system.
(b) The Agency may publish additional application submission requirements in a notice in the
(c) Unless otherwise identified in the notice, applicants can only submit one application under any funding window.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) General information on the applicant and the project including:
(i) A description of the project, that will be made public, consistent with the requirements herein; and
(ii) The estimated dollar amount of the funding request.
(2) An executive summary that includes, but is not be limited to, a detailed description of existing operations, discussion about key management, description of the workforce, description of interactions between any parent, affiliated or subsidiary operation, a detailed description of the proposed project, and the source of the matching and other funds;
(3) A description of the PFSA including the number of premises passed;
(4) Subscriber projections including the number of subscribers for broadband, video and voice services and any other service that may be offered. A description of the proposed service offerings and the associated pricing plan that the applicant proposes to offer;
(5) A map, utilizing the RUS mapping tool located on the Agency's web page, of the PFSAs identifying the areas without sufficient access to broadband and any NFSA of the applicant. If an applicant has multiple NFSAs, they can elect to submit each NFSA individually or they can submit them as a single file through the mapping tool;
(6) A description of the advertised prices of service offerings by competitors in the same area;
(7) A network design and all supporting information as detailed in § 1740.64.
(8) Resumes of key management personnel, a description of the organization's readiness to manage a broadband services network, and an organizational chart showing all parent organizations and/or holding companies (including parents of parents, etc.), and all subsidiaries and affiliates;
(9) A legal opinion that:
(i) Addresses the applicant's ability to enter into the award documents;
(ii) Describes all material pending litigation matters;
(iii) Addresses the applicant's ability to pledge security as required by the award documents; and
(iv) Addresses the applicant's ability to provide broadband service under state or tribal law.
(10) Summary and itemized budgets of the infrastructure costs of the proposed project, including if applicable, the ratio of loans to grants, and any other sources of outside funding. The summary must also detail the amount of matching and other funds and the source of these funds. If the matching and other funds are coming from a third party, a commitment letter and support that the funds are available must also be submitted. Matching and other funds must be deposited into the RUS Pledged Deposit Account at the closing of the award;
(11) A detailed description of working capital requirements and the sources of those funds;
(12) Unqualified, comparative audited financial statements for the previous calendar year from the date the application is submitted as detailed in § 1740.63;
(13) The historical and projected financial information required in § 1740.63;
(14) All information and attachments required in the RUS Online application system;
(15) A scoring sheet, analyzing any scoring criteria set forth in the funding announcement opening the application window;
(16) A list of all the applicant's outstanding and contingent obligations as required in § 1740.63;
(17) All environmental information as required by § 1740.27;
(18) Certification from the applicant that agreements with, or obligations to, investors do not breach the obligations to the government under the standard Award Documents located on the Agency's web page, especially distribution requirements, and that any such agreements will be amended so that such obligations are made contingent to compliance with the Award Documents. Such certification should also specifically identify which, if any, provisions would need to be amended;
(19) If service is being proposed on tribal land, a certification from the proper tribal official that they are in support of the project and will allow construction to take place on tribal land. The certification must:
(i) Include a description of the land proposed for use as part of the proposed project;
(ii) Identify whether the land is owned, held in Trust, land held in fee simple by the Tribe, or land under a long-term lease by the Tribe;
(iii) If owned, identify the landowner; and
(iv) Provide a commitment in writing from the landowner authorizing the applicant's use of that land for the proposed project; and
(20) Additional items that may be required by the Administrator through a notice in the
(e)
(a) A project is financially feasible when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of RUS that it will be able to generate sufficient revenues to cover expenses; will have sufficient cash flow to service all debts and obligations as they come due; will have a positive ending cash balance as reflected on the cash flow statement for each year of the forecast period; and, by the end of the forecast period, will meet at least two of the following requirements: A minimum TIER requirement of 1.2, a minimum DSCR requirement of 1.2, and a minimum current ratio of 1.2. In addition, applicants must demonstrate positive cash flow from operations at the end of the forecast period.
(b) For any funding option that includes grant funds, evaluation criteria for scoring the application will be included in the
(c) The Agency will determine technical feasibility by evaluating the Applicant's network design and other relevant information in the application.
(a) RUS may send a team to the awardee's facilities to complete a Management Analysis Profile (MAP) of the entire operation. MAPs are used by RUS as a means of evaluating an Awardee's strengths and weaknesses and ensuring that awardees are prepared to fulfil the terms of the award. Once an applicant accepts an award offer, RUS may schedule a site visit as soon as possible.
(b) RUS reserves the right not to advance funds until the MAP has been completed. If the MAP identifies issues that can affect the operation and completion of the project, those issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of RUS before funds can be advanced. Funding may be rescinded if following a MAP, the agency determines that the awardee will be unable to meet the requirements of the award.
(a) The Applicant must submit financial information acceptable to the Agency that demonstrates that the Applicant has the financial capacity to fulfill the grant, loan, and loan/grant combination requirements in this part and to successfully complete the proposed project.
(1) Applicants must submit unqualified, comparative, audited financial statements for the previous year from the date the application is submitted. If an application is submitted and the most recent year-end audit has not been completed, the applicant can submit the previous unqualified audit that has been completed. If qualified audits containing a disclaimer or adverse opinion are submitted, the application will not be considered.
(i) An applicant can use the consolidated audit of a parent as long as the parent fully guarantees the loan, or in the case of a grant, guarantees that construction will be completed as approved in the application or will repay the grant to RUS.
(ii) If the applicant has more than one parent, then each parent's audits must be submitted, and each parent must fully guarantee the award.
(iii) For governmental entities, financial statements must be accompanied with certifications as to unrestricted cash that may be available on a yearly basis to the applicant.
(2) Applicants must provide detailed information for all outstanding and contingent obligations. Copies of existing notes, loan and security
(3) Applicants must provide evidence of all funding, other than the RUS award, necessary to support the project, such as bank account statements, firm letters of commitment from equity participants, or outside loans, which must evidence the timely availability of funds. If outside loans are used to cover any matching requirement, they may only be secured by assets other than those used for collateral under this regulation. Equity partners that are not specifically identified by name will not be considered in the financial analysis of the application. If the application states that other funds are required for the broadband project in addition to the Program funding requested, evidence must be included in the application identifying the source of funds and when the funds will be available. If the additional funding is not clearly identified, the application may not be considered for an award. If the applicant is providing non-telecommunication services and is proposing expansion to those services and states that additional funds are required to support sustainability of the overall operation of the applicant, then evidence must be submitted supporting the availability of these funds or the application may not be considered for funding.
(4) Historical financial statements for the last four years consisting of a balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement must be provided. If an entity has not been operating for four years, historical statements for the period of time the entity has been operating are acceptable.
(5) Pro Forma financial analysis prepared in conformity with GAAP and the Agency's guidance on grant accounting can be found at
(i) The financial projections must demonstrate that by the end of the forecast period, the project will meet at least two of the requirements described in § 1740.61(a).
(ii) The financial projections must also demonstrate positive cash flow from operations at the end of the forecast period.
(iii) Based on the financial evaluation, additional conditions may be added to the Award documents to ensure financial feasibility and security on the award.
(b) Publicly traded companies that have a bond rating from Moody's, Standard and Poor's, or Fitch of Investment Grade at the time an application is submitted do not have to complete the pro forma financial projections. In addition, applicants with this classification that elect not to submit financial projections do not need to submit NFSAs.
(a) Only projects that RUS determines to be technically feasible will be eligible for an award.
(b) The network design must include a description of the proposed technology used to deliver the broadband service, demonstrating that all premises in the PFSA can be offered broadband service; a network diagram, identifying cable routes, wireless access points, and any other equipment required to operate the network; a buildout timeline and milestones for implementation of the project; and a capital investment schedule showing that the system can be built within five years. All of these items must be certified by a professional engineer who is certified in at least one of the states where there is or will be project construction. The certification from the professional engineer must clearly state that the proposed network can deliver the broadband service to all premises in the PFSA at the minimum required service level. In addition, a list of all required licenses and regulatory approvals needed for the proposed project and how much the applicant will rely on contractors or vendors to deploy the network facilities must be submitted. Note that in preparing budget costs for equipment and materials, RUS' Buy American requirements apply, as referenced in § 1740.46.
Successful applicants will receive an offer letter and award documents from RUS following award notification. Applicants may view sample award documents on the Agency's web page.
(a) All project assets must comply with 7 CFR part 1788 and 7 CFR part 1970, the Program Construction Procedures located on the Agency's web page, any successor regulations found on the agency's website, and any other guidance from the Agency.
(b) The build-out of the project must be completed within five years from the date funds are made available. Build-out is considered complete when the network design has been fully implemented, the service operations and management systems infrastructure is operational, and the awardee is ready to support the activation and commissioning of individual customers to the new system.
(a) Awardees must make payments on the loan as required in the note and Award Documents.
(b) Awardees must comply with all terms, conditions, affirmative covenants, and negative covenants contained in the Award Documents.
(c) The sale or lease of any portion of the Awardee's facilities must be approved in writing by RUS prior to initiating the sale or lease.
(a) Awardees must adopt a system of accounts for maintaining financial records acceptable to the Agency, as described in 7 CFR part 1770, subpart B.
(b) Awardees must submit annual comparable audited financial statements along with a report on compliance and on internal control over financial reporting, and management letter in accordance with the requirements of 7 CFR part 1773 using the RUS' on-line reporting system. The Certified Public Accountant (CPA) conducting the annual audit is selected by the borrower and must be satisfactory to RUS as set forth in 7 CFR 1773, subpart B, “RUS Audit Requirements.”
(c) Thirty (30) calendar days after the end of each calendar year quarter, Awardees must submit to RUS, balance sheets, income statements, statements of cash flow, rate package summaries, and
(d) Awardees will be required to submit annually updated service area maps through the RUS mapping tool showing the areas where construction has been completed and premises are receiving service until the entire PFSA can receive the broadband service. At the end of the project, Awardees must submit a service area map indicating that all construction has been completed as proposed in the application. If parts of the PFSA have not been constructed, RUS may require a portion of the award to be rescinded or paid back.
(e) Awardees must comply with all reasonable Agency requests to support ongoing monitoring efforts. The Awardee shall afford RUS, through its representatives, reasonable opportunity, at all times during business hours and upon prior notice, to have access to and the right to inspect: The Broadband System, any other property encumbered by the Award Documents, any and all books, records, accounts, invoices, contracts, leases, payrolls, timesheets, cancelled checks, statements, and other documents (electronic or paper, of every kind) belonging to or in the possession of the Awardee or in any way pertaining to its property or business, including its subsidiaries, if any, and to make copies or extracts thereof.
(f) Awardee records shall be retained and preserved in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1770, subpart A.
(g) Awardees receiving assistance under this part will be required to submit annual reports for three (3) years after the completion of construction. The reports must include the following information:
(1) Existing network service improvements and facility upgrades, as well as new equipment and capacity enhancements that support high-speed broadband access for educational institutions, health care providers, and public safety service providers;
(2) The estimated number of end users who are currently using or forecasted to use the new or upgraded infrastructure;
(3) The progress towards fulfilling the objectives for which the assistance was granted;
(4) The number and geospatial location of residences and businesses that will receive new broadband service;
(5) The speed and price of the Awardee's broadband service offerings; and
(6) The average price of broadband service in the Project's service area.
RUS reserves the right to deobligate awards to Awardees under this part that demonstrate an insufficient level of performance, wasteful or fraudulent spending, or noncompliance with environmental and historic preservation requirements.
Applicants are encouraged to identify and label any confidential and proprietary information contained in their applications. The Agency will protect confidential and proprietary information from public disclosure to the fullest extent authorized by applicable law, including the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), the Trade Secrets Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1831
Any recipient of funds under this regulation shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, tribal and state laws, including but not limited to:
(a) The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151
(b) The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) (Appendix A to 41 CFR subpart 101-19.6); and
(c) All applicable federal, tribal and state communications laws and regulations, including, for example, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. 151
The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0572-0152.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors (Board) is publishing a final rule that amends Regulation EE to include additional entities in the definition of “financial institution” contained in section 402 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) so that they are covered by FDICIA's netting protections. The final rule also clarifies certain aspects of the existing activities-based test in Regulation EE.
The final rule is effective March 29, 2021.
Evan Winerman, Senior Counsel (202-872-7578), Legal Division. Users of Telecommunication Device for Deaf (TDD) only, call (202) 263-4869.
Sections 401-407 of FDICIA
Regulation EE expands the FDICIA definition of “financial institution”—and therefore expands FDICIA's netting protections—using an activities-based test that includes a qualitative component and a quantitative component. The qualitative component requires that the person “represent, orally or in writing, that it will engage in financial contracts as a counterparty on both sides of one or more financial markets.”
On May 2, 2019, consistent with the purposes of FDICIA's netting provisions, and in order to reduce systemic risk and increase efficiency in the financial markets, the Board proposed to amend Regulation EE to include additional categories of entities in the definition of financial institution.
The Board received five responsive comments from private-sector financial institutions, industry associations, and an international organization. Commenters supported the proposed revisions to Regulation EE and, in some cases, suggested additional revisions. Several commenters suggested that the Board extend the financial institution definition to additional categories of entities. One commenter suggested that the Board make two minor clarifications related to the proposed changes to the activities-based test.
The Board is amending Regulation EE to include in the definition of financial institution the entities identified in the proposal. Additionally, the Board is including two other categories of entities, as well as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in the definition of financial institution.
The Board proposed to define the following entities as financial institutions: Swap dealers and security-based swap dealers;
The Board believes that adding these entities to the definition of financial institution would promote the purposes of FDICIA's netting provisions—namely to reduce systemic risk and increase efficiency in the financial markets. The Board recognizes that Congress has imposed or expanded federal supervision and regulation for many of these entities since the Board first promulgated Regulation EE. In subjecting these entities to higher levels of regulation and supervision due to their activities, transaction volumes, and risks presented to the financial markets, Congress indicated the importance of the smooth functioning of these entities to the financial markets. Accordingly, the Board is finalizing its proposal to extend the financial institution definition to include swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, MSPs, MSBSPs, nonbank SIFIs, DCOs, clearing agencies, DFMUs, foreign banks, bridge institutions established for the purpose of resolving financial institutions, and Federal Reserve Banks.
The Board is also amending Regulation EE to define qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs), foreign central banks, and the BIS as financial institutions.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Board requested comment on whether it should include in the definition of financial institution an entity that is a QCCP under the Board's Regulation Q.
The Board's Regulation Q establishes criteria for identifying QCCPs. Generally, a Board-supervised institution that clears financial transactions through a QCCP can receive preferential capital treatment for those transactions.
As noted above, the Board is amending the definition of financial institution to include DCOs and clearing agencies that are registered with, or have been exempted from registration by, the CFTC or SEC. All domestic QCCPs and many foreign-based QCCPs are registered or exempt DCOs/clearing agencies. To ensure that all foreign-
A private-sector financial institution and an international organization suggested that the Board include foreign central banks in the definition of financial institution. These commenters stated that foreign central banks are systemically important and that extending the financial institution definition to cover foreign central banks would reduce systemic risk and increase efficiency in the financial markets, consistent with the purpose of the proposal.
The Board understands that foreign central banks, like Federal Reserve Banks, may participate in financial markets through various types of transactions that are used to implement monetary policy. The Board believes that including foreign central banks categorically in the definition of financial institution may benefit financial markets that rely on FDICIA and would meet the statutory objectives of reducing systemic risk and increasing efficiency in those financial markets. Furthermore, given that the Board is amending Regulation EE to define Federal Reserve Banks as financial institutions, the Board believes that a parallel addition of foreign central banks would be appropriate. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation EE to define foreign central banks as financial institutions.
Multiple commenters suggested that the Board include the BIS in the definition of financial institution. The BIS's shareholders are central banks and monetary authorities that are members of the BIS.
Two private-sector financial institutions and one international organization requested that the Board add the following categories of entities to the definition of financial institution: (i) Supranational institutions, such as multilateral development banks; (ii) foreign systemically important financial market infrastructures that are subject to the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures
As discussed above, the domestic and global landscape for financial regulation has changed dramatically since the Board promulgated Regulation EE. In particular, several types of entities are now subject to expanded federal supervision and regulation. In subjecting these types of entities to higher levels of regulation and supervision due to their activities, transaction volumes, and risks presented to the financial markets, Congress indicated the importance of the smooth functioning of these entities to the financial markets.
The Board is not extending the financial institution definition to include the four categories of entities suggested by commenters. It is not clear the extent to which these types of entities, as categories, are active in financial contract netting such that the smooth functioning of their netting contracts is important for reducing systemic risk within the U.S. banking system or financial markets. Additionally, it is not clear the extent to which some of these entities function as market intermediaries. The Board notes that some foreign systemically important financial market infrastructures may be captured by other newly-added categories in the definition of financial institution, including DCOs, clearing agencies, and QCCPs.
As the Board noted in the proposed rule, it has the authority to issue case-by-case determinations for individual entities seeking financial institution status. Further, while the Board is not categorically defining all of the entities described above as financial institutions, individual entities in these categories might independently qualify as financial institutions under Regulation EE's activities-based test.
The quantitative component of the activities-based test requires that a person have either (1) one or more financial contracts of a total gross dollar value of at least $1 billion in notional principal amount outstanding on any day during the previous 15-month period with counterparties that are not its affiliates or (2) total gross mark-to-market positions of at least $100 million (aggregated across counterparties) in one or more financial contracts on any day during the previous 15-month period with counterparties that are not its affiliates.
The Board proposed to clarify how the quantitative component of the activities-based test would apply following a consolidation of legal entities. Specifically, the Board proposed that, upon the consolidation of two or more entities, the surviving entity may aggregate the total gross dollar value of notional principal amounts outstanding or the total gross mark-to-market positions of both
The Board also proposed to add language to clarify, consistent with its current understanding, that the “previous 15-month period” described in the activities-based test includes the day on which a person evaluates whether it meets the relevant thresholds in the quantitative component of the activities-based test. Specifically, the Board proposed to add the words “at such time” to proposed §§ 231.3(a)(1) and (a)(2) to clarify that a person can qualify as a financial institution under the activities-based test if (1) the person's positions exceeded one of the quantitative threshold on any prior day within the previous 15-month period
A commenter also requested clarification that satisfying the qualitative component of the activities-based test (which requires that a person “represent[ ], orally or in writing, that it will engage in financial contracts as a counterparty on both sides of one or more financial markets”)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it contains no collections of information under the PRA.
In accordance with section 4 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Board did not receive any comments on its initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Board certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule extends the “financial institution” definition to swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, MSPs, MSBSPs, DCOs, clearing agencies, QCCPs, bridge institutions, Federal Reserve Banks, foreign central banks, and the BIS.
The Board has previously determined that designated financial market utilities are not small entities;
Similarly, a bridge financial company would not be a small entity.
Foreign banks (including bridge banks) are already covered by FDICIA's statutory definition of financial institution. Accordingly, while this final rule clarifies that foreign banks are financial institutions, it will not have any economic impact on foreign banks.
Banks, Banking, Financial institutions, Netting.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation EE, 12 CFR part 231, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4402(1)(B) and 4402(9).
(c) Bridge institution means a legal entity that has been established by a governmental authority to take over, transfer, or continue operating critical functions and viable operations of an entity in resolution. A bridge institution could include a bridge depository institution or a bridge financial company organized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 1821(n) or 5390(h), respectively, or a similar entity organized under foreign law.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a) A person qualifies as a financial institution for purposes of sections 401-407 of the Act if it represents, orally or in writing, that it will engage in financial contracts as a counterparty on both sides of one or more financial markets and either—
(1) Had one or more financial contracts of a total gross dollar value of at least $1 billion in notional principal amount outstanding at such time or on any day during the previous 15-month period with counterparties that are not its affiliates; or
(2) Had total gross mark-to-market positions of at least $100 million (aggregated across counterparties) in one or more financial contracts at such time or on any day during the previous 15-month period with counterparties that are not its affiliates.
(b) After two or more persons consolidate, such as through a merger or acquisition, the surviving person meets the quantitative thresholds under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) if, on the same, single calendar day during the previous 15-month period, the aggregate financial contracts of the consolidated persons would have met such quantitative thresholds.
(e) A person qualifies as a financial institution for purposes of sections 401-407 of the Act if it is—
(1) A swap dealer or major swap participant registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pursuant to section 4s of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6s);
(2) A security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10);
(3) A derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pursuant to section 5b(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a-1(a)) or a derivatives clearing organization that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exempted from registration by rule or order pursuant to section 5b(h) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a-1(h));
(4) A clearing agency registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 17A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)) or a clearing agency that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has exempted from registration by rule or order pursuant to section 17A(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q-1(k));
(5) A financial market utility that the Financial Stability Oversight Council has designated as, or as likely to become, systemically important pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5463;
(6) A qualifying central counterparty under 12 CFR 217.2;
(7) A nonbank financial company that the Financial Stability Oversight Council has determined shall be supervised by the Board and subject to prudential standards, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5323;
(8) A foreign bank as defined in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101), including a foreign bridge bank;
(9) A bridge institution established for the purpose of resolving a financial institution;
(10) A Federal Reserve Bank or a foreign central bank; or
(11) The Bank for International Settlements.
Federal Open Market Committee.
Final rule.
The Federal Open Market Committee is amending its Rules of Procedure to replace the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” with “Chair” and Vice Chair,” respectively.
Effective February 26, 2021.
Matthew Luecke, Deputy Secretary of the Federal Open Market Committee, (202) 452-2576, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551; or Alye S. Foster, Deputy Associate General Counsel (202-452-5289), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) is replacing the references in its Rules of Procedure to “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman,” with the gender-neutral equivalent terms of “Chair” and “Vice Chair”. Although the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” are referenced in the Federal Reserve Act, traditionally these terms have been used to refer to persons regardless of gender. As the terms are not intended to be and, in practice, are not gender-specific, the Committee is replacing of the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” in the Committee's Rules of Procedure with their gender-neutral equivalents of “Chair” and “Vice Chair,” respectively. This change also aligns the Committee's Rules of Procedure with its practice.
Because the amended rule relates solely to the internal organization, procedure, or practice of the Committee, the public notice, public comment, and
For the reasons set forth in the
5 U.S.C. 552.
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Public statement; status of published final rules.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) has released a public statement regarding the mandatory compliance date of the Bureau's General QM Final Rule and possible reconsideration of the General QM Final Rule and the Seasoned QM Final Rule.
The public statement was released on the Bureau's website on February 23, 2021.
Ben Cady, Mark Morelli, Amanda Quester, or Jane Raso, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
On December 10, 2020, the Bureau issued two final rules relating to the qualified mortgage (QM) definition under the Truth in Lending Act: A final rule entitled “Qualified Mortgage Definition under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z): General QM Loan Definition” (General QM Final Rule) and a final rule entitled “Qualified Mortgage Definition under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z): Seasoned QM Loan Definition” (Seasoned QM Final Rule).
Another category of QMs currently available under Regulation Z consists of loans that are eligible for purchase or guarantee by either the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, the GSEs), while operating under the conservatorship or receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (Temporary GSE QM loan definition). Pursuant to a final rule issued on October 20, 2020, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition is scheduled to expire on (1) the mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule or (2) with respect to each GSE when that GSE ceases to operate under the conservatorship of FHFA, whichever happens earlier.
The Bureau is considering whether to initiate a rulemaking to revisit the Seasoned QM Final Rule. If the Bureau decides to do so, it expects that it will consider in that rulemaking whether any potential final rule revoking or amending the Seasoned QM Final Rule should affect covered transactions for which an application was received during the period from March 1, 2021, until the effective date of such a final rule.
The Bureau also expects to issue shortly a proposed rule that would delay the July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule. If such a proposed rule were finalized, creditors would be able to use either the current General QM loan definition or the revised General QM loan definition for applications received during the period from March 1, 2021, until the delayed mandatory compliance date. Furthermore, the Bureau anticipates that the Temporary GSE QM loan definition will remain in effect until the new mandatory compliance date, in accordance with the October 20, 2020 final rule described above, except that the Temporary GSE QM loan definition would expire with respect to a GSE if that GSE ceases to operate under conservatorship prior to the new mandatory compliance date.
The Bureau will consider at a later date whether to initiate another rulemaking to reconsider other aspects of the General QM Final Rule.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Final rule; delay of effective; correction.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2021, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the Agency delays the March 1, 2021 effective date of the final rule, Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People, until March 16, 2021.
As of February 26, 2021, the March 1, 2021 effective date of the final rule published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4314, is delayed to March 16, 2021. The corrections are effective March 16, 2021.
Michael Machnik, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003; telephone 1-844-FLY-MYUAS; email:
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 3856, Feb.
On January 20, 2021, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff issued a memorandum titled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum requested that the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) take steps to ensure that the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending rules. With respect to rules published in the
In accordance with this direction, the Agency has decided to delay until March 16, 2021, the effective date of the final rule, Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People (RIN 2120-AK85), including the amendments to §§ 107.61, 107.63, 107.65, 107.73, and 107.74. The final rule permits routine operations of small unmanned aircraft over people, moving vehicles, and at night under certain conditions. The final rule also makes changes to the recurrent testing framework and expands the list of persons who may request the presentation of a remote pilot certificate. The delay in the rule's effective date will afford the President's appointees or designees an opportunity to review the rule and will allow for consideration of any questions of fact, law, or policy that the rule may raise before it becomes effective.
Additionally, as a result of the delay in the effective date, several corrections are necessary. The compliance date for § 107.29(a)(1) regarding the operation of a small unmanned aircraft system at night must be corrected so that it does not precede the new effective date. Similarly, a correction to § 107.65(d) regarding the timing of passing the recurrent aeronautical knowledge test or satisfying training requirements must also be made to conform to the delayed effective date.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Agency generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publish rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive both of these requirements here as they are impracticable. A delay in the effective date of the final rule, Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People, is necessary for the President's appointees and designees to have adequate time to review the rule before it takes effect, and neither the notice and comment process nor the delayed effective date could be implemented in time to allow for this review.
In FR Doc. 2020-28947 (86 FR 4314) published on January 15, 2021, the following corrections are made:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at General WM J Fox Airfield Airport. Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Further, this action removes the Palmdale Production Flight/Test Instln Plant NR42, Palmdale VORTAC, and the Gen. William J. Fox NDB from the Class E4 legal description. Lastly, this action implements several administrative corrections to the Class D, Class E2 and Class E4 airspace text headers and legal descriptions.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 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
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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 modifies Class D and Class E airspace and establishes Class E airspace at General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, Lancaster, CA, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, 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 designation 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
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, Lancaster, CA, to properly contain IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 252° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 8.2 miles west of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
Also, this action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the airport. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface, and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 091° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.4 miles east of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 252° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 16.3 miles west of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 311° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.6 miles northwest of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
Additionally, this action removes the Palmdale Production Flight/Test Instln Plant NR42, the Palmdale VORTAC, and the Gen. William J. Fox NDB from the Class E4 legal description. The airport and the navigational aids are not needed to define the airspace. Removal of the airport and navigational aids allows the airspace to be defined from a single reference point which simplifies how the airspace is described.
Lastly, this action implements several administrative corrections to the airspaces' text headers and legal descriptions. The geographic coordinates in the Class D legal description are updated to lat. 34°44′28″ N, long. 118°13′07″ W. This action removes the city name from the second line of the Class D, Class E2, and Class E4 text headers. This action updates the airport name from “Gen. William J. Fox Airfield” to “General WM J Fox Airfield Airport” in the second line of the Class D, Class E2, and Class E4 text headers. The last sentence in the Class D and Class E2 legal descriptions is updated to replace the term “Airport/Facilities Directory.” with the term “Chart Supplement.”
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 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would 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 4,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport. This Class D airspace area 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 a 4-mile radius of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport. This Class E airspace area 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 1 mile each side of the 252° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 8.2 miles west of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 091° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.4 miles east of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 252° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 16.3 miles west of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 311° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.6 miles northwest of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to properly contain instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also removes the Harry Strunk NDB from the Class E5 text header and airspace description. Additionally, this action corrects the airport's geographic coordinates.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 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
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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 modifies the Class E airspace at Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, NE, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified a typographical error in The Proposal section of the NPRM. The sentence in the NPRM's proposal that reads “To properly contain IFR departures to 700 feet above the surface the 6.4-mile radius should be increased to a 7.5-mile radius of the airport.” Should have read “To properly contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface, the 6.4-mile radius should be increased to a 7.5-mile radius of the airport.” The Final Rule corrects 700 feet to 1,200 feet in The Rule section of this document. The correction does not impact the airspace's lateral or vertical dimensions.
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 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 E airspace designation 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
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 modifies the
Further, this action removes the Harry Strunk NDB from the airspace text header and the airspace description. The navigation aid (NAVAID) is being decommissioned and is not needed to describe the airspace.
Lastly, this action corrects the airport's geographic coordinates to lat. 40°18′24″ N, long. 100°09′43″ W.
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 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would 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 the 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 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Cambridge Municipal Airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Commission statement; request for comment.
The Commission is issuing a statement and requesting comment regarding the custody of digital asset securities by broker-dealers.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, at (202) 551-5525; Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at (202) 551-5521; Randall W. Roy, Deputy Associate Director, at (202) 551-5522; Raymond A. Lombardo, Assistant Director, at 202-551-5755; Timothy C. Fox, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-5687; or A.J. Jacob, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5583, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.
The Commission is issuing this statement and request for comment to encourage innovation around the application of the Customer Protection Rule to digital asset securities.
Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (hereinafter the “Customer Protection Rule” or “Rule 15c3-3”)
As an interim step, in addition to the request for comment, the Commission is issuing this statement. The Commission recognizes that the market for digital asset securities is still new and rapidly evolving. The technical requirements for transacting and custodying digital asset securities are different from those involving traditional securities. And traditional securities transactions often involve a variety of intermediaries, infrastructure providers, and counterparties for which there may be no analog in the digital asset securities market. The Commission supports innovation in the digital asset securities market to develop its infrastructure.
In particular, the Commission's position, which will expire after a period of five years from the publication date of this statement, is that a broker-dealer operating under the circumstances set forth in Section IV will not be subject to a Commission enforcement action on the basis that the broker-dealer deems itself to have obtained and maintained physical possession or control of customer fully paid and excess margin digital asset securities for the purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c3-3.
The five-year period in which the statement is in effect is designed to provide market participants with an opportunity to develop practices and processes that will enhance their ability to demonstrate possession or control over digital asset securities. It also will provide the Commission with experience in overseeing broker-dealer custody of digital asset securities to inform further action in this area.
Customers who use broker-dealers registered with the Commission to custody their securities (and related cash) benefit from the protections provided by the federal securities laws, including the Customer Protection Rule and, in most cases, the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
Broker-dealer custody of securities is an integral service provided to the securities markets. However, broker-dealer custody of digital asset securities raises certain compliance questions with respect to the Customer Protection Rule. More specifically, while paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c3-3 requires that a broker-dealer “control” customer fully paid and excess margin securities, it may not be possible for a broker-dealer to establish control over a digital asset security with the same control mechanisms used in connection with traditional securities. Moreover, there have been instances of fraud, theft, and loss with respect to the custodianship of digital assets, including digital asset securities.
The risks associated with digital assets, including digital asset securities, are due in part to differences in the clearance and settlement of traditional securities and digital assets. Traditional securities transactions generally are processed and settled through clearing agencies, depositories, clearing banks, transfer agents, and issuers. A broker-dealer's employees, regulators, and outside auditors can contact these third parties to confirm that the broker-dealer
Digital assets that are issued or transferred using distributed ledger technology may not be subject to the same established clearance and settlement process familiar to traditional securities market participants.
The express language of the Customer Protection Rule includes cash and securities held at the broker-dealer. Therefore, customers holding digital assets that are not securities through a broker-dealer could receive less protection for those assets than customers holding securities. The potential liabilities caused by the theft or loss of non-securities property from a broker-dealer, including digital assets that are not securities, could cause the broker-dealer to incur substantial losses or even fail, impacting customers and other creditors. As a consequence, the broker-dealer may need to be liquidated in a proceeding under SIPA. SIPA protection does not extend to all assets that may be held at a broker-dealer. Consequently, in a SIPA liquidation of a broker-dealer that held non-security assets, including non-security digital assets, investors may be treated as general creditors, to the extent their claims involve assets that are not within SIPA's definition of “security.”
A broker-dealer that maintains custody of a fully paid or excess margin digital asset security for a customer must hold it in a manner that complies with Rule 15c3-3, including that the digital asset security must be in the exclusive physical possession or control of the broker-dealer.
As noted above, the loss or theft of digital asset securities may cause the firm and its digital asset customers to incur substantial financial losses. This, in turn, could cause the firm to fail, imperiling its traditional securities customers as well as the broker-dealer's counterparties and other market participants. However, there are measures a broker-dealer can employ to comply with Rule 15c3-3 and mitigate these risks.
One step that a broker-dealer could take to shield traditional securities customers, counterparties, and market participants from the risks and consequences of digital asset security fraud, theft, or loss would be to limit its business exclusively to dealing in, effecting transactions in, maintaining custody of, and/or operating an alternative trading system for digital asset securities. Thus, to operate in a manner consistent with the Commission's position, the broker-dealer could not deal in, effect transactions in, maintain custody of, or operate an alternative trading system for traditional securities. In addition, by limiting its activities exclusively to digital asset
A second step the broker-dealer could take is to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies and procedures to conduct and document an analysis of whether a digital asset is a security offered and sold pursuant to an effective registration statement or an available exemption from registration, and whether the broker-dealer has fulfilled its requirements to comply with the federal securities laws with respect to effecting transactions in that digital asset security, before undertaking to effect transactions in and maintain custody of such asset. Such policies and procedures should provide a reasonable level of assurance that any digital assets transacted in or held in custody by the broker-dealer are in fact digital asset securities. Utilizing such policies and procedures should help ensure that the broker-dealer is confining its business to digital asset securities and that such digital asset securities are being offered, sold, or otherwise transacted in compliance with the federal securities laws.
A third step the broker-dealer could take is to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies and procedures to conduct and document an assessment of the characteristics of a digital asset security's distributed ledger technology
A fourth step the broker-dealer could take is to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies, procedures, and controls for safekeeping and demonstrating the broker-dealer has exclusive possession or control over digital asset securities that are consistent with industry best practices to protect against the theft, loss, and unauthorized and accidental use of the private keys necessary to access and transfer the digital asset securities the broker-dealer holds in custody. These policies, procedures, and controls could address, among other matters: (1) The on-boarding of a digital asset security such that the broker-dealer can associate the digital asset security to a private key over which it can reasonably demonstrate exclusive physical possession or control; (2) the processes, software and hardware systems, and any other formats or systems utilized to create, store, or use private keys and any security or operational vulnerabilities of those systems and formats; (3) the establishment of private key generation processes that are secure and produce a cryptographically strong private key that is compatible with the distributed ledger technology and associated network and that is not susceptible to being discovered by unauthorized persons during the generation process or thereafter; (4) measures to protect private keys from being used to make an unauthorized or accidental transfer of a digital asset security held in custody by the broker-dealer; and (5) measures that protect private keys from being corrupted, lost or destroyed, that back-up the private key in a manner that does not compromise the security of the private key, and that otherwise preserve the ability of the firm to access and transfer a digital asset security it holds in the event a facility, software, or hardware system, or other format or system on which the private keys are stored and/or used is disrupted or destroyed. These policies, procedures, and controls for safekeeping and demonstrating the broker-dealer has exclusive possession or control over digital asset securities should serve to protect against the theft, loss, and unauthorized and accidental use of the private keys and therefore the customers' digital asset securities.
A fifth step the broker-dealer could take is to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies, procedures, and arrangements to: (1) Specifically identify, in advance, the steps it intends to take in the wake of certain events that could affect the firm's custody of the digital asset securities, including blockchain malfunctions, 51% attacks, hard forks, or airdrops; (2) allow the broker-dealer to comply with a court-ordered freeze or seizure; and (3) allow the transfer of the digital asset securities held by the broker-dealer to another special purpose broker-dealer, a trustee, receiver, liquidator, a person performing a similar function, or another appropriate person, in the event the broker-dealer can no longer continue as a going concern and self-liquidates or is subject to a formal bankruptcy, receivership, liquidation, or similar proceeding. These policies and procedures should include measures for ensuring continued safekeeping and accessibility of the digital asset securities, even if the broker-dealer is wound down or liquidated, and thus would provide a reasonable level of assurance that a broker-dealer has developed plans to address unexpected disruptions to the broker-dealer's control over digital asset securities.
A sixth step the broker-dealer could take is to provide written disclosures to prospective customers about the risks of investing in or holding digital asset securities. The disclosures could include, among other matters: (1) Prominent disclosure explaining that digital asset securities may not be “securities” as defined in SIPA
A seventh step the broker-dealer could take is to enter into a written agreement with each customer that sets forth the terms and conditions with respect to receiving, purchasing, holding, safekeeping, selling, transferring, exchanging, custodying, liquidating, and otherwise transacting in digital asset securities on behalf of the customer.
The Commission's position
After considering the minimum steps that can be taken to mitigate the risks posed by broker-dealer custody of digital asset securities, for a period of five years, the Commission's position is that a broker-dealer in the following circumstances would not be subject to a Commission enforcement action on the basis that the broker-dealer deems itself to have obtained and maintained physical possession or control of customer fully paid and excess margin digital asset securities:
1. The broker-dealer has access to the digital asset securities and the capability to transfer them on the associated distributed ledger technology;
2. The broker-dealer limits its business to dealing in, effecting transactions in, maintaining custody of, and/or operating an alternative trading system for digital asset securities; provided a broker-dealer may hold proprietary positions in traditional securities solely for the purposes of meeting the firm's minimum net capital requirements under Rule 15c3-1,
3. The broker-dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces reasonably designed written policies and procedures to conduct and document an analysis of whether a particular digital asset is a security offered and sold pursuant to an effective registration statement or an available exemption from registration, and whether the broker-dealer meets its requirements to comply with the federal securities laws with respect to effecting transactions in the digital asset security, before undertaking to effect transactions in and maintain custody of the digital asset security;
4. The broker-dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces reasonably designed written policies and procedures to conduct and document an assessment of the characteristics of a digital asset security's distributed ledger technology and associated network prior to undertaking to maintain custody of the digital asset security and at reasonable intervals thereafter;
5. The broker-dealer does not undertake to maintain custody of a digital asset security if the firm is aware of any material security or operational problems or weaknesses with the distributed ledger technology and associated network used to access and transfer the digital asset security, or is aware of other material risks posed to the broker-dealer's business by the digital asset security;
6. The broker-dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces reasonably designed written policies, procedures, and controls that are consistent with industry best practices to demonstrate the broker-dealer has exclusive control over the digital asset securities it holds in custody and to protect against the theft, loss, and unauthorized and accidental use of the private keys necessary to access and transfer the digital asset securities the broker-dealer holds in custody;
7. The broker-dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces reasonably designed written policies, procedures, and arrangements to: (i) Specifically identify, in advance, the steps it will take in the wake of certain events that could affect the firm's custody of the digital asset securities, including, without limitation, blockchain malfunctions, 51% attacks, hard forks, or airdrops; (ii) allow for the broker-dealer to comply with a court-ordered freeze or seizure; and (iii) allow for the transfer of the digital asset securities held by the broker-dealer to another special purpose broker-dealer, a trustee, receiver, liquidator, or person performing a similar function, or to another appropriate person, in the event the broker-dealer can no longer continue as a going concern and self-liquidates or is subject to a formal bankruptcy, receivership, liquidation, or similar proceeding;
8. The broker-dealer provides written disclosures to prospective customers: (i) That the firm is deeming itself to be in possession or control of digital asset securities held for the customer for the purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c3-3 based on its compliance with this Commission position; and (ii) about the risks of investing in or holding digital asset securities that, at a minimum: (a) Prominently disclose that digital asset securities may not be “securities” as defined in SIPA—and in particular, digital asset securities that are “investment contracts” under the
9. The broker-dealer enters into a written agreement with each customer that sets forth the terms and conditions with respect to receiving, purchasing, holding, safekeeping, selling, transferring, exchanging, custodying, liquidating and otherwise transacting in digital asset securities on behalf of the customer.
The Commission is seeking comment on the specific questions below. When responding to the request for comment, please explain your reasoning.
1. What are industry best practices with respect to protecting against theft, loss, and unauthorized or accidental use of private keys necessary for accessing and transferring digital asset securities? What are industry best practices for generating, safekeeping, and using private keys? Please identify the sources of such best practices.
2. What are industry best practices to address events that could affect a broker-dealer's custody of digital asset securities such as a hard fork, airdrop, or 51% attack? Please identify the sources of such best practices.
3. What are the processes, software and hardware systems, or other formats or systems that are currently available to broker-dealers to create, store, or use private keys and protect them from loss, theft, or unauthorized or accidental use?
4. What are accepted practices (or model language) with respect to disclosing the risks of digital asset securities and the use of private keys? Have these practices or the model language been utilized with customers?
5. Should the Commission expand this position in the future to include other businesses such as traditional securities and/or non-security digital assets? Should this position be expanded to include the use of non-security digital assets as a means of payment for digital asset securities, such as by incorporating a
6. What differences are there in the clearance and settlement of traditional securities and digital assets that could lead to higher or lower clearance and settlement risks for digital assets as compared to traditional securities?
7. What specific benefits and/or risks are implicated in a broker-dealer operating a digital asset alternative trading system that the Commission should consider for any future measures it may take?
By the Commission.
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
Consistent with the Presidential directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2021 from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action finalizes the Department of Labor's (“the Department”) proposal to delay until April 30, 2021, the effective date of the rule titled Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), published in the
As of February 26, 2021, the effective date of the regulation titled Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), published in the
Amy DeBisschop, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this final rule may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-877-889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats. Questions of interpretation or enforcement of the agency's existing regulations may be directed to the nearest Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) district office. Locate the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD's website at
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (“CAA”), Congress amended section 3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”) to prohibit employers from keeping tips received by their employees, regardless of whether the employers take a tip credit under section 3(m). On December 30, 2020, the Department published Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (the “Tip Rule”) in the
In a memorandum dated January 20, 2021 titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
The Department explained that delaying the effective date of the Tip Rule would provide the Department additional opportunity to review and consider the questions of law, policy, and fact raised by the rule, as contemplated by the Regulatory Freeze Memorandum and OMB Memorandum M-21-14, before the rule goes into effect. The Department added that it could consider whether the Tip Rule properly implements the CAA Amendments to section 3(m) of the FLSA, which prohibit employers from keeping tips for any purpose; whether the Tip Rule adequately considered the possible costs, benefits, and transfers between employers and employees related to the codification of its guidance regarding the tip credit's application to tipped employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties; and whether the Tip Rule otherwise effectuates the CAA amendments to the FLSA, including the statutory provision for civil money penalties for violations of section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act. Additionally, on January 19, 2021, Attorneys General from eight states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which they argued that the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating the Tip Rule.
The Department invited public comment on the proposed delay. The comment period ended on February 17, 2021.
A total of 19 organizations timely commented on the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) (86 FR 8325, February 5, 2021) during the 12-day comment period that ended on February 17, 2021, which may be viewed on
Supporters of the proposed delay in the Tip Rule's effective date stated that the rule raises questions of law, policy, and fact that warrant further review and consideration by the Department in accordance with the Regulatory Freeze Memo. Advocacy organizations such as the National Employment Law Project (NELP), Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and the National Women's Law Center stated that the Department should specifically reconsider the following changes, which they argued are harmful to workers and inconsistent with the FLSA and the CAA amendments: The Tip Rule's codification of WHD's guidance regarding the tip credit's application to tipped employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties; the Tip Rule's revisions to portions of its CMP regulations on willful violations; and the Tip Rule's incorporation of the CAA's language regarding CMPs for section 3(m)(2)(B) violations into the Department's regulations. Advocacy organizations and Attorneys General for eight states and the District of Columbia also stated that the Department should consider the issues of law raised in the January 19, 2021 complaint.
The Economic Policy Institute supported the proposed delay because it would give the Department time to reassess the Tip Rule's analysis of the economic impact of codifying WHD's guidance regarding the tip credit's application to tipped employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties, which it argued was flawed. Multiple commenters, such as Restaurant Opportunities Center United and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, stated that the Department should delay the Tip Rule in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that tipped workers have been particularly harmed by the pandemic and that it has led to a restructuring of the restaurant industry. Additionally, NELP stated that a delay in the Tip Rule's effective date is appropriate to avoid additional compliance costs and training that employers would incur if the rule becomes effective and then is revised by the Department after its review.
Two commenters opposed any delay in the effective date. The Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) stated that it does not believe a delay in the Tip Rule's effective date is necessary; it largely dedicated its comment to explaining why it supports the Rule. The Department disagrees; as discussed below, the Department concludes that supporters of the proposed delay have identified issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the Tip Rule that merit further review in accordance with the Regulatory Freeze Memo. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) expressed its support for the Tip Rule as well, and stated that instead of delaying the rule's effective date, the Department should allow it to go into effect and then consider whether to propose any changes. The Department disagrees with this approach. Allowing
In addition to opposing a delay in the effective date, the NFIB questioned whether this rulemaking could properly become effective before the Tip Rule's original effective date. NFIB believes that a delay of the Tip Rule's effective date must be published 30 days before it takes effect. The Department disagrees. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that substantive rules should take effect not less than 30 days after the date they are published in the
After reviewing timely comments submitted, the Department agrees with the supporters of the proposed delay in the Tip Rule's effective date that the Tip Rule raises multiple issues of law, policy, and fact that warrant additional review and consideration in accordance with the Regulatory Freeze Memo. These issues include the Tip Rule's codification of WHD's guidance regarding the tip credit's application to tipped employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties; the Tip Rule's revisions to portions of its CMP regulations on willful violations; the Tip Rule's incorporation of the CAA's language regarding CMPs for section 3(m)(2)(B) violations into the Department's regulations; and the Tip Rule's analysis of the economic impact of codifying WHD's guidance regarding the tip credit's application to tipped employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties. As numerous advocacy organizations and the Attorneys' General for eight states and the District of Columbia noted in their comments, a delay in the Tip Rule's effective date would also give the Department more time to review the issues of law raised in the January 19 complaint. Allowing the Tip Rule to go into effect while the Department undertakes a review of these issues identified by commenters could lead to confusion among workers and employers in the event that the Department proposes to revise the Tip Rule after its review; delaying the Tip Rule would avoid such confusion. Additionally, the Department agrees with NELP that a delay in the Tip Rule's effective date would prevent employers from incurring potentially unnecessary additional costs to familiarize themselves with the Tip Rule if the Department elects to propose revising the Tip Rule following its review. To give the Department additional time to review issues of law, policy, and fact raised by the Tip Rule before the Tip Rule goes into effect, the Department therefore finalizes the proposed delay in effective date.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule; statement of policy.
The Copyright Office is amending certain regulations governing the recordation of notices of termination to improve efficiency in processing. This final rule adopts regulatory language set forth in the Office's June 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking and notification of inquiry with some modifications in response to public comments. The Office also addresses public comments submitted in response to the subjects of inquiry published in the notification of inquiry.
Effective March 29, 2021.
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel, by email at
The Copyright Office is in the midst of a multi-year modernization of its services and systems. One component of this comprehensive modernization initiative is the development of an online electronic system to process documents submitted for recordation, including notices of termination. In April 2020, the Office launched a limited pilot of this new system to allow pilot participants to submit certain transfers of ownership and other documents pertaining to copyright for recordation. Since then, the Office has recorded over 900 documents through the system while expanding functionality for the growing number of pilot users. Before implementing features to permit electronic recordation of notices of termination, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 3, 2020 (the “NPRM”) to update its regulations governing recordation of notices of termination, clarify examination practices concerning terminations relating to multiple grants, and to solicit public comment on two related subjects of inquiry.
In enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress created a process for authors to reclaim previously-granted rights in their works by terminating grants after a period of years has elapsed. As explained in the NPRM, authors may accomplish this by selecting an effective date of termination within a five-year window that is set by statute, preparing a notice of termination containing this date and other information necessary to identify which grant(s) of rights in which work(s) are being terminated,
In establishing regulations under this authority, the Office has long held the view that the “required contents of the notice must not become unduly burdensome to grantors, authors, and their successors,” who may lack knowledge of certain information, such as the applicable dates.
With this background and these policies in mind, the Office proposed several amendments to its regulations governing notices of termination to facilitate recordation and compliance with regulatory requirements. The Office received ten comments in response.
The Office proposed two updates to the rule governing timeliness. First, the Office proposed to relax the existing provision stating that the Office “will refuse” to record a notice that appears to be untimely, substituting the phrase “may refuse.”
Although the Office is proceeding with this clarifying proposed amendment, to address concerns raised by commenters, it takes this opportunity to explain that the amendment is not intended to be substantive and is being adopted to harmonize the provision with regulatory language governing the rejection of documents submitted for recordation under section 205 of the Copyright Act.
Second, the proposed rule clarified the circumstances under which recordation of an untimely notice is barred by statute. In a 2017 interim rule, the Office amended the regulations to provide examples of situations in which a notice will be considered untimely.
The NPRM proposed broadening the harmless errors exception, which currently applies only to “errors in a notice,” to apply equally to immaterial errors in complying with other regulatory provisions established by the Office. Under the proposed rule, any error in “preparing, serving, or seeking to record a notice” would be considered harmless, provided that the error does not materially affect the adequacy of the information required to serve the purposes of the termination statutes or “materially affect . . . the Office's ability to record the notice.”
Comments on this proposed change were mixed. Three commenters fully supported the rule as proposed.
While the Office will proceed with expanding the scope of the current harmless errors rule, it agrees that the language could more precisely describe its intended application. Therefore, the Office modifies the final rule as follows.
First, although an error in “serving” the notice would likely not be considered harmless because it would materially affect the notice's ability to serve the purposes of the statute, the Office has revised the provision to clarify that harmless errors in a
Second, because the final rule now expressly includes the statement of service and indexing information in this harmless error provision, it strikes the proposed language that certain errors may be harmless so long as they “do not materially affect, in the Office's discretion, the Office's ability to record the notice.” This language was intended
To modernize how service of notices may be effected, the Office proposed two additional permissible manners of service: (1) By reputable courier (
With respect to email service, the proposed rule stated that service by email would be considered acceptable where the grantee or successor-in-title being served “expressly consents to accept service in this manner.”
Based on these comments, the Office has revised the proposed rule to further specify conditions by which the terminating party may obtain consent from the grantee, and also to establish two alternate, blanket options by which grantees may signal their acquiescence to email service from any potential terminating parties. With respect to the direct authorization option, the final rule requires the terminating party to (1) obtain express consent in writing from the grantee, successor-in-title, or agent thereof who is duly authorized to accept service on its behalf; (2) within thirty days before service of the notice is made; and (3) send the notice to an email address provided to the terminating party by the grantee or successor-in-title. The first added requirement responds to commenter concerns that consent be given by someone with the appropriate authority. The Office has found a similar approach in a different context to be successful, namely permitting email service of notices of intention and statements of account under section 115 with the consent of the copyright owner or its authorized agent.
In establishing this provision, the Office notes that the requirement that consent be obtained within thirty days before a notice is served ensures that terminating parties obtain consent close in time to serving a notice and affords grantees greater predictability about when they can expect to receive the notice. If for any reason a grantee does not reply to a request for or declines consent, the terminating party continues to bear the burden of serving the notice in acceptable manner, provided there is still time within the statutory framework to do so.
In addition to providing an avenue for express consent in this manner, the final rule establishes two other ways that grantees may generally opt in to accept email service for notices. First, a grantee or successor-in-title may designate and publicly post on its website an email address either for service of process in general or for service of notices of termination specifically.
Finally, the final rule will enable a grantee to opt in to email service in the event the Copyright Office establishes a public directory for these purposes and the grantee registers an email address in accordance with Office instructions. Two commenters proposed such a registry, akin to the directory the Office established and maintains for designated agents under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Under the current rule, a title is required to identify each work in a notice, and the original registration number is to be provided “if possible and practicable.”
Most commenters supported the overall goal of encouraging terminating parties to include registration numbers for works identified in a notice.
In light of the public comments, the Office concludes that the benefit of providing flexibility about how works may be identified in a notice is outweighed by the negative consequences that could flow from permitting a work to be identified by registration number alone. The final rule accordingly removes this proposed change. The Office will continue to require that each work in a notice be identified by title and, where possible and practicable, by the original registration number.
Under the proposed rule, the date of recordation for a notice of termination would be determined by the date when the notice is received by the Office, irrespective of when the accompanying fee and statement of service are received.
After considering these comments, the Office is proceeding with the substance of the change proposed in the NPRM. The Office continues to believe that delinking the date of recordation from receipt of a complete submission is appropriate in order “to mitigate the harsh consequences that can result where a submission is missing certain required elements.”
In addition, the final rule makes one modification to the proposed rule by adding the phrase “a copy of” before “notice of termination.” This change, recommended by Authors Guild et al., aligns the regulation with the statutory language requiring “a copy of” the notice to be submitted for recordation and dispels any potential confusion that the original notice should be submitted to the Office.
As part of the NPRM, the Office sought public comments on two additional subjects of inquiry: (1) Whether the Office should develop a sample form or template for use in preparing notices of termination; and (2) how the Office might address defective or untimely notices filed by third-party agents. In addition, some commenters offered proposals for regulatory change on various other termination-related matters. The Office addresses the comments received on these topics as follows.
Many commenters supported the development of an optional, fillable form for use in preparing notices of termination.
With respect to the specific nature of such a form, several commenters urged the Office to include detailed instructions and guidance “to help creators understand what information is required, where to find the required information, and how to proceed where there is uncertainty.”
The NPRM also inquired whether the Office should consider the development of other types of templates to assist terminating parties, such as an online notice builder that would allow parties to input information pertaining to the terminable grants, which would then be prepopulated into a draft notice. Commenters were generally supportive of this idea, though some expressed concerns about consequences stemming from user or system error. For example, NMPA observed that grantors may blame the notice builder for errors in notices and request “leniency in complying with their obligations under the statute or regulations due to that reliance on the Copyright Office.”
The Office will consider these helpful comments in connection with its development of further public guidance, such as developing a sample form and/or other online information or tools to assist in preparing notices of termination, together with enhanced educational materials. Meanwhile, the Office currently provides information about preparing, serving, and recording notices of termination—including charts that may be used to calculate the statutory windows for service and recordation under sections 203 and 304(c)—in the Compendium and on a dedicated web page.
In the NPRM, the Office noted stakeholder concerns regarding third-party agents who fail to comply with legal requirements when serving or recording termination notices on behalf of copyright owners. Noting that such failures can jeopardize termination rights if not discovered in a timely manner, the Office requested comment on whether any regulatory changes should be considered to address these concerns.
The comments reflected some disagreement as to the pervasiveness of the problem and the appropriate means to address it. NMPA and RIAA suggested that the scope of the problem is unclear and cautioned against any regulatory change that would excuse untimeliness or other noncompliance with legal or regulatory requirements.
After considering these comments, the Office proposes no additional regulatory changes to address harm resulting from filing errors made by third-party agents. Instead, the Office will update its forms and practices by adding an optional field in both Form TCS and the electronic recordation system that remitters may use to provide email contact information for any terminating party. This contact information, like all information provided as part of a recordation submission, will be included in the public record. Where party contact information is provided, recordation specialists will copy the party on any correspondence with the remitter about errors or omissions as well to inform them when the certificate of recordation is issued. The Office declines to make the provision of this information mandatory because the Office understands that some parties may retain agents in part because they do not want their contact information to be made public.
Copyright, General provisions.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 201 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) The notice of termination shall be served upon each grantee whose rights are being terminated, or the grantee's successor in title, by:
(i) Personal service;
(ii) First class mail sent or by reputable courier service delivered to an address which, after a reasonable investigation, is found to be the last known address of the grantee or successor in title; or
(iii) Means of electronic transmission to:
(A) An email address designated for service of notices of termination and/or legal process that is listed as such on the website of the grantee or successor in title in a location accessible to the public;
(B) An email address provided to the terminating party by the grantee or successor in title, provided that the grantee, successor in title, or an agent thereof who is duly authorized to accept service on behalf of the grantee or successor in title expressly consents in writing to accept service at the address provided within thirty days before such service is made; or
(C) An email address for the grantee or successor in title provided in accordance with instructions provided on the Office's website in a public directory that the Office in its discretion may establish and maintain.
(e) * * *
(1) Harmless errors in a notice, statement of service, or indexing information provided electronically or in a cover sheet shall not render the notice invalid. For purposes of this paragraph, an error is “harmless” if it does not materially affect the adequacy of the information required to serve the purposes of 17 U.S.C. 203, 304(c), or 304(d), whichever applies.
Approved by:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department).
Notification; postponement of effectiveness.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in
February 9, 2021.
Johanna Nestor at
On January 12, 2021, the Department issued amendments to and repromulgated portions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, 45 CFR part 75. 86 FR 2257. That rule repromulgated provisions of part 75 that were originally published late in 2016. It also made amendments to 45 CFR 75.300(c) and (d).
Specifically, the rule amended paragraph (c), which previously provided that it is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services based on non-merit factors such as age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Recipients must comply with this public policy requirement in the administration of programs supported by HHS awards. The rule amended paragraph (c) to provide that it is a public policy requirement of HHS that no person otherwise eligible will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in the administration of HHS programs and services, to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute.
Additionally, the rule amended paragraph (d), which previously provided that in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions in
On February 2, the portions of rulemaking amendments to § 75.300 (and a conforming amendment at § 75.101(f)) were challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) eliminates the domestic coverage requirement for non-geostationary-satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) systems.
Effective February 26, 2021.
Clay DeCell, International Bureau,
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, FCC 20-119, adopted August 26, 2020, and released August 28, 2020. The full text of the Second Report and Order is available at
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
This document eliminates, and thus does not contain new or revised, information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
In this Second Report and Order, the Commission eliminates the domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS systems. This action will provide greater regulatory certainty and operational flexibility to innovative NGSO FSS systems, while meeting the Commission's goal of promoting widespread NGSO service offerings.
The Commission's rules currently require NGSO FSS systems to be capable of providing continuous service within the fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This domestic coverage requirement was originally adopted for mobile-satellite service (MSS) systems to promote efficient and ubiquitous service by satellite systems that are, as a general matter, unable to share spectrum. It was subsequently expanded to NGSO FSS systems to maximize use of a global spectrum resource allocated to this service, based on the assumption that NGSO FSS systems were inherently global in nature.
Since the Commission adopted its NGSO FSS domestic coverage requirements in 1997 and 2002, a number of NGSO FSS systems have been proposed that were not inherently global in nature. These systems have been designed to meet the requirements of certain underserved areas, where satellite services in general are especially valuable, such as in Alaska or on islands and ships in the Pacific Ocean. In addition, not all NGSO FSS systems may provide general consumer or enterprise broadband services. Instead, they may focus on a narrower set of services for which there is no significant nationwide demand or rationale for imposing nationwide coverage for these services. Furthermore, in 47 CFR 25.261 the Commission has developed new, more efficient sharing criteria among NGSO FSS systems to encourage multiple systems to operate in different areas of the United States simultaneously. These spectrum sharing possibilities among NGSO FSS systems also allow both broad coverage and specialized coverage systems to coexist. Accordingly, one NGSO FSS system with only partial coverage of the United States does not preclude another NGSO FSS system from covering the remainder of the United States or from providing full U.S. coverage. Indeed, allowing targeted or regional coverage may promote more intense and efficient use of this spectrum by enabling geographic sharing in addition to other forms of sharing already in use.
Retaining the domestic coverage rule requires design tradeoffs that may hamper or preclude innovative satellite system designs, which could otherwise better address market needs. Eliminating this rule serves the public interest by removing this unnecessary limit on design and operational flexibility, which imposes an artificial constraint on such technological evolution and innovation.
Cumulatively, NGSO FSS systems that have already been approved by the Commission will provide complete coverage of the United States, and the long reach of satellite technology, with the particular advantages of lower-latency associated with NGSO FSS systems, provide inherent incentives for future NGSO FSS systems to likewise provide coverage across the United States, especially the underserved areas. For example, the domestic coverage requirements were waived for the first, currently operating NGSO FSS system, but this system was later expanded to provide full coverage of the United States not because of a regulatory imposition but growing business rationales. We are therefore not persuaded by parties claiming that elimination of the domestic coverage requirement would weaken incentives for NGSO FSS operators to provide service in rural and remote areas, notably in Alaska.
For similar reasons, we disagree with commenters who argue that, absent the domestic coverage requirement, NGSO FSS operators will concentrate on high-population areas to the exclusion of rural and remote areas. NGSO FSS
Given these incentives and the coverage provided by already-approved NGSO FSS systems, we also do not agree that, in eliminating this requirement, we should require NGSO FSS system applicants that will not serve the entire United States to demonstrate in their application that they will provide substantial service to the rural areas within their coverage area. Like with the domestic coverage requirement itself, without this requirement, we believe that systems already in operation or proposed will continue to provide coverage of all of the United States because of the technical and financial advantages that NGSO FSS satellite systems have in providing services to sparsely populated areas when compared with terrestrial alternatives that are relatively more costly to deploy in these areas. And providing greater flexibility to NGSO FSS system designers will allow greater deployment and more cost-effective solutions for consumers, including in rural areas.
We also disagree with one comment that the domestic coverage requirement is mandated by section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). The Commission has authorized a large variety of GSO satellite networks and terrestrial wireless systems without ever interpreting the Act to require that a single wireless applicant cover the entire United States. Nor did the Commission so interpret the Act when adopting the particular NGSO FSS coverage requirements at issue here. Indeed, the deregulatory and procompetitive purposes of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 suggest we should welcome competition in all its forms. The Commission fulfills its mission to “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service” by adopting rules and licensing policies that facilitate the authorization of multiple, innovative NGSO FSS systems capable of serving a variety of needs throughout the nation.
We also reject the approach of considering waivers on a case-by-case basis, as suggested by some commenters, as this would create regulatory uncertainty for NGSO FSS system proponents while they design systems that will ultimately seek a waiver. Even greater regulatory uncertainty, and higher costs of deployment, would result from Commission efforts to force the re-engineering of a satellite constellation until it complied with the domestic coverage requirement.
Instead, in light of NGSO FSS systems which have been licensed or granted U.S. market access to address underserved communities, including in Alaska, we conclude that affording satellite operators regulatory certainty and design flexibility will best serve the interests of connectivity across American communities. We therefore eliminate the domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS systems.
We will apply the rules and procedures we adopt in this Report and Order to pending space station applications and petitions for U.S. market access. In addition, we will allow current licensees and market access recipients to submit a simple letter request to modify particular conditions in their grants consistent with the rule changes adopted in this Order. The Commission may apply new procedures to pending applications if doing so does not impair the rights an applicant possessed when it filed its application, increase an applicant's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties on applicants with respect to transactions already completed. Applicants do not gain any vested right merely by filing an application, and the simple act of filing an application is not considered a “transaction already completed” for purposes of this analysis. Accordingly, applying our new rules and procedures to pending space station applications will not impair the rights any applicant had at the time it filed its application. Nor will doing so increase an applicant's liability for past conduct.
As required by the RFA, an IRFA was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.
The Order repeals a domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS satellite systems in order to provide additional regulatory certainty and flexibility, while encouraging the development of innovative satellite systems.
There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by adoption of the final rules.
This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving
The rule changes adopted in this Order will affect space station applicants and licensees. Generally, space stations cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, launch, and operate. Consequently, we do not anticipate that any space station operators are small entities that would be affected by our actions.
The Order adopts rule changes that would affect compliance requirements for space station operators. As noted above, these parties rarely qualify as small entities.
The Order eliminates a geographic service requirement that restricts the design possibilities of certain NGSO FSS satellite systems. This action is designed to achieve the Commission's mandate to regulate in the public interest while minimizing burdens on all affected parties, including small entities.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
In this Order, the Commission removes the domestic coverage requirement for NGSO FSS satellite systems. This action will reduce burdens on the affected licensees, including any small entities.
None.
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
(b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite licenses, except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for which the application was filed pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.157 after August 27, 2003, authorizing operations in a frequency band for which the Commission has not adopted frequency band-specific service rules at the time the license is granted, the licensee will be required to comply with the technical requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section, notwithstanding the frequency bands specified in these sections: §§ 25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except NGSO FSS systems) and (iii) (except NGSO FSS systems), 25.204(e), and 25.210(f) and (i).
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) is seeking comment on a proposed rule that would amend the NCUA's credit union service organization (CUSO) regulation. The proposed rule would accomplish two objectives: Expanding the list of permissible activities and services for CUSOs to include originating any type of loan that a Federal credit union (FCU) may originate; and granting the Board additional flexibility to approve permissible activities and services. The NCUA is also seeking comment on broadening FCU investment authority in CUSOs.
Comments must be received by March 29, 2021.
You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3133-AE95, by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
The Board is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act).
Under the FCU Act, FCUs have the authority to lend up to one percent of their paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus, and to invest an equivalent amount, in CUSOs.
The list of preapproved activities and services in the CUSO rule has not been substantively revised since 2008.
The Board proposes to amend the CUSO rule to permit CUSOs to originate any type of loan that an FCU may originate and grant the Board additional flexibility to approve permissible CUSO activities and services outside of notice
The Board has reconsidered its 2008 position on permitting CUSOs to engage in all types of lending. The Board now believes that permitting CUSOs to originate any type of loan that an FCU may originate may better enable FCUs to compete effectively in today's marketplace and better serve their members.
As discussed above, the FCU Act permits an FCU to lend to or invest in a CUSO that provides services associated with the routine and daily operations of credit unions. The NCUA has interpreted this statutory authority broadly to permit an FCU to lend to and invest in a CUSO that does most of the same activities and services permissible for an FCU.
The NCUA historically has been reluctant to grant CUSOs general lending authority for all loans for several reasons. First, the NCUA has been hesitant in granting CUSOs authority to provide consumer loans as it may be perceived as a dilution of the FCU common bond requirement.
Due to these concerns, the NCUA has previously found compelling justification for expanding CUSO lending authority for only four types of loans: (1) Business; (2) consumer mortgage; (3) student; and (4) credit cards.
For example, when the NCUA permitted CUSOs to engage in credit card origination, the agency expressed concern that the scale, expertise, and back office operational support required to be successful in the credit card business was causing many FCUs without such resources to sell their credit card portfolio to other financial institutions.
In past rulemakings, the NCUA has also discussed why the agency declined to expand CUSO lending authority more broadly. The NCUA stated that a primary rationale for allowing CUSOs to engage in a particular kind of loan origination is that an FCU may not possess the level of expertise or resources required for a successful loan program, whereas the CUSO may. With respect to vehicle loan origination, the NCUA stated that most FCUs are able to successfully originate vehicle loans and do not need the expertise of a CUSO.
After reexamining CUSO authority, the Board is now considering whether it is appropriate to expand CUSO lending authority. It is currently permissible for CUSOs to engage in several types of lending, including consumer mortgage, business, student, and credit card. These categories of permissible CUSO lending represent several core areas of FCU business. The proposed rule would permit a reasonable expansion of CUSO lending authorities, and the Board expects the proposed rule would principally result in CUSOs originating automobile loans and small dollar consumer loans.
One reason the NCUA has historically been hesitant to expand CUSO lending is the concern that if CUSOs engaged in a core credit union function, it could negatively affect affiliated credit union services. As discussed above, CUSOs, however, have been originating loans that are also core FCU lending products for over 30 years without negatively impacting FCUs. Given this extensive history, the Board does not believe the expansion of CUSO lending authority in the proposed rule would be disruptive to FCUs.
The Board also believes that recent technological developments have further increased the benefits of allowing CUSOs to engage in expanded loan originations. As noted by the U.S. Treasury Department, consumer expectations for financial services are expanding with unprecedented speed. The market to originate loans has grown increasingly complex as technological changes, including digitization, help drive changes to the established lending landscape.
The U.S. Treasury Department noted that “[n]onbank digital lenders have gained outsized attention in recent years, driven in part by their rapid rate of growth and employment of new technology-intensive approaches to lending.”
To compete effectively in a market with a rising prevalence of these technology-based lenders, FCUs may need to rely increasingly on pooling their resources to fund CUSOs and to build the necessary infrastructure. The costs for research and development, acquisition, implementation, and specialized staff capable of managing these new technologies may be prohibitive for all but a very few of the largest FCUs. CUSOs may provide the means for FCUs to address these challenges and may enable FCUs to collaboratively develop technologies that better serve their members.
The Board recognizes that CUSOs provide significant value to the credit union industry by facilitating cooperation among credit unions. With CUSOs' collaborative business model, CUSOs are able to foster shared innovation among credit unions to achieve economies of scale, develop expertise, and better serve their members. These attributes allow CUSOs to offer financial services to credit union members more efficiently than an individual credit union may otherwise be able to offer, particularly for small credit unions.
Accordingly, under the proposed rule, CUSOs would be permitted to originate, purchase, sell, and hold any type of loan permissible for FCUs to originate, purchase, sell, and hold. Therefore, CUSOs could originate types of loans previously prohibited by the CUSO rule, including general consumer loans, direct auto loans, and unsecured loans and lines of credit. CUSOs could also purchase vehicle-secured retail installment sales contracts (RICs) from vehicle dealers. In proposing this change, the Board acknowledges and recognizes the importance of existing relationships that FICUs have with local vehicle dealers in connection with originating vehicle loans. The Board intends for this proposed rule to protect and maintain those relationships.
Under the proposed rule, CUSO originated loans would not be subject to the same restrictions as loans originated by FCUs. For example, part 701 of the NCUA's regulations imposes conditions on FCU lending relating to loan terms such as interest rate, maturity, and prepayment.
In addition to specifically permitting CUSOs to engage in consumer mortgage, business, and student loan origination, the current CUSO rule also permits CUSOs to buy and sell participation interests in such loans. The inclusion of this authority to buy and sell participation interests in such loans stems from the FCU Act and the NCUA's loan participation rule, which classifies a CUSO as a “credit union organization” authorized to engage in the purchase and sale of loan participations.
Under the current CUSO rule, a FICU must obtain a written agreement from a CUSO the FCU loans to or invests in that the CUSO will annually submit to the NCUA a report containing basic registration information for inclusion in the NCUA's CUSO registry (CUSO Registry).
Currently, the list of permissible CUSO activities in § 712.5 includes many of the core services and activities associated with the daily and routine operations of credit unions. The list, however, does not provide the Board flexibility to consider additional activities and services without engaging in notice and comment rulemaking. In contrast, part 704 permits corporate CUSOs to engage in any category of activity as approved in writing by the NCUA and published on the NCUA's website.
The above proposed changes are consistent with the Board's ongoing efforts to reduce regulatory burden while assuring that FCUs operate in a safe and sound manner. The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposal,
(1) Is the term “any type of” loan sufficiently clear such that FCUs would be able to comply with the proposed rule? Are there any types of loans that FCUs cannot originate that CUSOs currently do originate?
(2) Please discuss, and provide supporting information, on the costs of the development or acquisition, implementation, and maintenance of technology-based lending services.
(3) Would the proposed rule enable FCUs to offer additional technology-based lending services that FCUs may be otherwise unable to offer their members?
(4) The Board is also considering whether permitting CUSOs to originate additional types of loans would facilitate FCUs' access to securitization markets. It may be cost prohibitive for FCUs to securitize loans because securitizations are most cost effective with a large volume of loans. FCUs may also have difficulty aggregating loans to complete a securitization due to restrictions on purchasing loans and market concerns relating to varying underwriting standards. Therefore, the Board solicits comment on whether a CUSO could serve as an aggregator of loans to allow FCUs better access to securitization markets.
(5) Does the proposed rule expose FCUs to unnecessary safety and soundness risks? If so, are there steps the Board should consider to mitigate such risks?
a. For example, should the NCUA gather additional data about CUSO lending activities? If so, what data?
b. Should the NCUA consider additional constraints on an FCU's ability to purchase and hold loans originated by a CUSO?
c. Should the NCUA consider risk retention requirements for CUSO lending activities? The Board notes that FCUs that sell loan participations must maintain 10 percent of the loan.
(6) Would permitting CUSOs to engage in any type of lending as FCUs lead to additional reputational risk for FCUs? Loans from affiliated CUSOs may not comply with the same consumer protection limits as FCU loans, for example FCUs are subject to usury restrictions and a regulatory structure for issuing payday alternative loans (referred to as PALs).
(7) Does expanding CUSO lending authority to include additional core FCU lending categories create unnecessary competition for FCUs, particularly small FCUs?
(8) Instead of adopting a provision similar to the corporate CUSO provision that allows the NCUA to add additional categories of permissible activities for all CUSOs on its website, should the Board require individual FCUs to petition the Board for permission to lend to or invest in CUSOs that do additional activities or services not already listed in § 712.5?
(9) Should the Board publish on its website any conditions imposed on activities permissible through the approval process?
(10) Should the Board consider additional changes to the permissible activities list for CUSOs?
An FCU's authority to lend to and invest in a credit union organization is provided for in two separate provisions of the FCU Act. The FCU Act authorizes an FCU to lend to credit union organizations provided the extensions of credit do not exceed one percent of the FCU's paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus.
There are significant differences between these lending and investment authorities in the FCU Act. The lending authority refers to “credit union organizations” and limits such entities to those that primarily serve the needs of their member credit unions. In contrast, the investment authority does not use the term “credit union organization”, but instead generally refers to an “organization”. In addition, the investment authority is not limited to organizations that primarily serve the needs of their member credit unions.
The NCUA has historically interpreted the lending and investment authority under the FCU Act as referring to the same types of organizations.
The NCUA also noted that the FCU Act specifically “intertwines the lending and investment powers. For instance, section 107(7)(A) allows a Federal credit union to “invest” its funds in “loans exclusively to members.”
The NCUA is now considering whether to reconsider this longstanding interpretation. Specifically, the NCUA is considering adopting separate definitions for the types of organizations that an FCU may invest in or lend to, which potentially would expand the types of organizations eligible for FCU investment. For example, the NCUA could permit FCUs to invest in organizations that do not primarily serve credit unions or credit union members, but still provide services that relate to the routine operations of FCUs. Under such an interpretation of the FCU Act, FCUs could potentially invest in companies that broadly serve the financial service community, but do not primarily serve credit unions and their members. For instance, an FCU could form an organization with community banks to create a lending platform that could be used by both the FCU's members and the community banks' customers.
The Board notes that the statutory limitations on the amount of investments would remain unchanged. An FCU is only authorized by the FCU Act to invest up to one percent of its total paid in and unimpaired capital and surplus in organizations. An FCU that has already invested one percent of its total paid in and unimpaired capital and surplus in CUSOs would not be authorized to invest any additional money. Instead, such an FCU would have to reallocate its investments if it sought to make any investments that were previously prohibited.
The Board invites comments on whether it should reconsider its longstanding interpretation of the lending and investment authorities under the FCU Act. In addition, the Board invites comments on the following specific questions:
1. Do specific provisions and the legislative history of the FCU Act suggest that the NCUA could take a less conservative approach to interpreting the lending and investment authorities?
2. The investment authority under the FCU Act states that Board approval is required before an FCU can make an investment in an organization. Currently, the regulation provides for this approval through the pre-approved permissible activities list in § 712.5. If the Board were to consider permitting investments that are not included in § 712.5, should approval be required for each investment to determine if the activities of the organization relate to the routine operations of FCUs? If the Board requires separate notice requirements, should current investments be grandfathered?
3. Please discuss appropriate safety and soundness limitations that the Board should consider if it reinterprets its interpretation. Should the Board impose a requirement that the FCU's ownership interest in the organization not be speculative? For example, should an FCU be permitted to have an investment in an organization that is still developing a product? If the Board reinterprets its interpretation, should the Board impose a separate capital treatment for new investments that are currently prohibited?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million).
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule imposes no requirement or costs on small entities and only expands the list of permissible activities for CUSOs. The proposed rule would expand the list of activities that are considered complex or high risk for purposes of the CUSO Registry, however, the Board does not expect the additional reporting requirements to entail substantial regulatory burden. Accordingly, the NCUA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small FICUs.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement, referred to as an information collection.
The NCUA is seeking comments on proposed revisions to the information collection requirements contained 12 CFR part 712, which has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under OMB control number 3133-0149. Under the proposed rule, CUSOs would be permitted to originate, purchase, sell, and hold any type of loan permissible for FCU's to originate, purchase, sell, and hold. Accordingly, CUSOs could originate categories of loans previously prohibited under the CUSO rule. The NCUA estimated 60 new CUSOs would enter into an agreement with a FICU (§ 712.3(d)); which would also require
The NCUA invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and cost of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments are a matter of public records. Due to the limited in-house staff, email comments are preferred. Comments regarding the information collection requirements of this rule should be (1) mailed to:
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the principles of the Executive order. This rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Administrative practices and procedure, Credit, Credit unions, Insurance, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 712 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D) and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785, and 1786.
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Credit and lending:
(A) Loan support services, including servicing; and
(B) Loan origination, including originating, purchasing, selling, and holding any loan as described in § 712.5(q).
(ii) Information technology:
(iii) Custody, safekeeping, and investment management services for credit unions.
The additions read as follows:
(a) Checking and currency services:
(b) Clerical, professional and management services:
(c) Electronic transaction services:
(d) Financial counseling services:
(e) Fixed asset services:
(f) Insurance brokerage or agency:
(g) Leasing:
(h) Loan support services:
(i) Record retention, security and disaster recovery services:
(j) Securities brokerage services;
(k) Shared credit union branch (service center) operations;
(l) Travel agency services;
(m) Trust and trust-related services:
(n) Real estate brokerage services;
(q) Loan origination, originating, purchasing, selling, and holding any type of loan permissible for Federal credit unions to originate, purchase, sell, and hold, including the authority to purchase and sell participation interests that are permissible for Federal credit unions to purchase and sell; and
(r) Once the NCUA has approved an activity and published that activity on its website, the NCUA will not remove that particular activity from the approved list, or make substantial changes to the content or description of that approved activity, except through formal rulemaking procedures.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW210A and PW210S model turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report from the manufacturer that the Automated Damage Tracking System (ADTS) may under-count the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and the high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor. The impeller and HPC rotor are both life-limited components and exceeding their published life limits could result in the failure of these components. This proposed AD would require the use of the manual low-cycle fatigue (LCF) counting method in place of the ADTS counting method to determine the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and HPC rotor. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, J4G 1A1 Canada; phone: (800) 268-8000. You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7759.
You may examine the AD docket at
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7146; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (Transport Canada), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2020-13, dated April 28, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:
The engine manufacturer has discovered that the Automated Damage Tracking System (ADTS) may under-count the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and the High Pressure (HP) compressor rotor. The impeller and HP compressor rotor are both life limited components and exceeding their published life limits could result in the failure of these components.
Failure of the impeller or HP compressor rotor could result in the uncontained release of the impeller or the HP compressor rotor, and subsequently could result in damage to the engine, damage to the helicopter, and loss of control of the helicopter.
This [Transport Canada] AD mandates the use of the Manual Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) Counting method to ensure that the impeller and HP compressor rotor do not exceed their published life limits.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW210-72-A57142, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020 (ASB No. PW210-72-A57142); and Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW210-72-A57143, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020 (ASB No. PW210-72-A57143). ASB No. PW210-72-A57142 specifies procedures for calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor on PW210A model turboshaft engines. ASB No. PW210-72-A57143 specifies procedures for calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor installed on PW210S model turboshaft engines.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-801 and Task 00-00-00-860-803 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM), Manual Part No. 30L2392, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), both at Revision 13, dated September 28, 2020.
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-801 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. EMM, Manual Part No. 30L2392, identifies the LCF life limits for the impeller and HPC rotor. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-803 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. EMM, Manual Part No. 30L2392, specifies procedures for manually calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor and provides the formula for manually calculating the accumulated total cycles for the impeller and HPC rotor.
This proposed AD would require the use of the manual LCF counting method in place of the ADTS counting method to determine the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and HPC rotor.
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 66 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 12, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW210A and PW210S model turboshaft engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a report from the manufacturer that the Automated Damage Tracking System (ADTS) may under-count the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and the high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor, which could result in the failure of these components. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the impeller and the HPC rotor. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the uncontained release of the impeller or the HPC rotor, damage to the engine, damage to the helicopter, and loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding 7,000 starts or 14,000 flight cycles since new (CSN) on the affected engine, or prior to removal of the engine from the aircraft for the purpose of sending the engine to a repair or overhaul facility, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD:
(1) Use the manual low-cycle fatigue (LCF) counting method to determine the accumulated LCF cycles for the impeller and the HPC rotor using paragraph 3., Accomplishment Instructions, of P&WC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW210-72-A57142, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2020 or PW210-72-A57143, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2020, as applicable for the engine model.
(2) After performing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, use the manual LCF counting method specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to count subsequent LCF cycles on the impeller and HPC rotor. Do not use the ADTS to count subsequent LCF cycles on the impeller or the HPC rotor.
For the purpose of this AD, a “start” is an engine start followed by one or more flights.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7146; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD CF-2020-13, dated April 28, 2020, for more information. You may examine the TCCA AD in the AD docket at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, J4G 1A1, Canada; phone: (800) 268-8000. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7759.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the latest revision of the AWLs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3556; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3556; email:
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March 5, 2018).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA has established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
This proposed AD was prompted by significant changes made to the AWL related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
The FAA has determined that accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would terminate the following requirements for that airplane:
• The revision required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-11-01 R1, Amendment 39-16145 (74 FR 68515, December 28, 2009).
• The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2010-06-10, Amendment 39-16234 (75 FR 15322, March 29, 2010) (AD 2010-06-10).
• The revision required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-25-05, Amendment 39-16881 (77 FR 2442, January 18, 2012) (AD 2011-25-05).
• The revision required by paragraph (n) of AD 2013-25-02, Amendment 39-17698 (79 FR 24541, May 1, 2014) (AD 2013-25-02).
• The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-08-09, Amendment 39-17833 (79 FR 24546, May 1, 2014) (AD 2014-08-09).
• The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2014-20-02, Amendment 39-17975 (79 FR 59102, October 1, 2014) (AD 2014-20-02).
• The revision required by paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of AD 2018-20-13, Amendment 39-19447 (83 FR 52305, October 17, 2018) (AD 2018-20-13).
The FAA reviewed Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, dated January 2020. This service information describes AWLs that include airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) tasks related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the latest revision of the AWLs.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 500 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 12, 2021.
This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this AD.
(1) AD 2008-11-01 R1, Amendment 39-16145 (74 FR 68515, December 28, 2009) (AD 2008-11-01 R1).
(2) AD 2010-06-10, Amendment 39-16234 (75 FR 15322, March 29, 2010) (AD 2010-06-10).
(3) AD 2011-25-05, Amendment 39-16881 (77 FR 2442, January 18, 2012) (AD 2011-25-05).
(4) AD 2013-25-02, Amendment 39-17698 (79 FR 24541, May 1, 2014) (AD 2013-25-02).
(5) AD 2014-08-09, Amendment 39-17833 (79 FR 24546, May 1, 2014) (AD 2014-08-09).
(6) AD 2014-20-02, Amendment 39-17975 (79 FR 59102, October 1, 2014) (AD 2014-20-02).
(7) AD 2018-20-13, Amendment 39-19447 (83 FR 52305, October 17, 2018) (AD 2018-20-13).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, having line numbers (L/N) 1 through 1200 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information in Section A, including Subsections A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, and A.5, of Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, revision January 2020; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the airworthiness limitation instructions (ALI) tasks are within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (14) of this AD:
(1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, “External Wires Over Auxiliary (Center) Fuel Tank”: Within 144 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28 AWL 01, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-05, “Lightning Protection—Hydraulic Line Fuel Tank Penetration Bonding Path”: Within 25,000 flight hours or 72 months, whichever occurs first, since the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-05, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-18, “Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS)—Out of Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination”: Within 144 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-18, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-20, “Auxiliary (Center) Tank Override Fuel Pumps Auto Shutoff Circuit”: Within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-20; or within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084, as applicable; whichever is later. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-21, “AC and DC Fuel Pump Fault Current Bonding Jumper Installation”: Within 72 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-21, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-27, “Over-Current and Arcing Protection Electrical Design Features Operation—AC Fuel Pump Ground Fault Interrupter (GFI)”: Within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-27, or within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, whichever is later. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(7) For AWL No. 28-AWL-28, “Auxiliary (Center) Tank Override/Jettison Fuel Pump Failed On Protection System”: Within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-28, or within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, whichever is later. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(8) For AWL No. 28-AWL-35, “Cushion Clamps and Teflon Sleeving Installed on Out-of-Tank Wire Bundles Installed on Brackets that are Mounted Directly on the Fuel Tanks”: Within 144 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-35 or within 144 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0102, whichever is later. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(9) For AWL No. 28-AWL-37, “FQIS BITE Test (Auxiliary (Center) Tank Circuit Test)”: For Model 767-300F airplanes L/N 1094 and subsequent, within 750 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-37, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(10) For AWL No. 28-AWL-38, “Fuel Level Sensing System (FLSS) Dry Capacitance Test”: For Model 767-300F airplanes L/N 1096 and subsequent, within 750 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-38, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(11) For AWL No. 28-AWL-101, “Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test”: Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD if no initial inspection has been performed or the last inspection date is unknown.
(12) For AWL No. 28-AWL-102, “Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS)—Low Fuel and Fuel Config Indication Test”: Within 750 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-102; or within 750 flight hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0295 or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-31-0302, as applicable; whichever is later. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(13) For AWL No. 47-AWL-04, “Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)—Nitrogen-Enriched Air (NEA) Distribution Ducting”: For L/N 993 and subsequent and all airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Service Bulletin 767-47-0001, within the applicable interval specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-04 since the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-04. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 4 months after the effective date of this AD.
(14) For AWL No. 47-AWL-05, “Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)—Cross Vent Check Valve”: For L/N 993 and subsequent and all airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Service Bulletin 767-47-0001, within the applicable interval specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-05 since the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-05. If no initial inspection was performed or the last inspection date is unknown, then within 4 months after the effective date of this AD.
As an option, when accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the changes specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD are acceptable.
(1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-09 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS 13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following acceptable wire types and cables can be added to AWL No. 28-AWL-09: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (formerly M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/32 (formerly M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (formerly M22759/34), MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (formerly M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86 (formerly M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (formerly M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92, and SAE AS22759/92 (formerly M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 and NEMA WC 27500 cables that are constructed from these military or SAE specification wire types, as applicable.
(2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-09 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are acceptable: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM, Grade A.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this AD for that airplane:
(1) The revision required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-11-01 R1.
(2) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2010-06-10.
(3) The revision required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-25-05.
(4) The revision required by paragraph (n) of AD 2013-25-02.
(5) The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-08-09.
(6) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2014-20-02.
(7) The revision required by paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of AD 2018-20-13.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3556; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-16-51, which applies to certain Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters (Airbus)) Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2010-16-51 requires inspecting for a gap between the main gearbox (MGB) oil cooling fan assembly (fan) rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing and depending on the results, replacing the two fan rotor shaft bearings with two airworthy bearings. Since the FAA issued AD 2010-16-51, Airbus has developed an improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearing design. This proposed AD would retain the inspection required by AD 2010-16-51, and propose installing improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings and repetitively inspecting the new improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mahmood Shah, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5538; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mahmood Shah, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5538; email
The FAA issued AD 2010-16-51, Amendment 39-16410 (75 FR 53857, September 2, 2010) (AD 2010-16-51), which applies to all Eurocopter France (now Airbus) Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2010-16-51 requires, using a 0.2 millimeter (mm) (0.008 inch) feeler gauge attached to a rigid rod, inspecting for a gap between a fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing over the entire width of the blade. If the feeler gauge can be inserted between the blade and the housing (a gap greater than or equal to 0.2 mm), AD 2010-16-51 requires no further action. If the feeler gauge cannot be inserted between the blade and the housing (a gap less than 0.2 mm), AD 2010-16-51 requires replacing the two fan rotor shaft bearings with two airworthy bearings and re-inspecting for the minimum gap. The FAA issued AD 2010-16-51 to prevent rotor burst of the MGB fan, damage to the hydraulic lines and flight controls, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Since the FAA issued AD 2010-16-51, Airbus has developed an improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearing design and issued new service information.
Accordingly, the EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States
This proposed AD was prompted by the newly developed MGB fan rotor shaft bearing design. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent rotor burst of the MGB fan, damage to the hydraulic lines and flight controls, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. See the EASA AD for additional background information.
Further, since the FAA issued AD 2010-16-51, Eurocopter France changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. This proposed AD reflects that change.
For MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) part number (P/N) 704A33651114 (manufacturer P/N (MP/N) 205FFTX74K6-G33) and MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) P/N 704A33651268 (MP/N 594918), EASA AD 2020-0171 describes procedures for inspecting for play (a gap) between the MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing. If there is play that does not meet the minimum requirement, the EASA AD requires replacing the affected MGB fan rotor shaft bearings with MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) P/N 704A33651268 (MP/N 594918).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2010-16-51, this proposed AD would retain a certain requirement of AD 2010-16-51. This requirement is referenced in EASA AD 2020-0171, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0171 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.”
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0171 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0171 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0171 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0171 will be available on the internet at
The EASA AD applies to all Model SA 330 J helicopters, whereas this proposed AD applies to certain Model SA330J helicopters instead. The EASA AD refers to flight hours, whereas this proposed AD uses hours time-in-service. The EASA AD requires inspecting for play, whereas this proposed AD requires inspecting for a gap instead. The EASA AD requires returning certain parts, whereas this proposed AD requires removing the parts from service instead. The EASA AD requires completing a response form, whereas this proposed AD does not.
The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
Inspecting for a gap between the MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $2,550 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
Replacing a set of two bearings would take about 6 work-hours and parts would cost up to about $1,665 for an estimated cost of up to $2,175 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by April 12, 2021.
This AD removes AD 2010-16-51, Amendment 39-16410 (75 FR 53857, September 2, 2010).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by Eurocopter France) Model SA330J helicopters, certificated in any category, with main gearbox (MGB) oil cooling fan (fan) rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) part number (P/N) 704A33651114 (manufacturer P/N (MP/N) 205FFTX74K6-G33) or P/N 704A33651268 (MP/N 594918), installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6322; Main Gearbox Oil Cooler.
This AD was prompted by the development of an improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearing design. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent rotor burst of the MGB fan, damage to the hydraulic lines and flight controls, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2020-0171, dated July 28, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0171).
(1) Where EASA AD 2020-0171 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2020-0171 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Where EASA AD 2020-0171 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(4) Where EASA AD 2020-0171 requires measuring for play, this AD requires measuring the gap between each MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing.
(5) Where “The ASB” service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0171 specifies to return certain parts to Airbus Helicopters, this AD requires removing those parts from service instead.
(6) While “The ASB” service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0171 specifies completing the response form in Appendix 4, this AD does not contain that requirement.
Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0171 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, send it to: Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For EASA AD 2020-0171, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Mahmood Shah, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5538; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-03-12, which applies to certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2019-03-12 requires repetitively inspecting, cleaning, and lubricating each life raft inflation cylinder percussion system bellcrank (bellcrank). Since the FAA issued AD 2019-03-12, the FAA determined that any affected bellcrank must be replaced with a serviceable bellcrank, which would terminate the repetitive actions. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions specified in AD 2019-03-12, and would require replacing any affected bellcrank with a serviceable bellcrank. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972-641-0000 or 800-232-0323; fax 972-641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Blaine Williams, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone 562-627-5371; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Blaine Williams Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone 562-627-5371; email
The FAA issued AD 2019-03-12, Amendment 39-19564 (84 FR 8250, March 7, 2019) (AD 2019-03-12), which applies to certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2019-03-12 requires repetitively inspecting, cleaning, and lubricating each bellcrank. The FAA issued AD 2019-03-12 to address jammed bellcranks in the life raft jettison inflation cylinder percussion system. This condition could result in failure of a life raft to release in an emergency and subsequent injury to occupants.
Since the FAA issued AD 2019-03-12, the FAA determined that the affected bellcranks must be replaced with serviceable bellcranks, which would terminate the need for the repetitive actions.
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0287, dated November 27, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0287) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. EASA AD 2019-0287 supersedes EASA AD 2019-0102, dated May 9, 2019. EASA AD 2019-0102, dated May 9, 2019, superseded EASA AD 2016-0200, dated October 11, 2016, which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-03-12.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of jammed bellcranks in the life raft inflation cylinder percussion system. The FAA is proposing this AD to address jammed bellcranks in the life raft jettison inflation cylinder percussion system. This condition could result in failure of a life raft to release in an emergency and subsequent injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin EC225-25A211, Revision 1, dated October 23, 2019. This service information describes procedures for replacing any affected life raft release bellcrank with a serviceable bellcrank. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
Airbus Helicopters has also issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A050, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2016; and Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A050, Revision 1, dated April 3, 2019. This service information describes procedures for cleaning and lubricating each bellcrank and pivot link of the life raft inflation cylinder percussion system and removing any corrosion.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2019-03-12. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information.”
EASA AD 2019-0287 requires replacing each affected bellcrank with a serviceable part within 6 months after the effective date of that AD. This proposed AD would require replacing each affected bellcrank with a serviceable part within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, or before the next operation over water, whichever occurs first.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 28 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by April 12, 2021.
This AD removes AD 2019-03-12, Amendment 39-19564 (84 FR 8250, March 27, 2019) (AD 2019-03-12).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters, all manufacturer serial numbers, certificated in any category, equipped with emergency life rafts installed in the multi-purpose sponsons.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2564, Life Raft.
This AD was prompted by reports of jammed bellcranks in the life raft inflation cylinder percussion system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address jammed bellcranks in the life raft jettison inflation cylinder percussion system. This condition could result in failure of a life raft to release in an emergency and subsequent injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD apply.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 2019-03-12, with a specified helicopter group and new Note 1. For Group 1: Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months:
(1) Clean each bellcrank and pivot link and inspect each bellcrank hole for corrosion. If there is any corrosion in a bellcrank hole:
(i) Remove the corrosion without exceeding a maximum depth of 0.1 millimeter (0.004 inch).
(ii) Clean each pivot link using 400-grain abrasive paper.
(iii) Apply corrosion protectant (Alodine 1200 or equivalent) to each bellcrank hole.
(2) Lubricate each bellcrank hole with grease before assembling the bellcrank.
Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A050, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2016; and Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert
Accomplishment of the bellcrank replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that helicopter only.
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, send it to: Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Blaine Williams, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone 562-627-5371; email
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972-641-0000 or 800-232-0323; fax 972-641-3775; or at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of error messages on the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) B digital engine control unit (DECU), caused by blistering of the varnish on the DECU circuit board. This proposed AD would require the replacement of certain FADEC B DECUs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Avenue du 1er Mai, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 59 74 40 00. You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7759.
You may examine the AD docket at
Wego Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7134; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wego Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2020-0046, dated March 4, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:
Occurrences have been reported of FADEC B DECU error messages, which were found to be caused by blistering of the varnish on the DECU circuit board. Subsequent investigation determined that the use of a non-compliant primer is related to the blistering effect which, in wet conditions, can cause malfunction of the stepper motor.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of automatic control on both engines concurrently, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, SAFRAN issued the MSB, as defined in this [EASA] AD, to provide instructions for identification and replacement of affected parts.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of affected parts with serviceable parts. This [EASA] AD also prohibits (re-)installation of affected parts.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. The FAA is issuing this NPRM because the agency evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Note Technique AA187866, Version A, dated October 18, 2019. This service information identifies the serial numbers (S/Ns) of certain FADEC B DECUs installed on Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
The FAA reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2872, Version A, dated October 17, 2019. This MSB describes procedures for identifying the S/Ns of certain FADEC B DECUs and replacing certain FADEC B DECUs on Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines.
This proposed AD would require the replacement of certain FADEC B DECUs installed on Safran Helicopter Engines Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines.
Safran Helicopter Engines MSB No. 292 73 2872 is applicable to Arriel 2C, 2 C-PM, and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. This proposed AD is only applicable to Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines. There is no Arriel 2 C-PM model turboshaft engine type certificated in the United States.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 148 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 12, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate previously held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Arriel 2C and Arriel 2S1 model turboshaft engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control/Turbine Engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of error messages of the full authority engine control (FADEC) B digital engine control unit (DECU), caused by blistering of the varnish on the DECU circuit board. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FADEC B DECU. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of engine thrust control and reduced control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For affected engines having an installed FADEC B DECU with a serial number (S/N) identified in Safran Helicopter Engines Note Technique AA187866, Version A, dated October 18, 2019 (the Note Technique), within 1,400 engine operating hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the FADEC B DECU with a part eligible for installation.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install onto any engine a FADEC B DECU having an S/N listed in the Note Technique.
For the purpose of this AD, a part eligible for installation is a FADEC B DECU that does not have an S/N listed in the Note Technique.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7134; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2020-0046, dated March 4, 2020, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., Avenue du 1er Mai, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 59 74 40 00. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7759.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0210, dated October 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0210) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0210 refers to Airbus A350 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Revision 06, dated May 29, 2020. Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after May 29, 2020, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2020-0210 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2020-0210 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2020-0210 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0210 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0210 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is
Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0210 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0210 will be available on the internet at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 12, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before May 29, 2020.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0210, dated October 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0210).
(1) Where EASA AD 2020-0210 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2020-0210 do not apply to this AD.
(3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0210 specifies revising “the approved AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA 2020-0210 is at the applicable “thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0210, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2020-0210 do not apply to this AD.
(6) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2020-0210 does not apply to this AD.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0210, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the inboard multi-function spoiler (MFS) surfaces failed to deploy, which was caused by missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS power control units (PCUs). This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if affected MFS PCUs are installed, and replacement of affected MFS PCUs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free phone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial phone: 1-514-855-2999; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-26, dated August 4, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the inboard MFS surfaces failed to deploy, which was caused by missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS PCUs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address MFS PCUs with improperly configured piston seals, which could cause degraded proportional lift dumping (PLD) function and could hinder the airplane from carrying out an emergency descent, resulting in structural damage and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Bombardier has issued the following service information. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine if affected MFS PCUs are installed, and replacement of affected MFS PCUs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-17, Revision 03, dated June 19, 2020.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-010, dated June 19, 2020.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 630 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 12, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003 through 20457 inclusive, and 20501 through 22999 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report that the inboard multi-function spoiler (MFS) surfaces failed to deploy, which was caused by missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS power control units (PCUs). The FAA is issuing this AD to address MFS PCUs with improperly configured piston seals, which could cause degraded proportional lift dumping (PLD) function. This condition could hinder the airplane from carrying out an emergency descent, resulting in structural damage and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, an affected MFS PCU is an MFS PCU that has a serial number of 0001 through 1410 inclusive, except for those MFS PCUs having the serial numbers listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD and except for those with the suffix “A” at the end of the serial number (
(1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to determine if affected MFS PCUs are installed on the airplane in accordance with Paragraph 2.B. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-17, Revision 03, dated June 19, 2020; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-010, dated June 19, 2020; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the MFS PCU can be conclusively determined from that review.
(2) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace any affected MFS PCUs with MFS PCUs that are not affected, in accordance with Paragraphs 2.C., 2.D., 2.E., and 2.F., as applicable, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-17, Revision 03, dated June 19, 2020; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-010, dated June 19, 2020; as applicable.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an affected MFS PCU, on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-26, dated August 4, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7362; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free phone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial phone: 1-514-855-2999; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67/P, and GEnx-2B67B model turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the lower fuel manifold causing fuel leakage. This proposed AD would require an ultrasonic inspection (USI) or a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the lower fuel manifold. Depending on the results of the USI or FPI, this proposed AD would require replacement of the lower fuel manifold with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Mehdi Lamnyi, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7743; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mehdi Lamnyi, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA received a report that a GEnx-2B model turbofan engine installed on a Boeing Model 747-8 airplane was removed from service due to confirmed fuel leakage from a lower fuel manifold in May 2019. The operator observed fuel leakage during a routine borescope inspection of the high-pressure turbine, and later confirmed by ultrasonic inspection a crack at brazed block #4 in the pilot secondary fuel circuit tube on the lower fuel manifold. The FAA received two similar reports, in March 2020 and May 2020, of a fuel leak from the lower fuel manifold at brazed block #4. The manufacturer has identified the root cause of this cracking as low-cycle fatigue due to the abrupt transition created by the brazed support block pad and its inability to slide due to thermal loads as intended. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021. The service information specifies procedures for performing an initial on-wing visual inspection, a USI, or an FPI of the top main fuel manifold and the lower fuel manifold. The service information also specifies procedures for performing repetitive in-shop visual inspection and FPI for GEnx-2B model turbofan engines. The service information also provides instructions for replacing the top main fuel manifold and lower fuel manifold if a crack is found that exceeds the manufacturer's criteria or if a leak is detected during inspection. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require performing either a USI, an on-wing spot FPI, or an in-shop FPI of the lower fuel manifold, part number (P/N) 2619M58G01, at the locations adjacent to the five support block pads to detect cracks. Depending on the results of the inspection, this AD may require removing the lower fuel manifold from service and replacing it with a part eligible for installation.
GE GEnx-2B SB 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021, describes procedures for performing an initial on-wing visual inspection of the top main fuel manifold and the lower fuel manifold, followed by a USI or an FPI. This service information describes procedures for a repetitive in-shop visual inspection and FPI of the top main fuel manifold and the lower fuel manifold. This service information also provides instructions for replacing the top main fuel manifold or the lower fuel manifold if a crack is discovered that exceeds the criteria established by the manufacturer or if a leak is detected during inspection.
This proposed AD would not require inspection or replacement of the top main fuel manifold or a visual inspection of the lower fuel manifold. This proposed AD would also not require the repetitive in-shop visual inspection and FPI of the top main fuel manifold and the lower fuel manifold. This proposed AD would require a USI, an on-wing spot FPI, or an in-shop FPI of the lower fuel manifold and, depending on the results of the inspection, replacement of the lower fuel manifold with a part eligible for installation. Reports received by the FAA indicate that fuel leakage has occurred on the lower fuel manifold. Based on these reports, the FAA is not requiring inspection of the top main fuel manifold.
The FAA considers this proposed AD would be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 156 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 12, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67/P, and GEnx-2B67B model turbofan engines with lower fuel manifold, part number (P/N) 2619M58G01, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7310, Engine Fuel Distribution.
This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the lower fuel manifold. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect cracking of the lower fuel manifold. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within the compliance time specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, perform either an ultrasonic inspection (USI), an on-wing spot fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI), or an in-shop FPI of the lower fuel manifold, P/N 2619M58G01, in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Perform a USI of the lower fuel manifold at the locations adjacent to the five support block pads to detect cracks in accordance with paragraph 4. Appendix—A of GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021.
(ii) Perform an on-wing spot FPI of the lower fuel manifold at the five brazed block joints to detect cracks. Guidance on performing the spot FPI can be found in paragraph 3.B.(6)(a) of GEnx-2B SB 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021.
(iii) Perform an in-shop FPI of the lower fuel manifold at the five brazed block joints to detect cracks. Guidance on performing the FPI can be found in paragraph 3.C.(4) of GEnx-2B SB 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021.
(2) If a crack or rejectable indication is found during the USI, on-wing spot FPI, or in-shop FPI required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this AD, before further flight, remove the lower fuel manifold from service and replace it with a part eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, a part eligible for installation is:
(1) Any serviceable lower fuel manifold, P/N 2619M58G01, with less than 1,700 CSN, or
(2) Any lower fuel manifold, P/N 2619M58G01, with 1,700 CSN or more that has been inspected in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this AD and a crack or rejectable indication was not found, or
(3) Any approved lower fuel manifold with a part number other than P/N 2619M58G01.
The reporting requirements specified in paragraph 4. Appendix—A of GE GEnx-2B SB 73-0089 R01, dated January 11, 2021, are not required by this AD.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Mehdi Lamnyi, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7743; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Proposed rule; notice of hearing.
This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations to except certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime that was created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and sets forth alternative rules that will apply.
The public hearing is being held on Thursday March 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive speakers' outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Friday, March 12, 2021. If no outlines are received by March 12, 2021, the public hearing will be cancelled.
The public hearing is being held by teleconference. Individuals who want to testify (by telephone) at the public hearing must send an email to
Concerning these proposed regulations, Concerning the proposed regulations, Jennifer M. Black of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 317-6834, the hearing, and the access code to attend the hearing by teleconferencing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-5177 (not toll-free numbers) or
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking REG-123652-18 that was published in the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments telephonically at the hearing that previously submitted written comments by January 25, 2021, must submit an outline on the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by March 12, 2021.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available (two days before the hearing) by emailing your request to
Individuals who want to attend (by telephone) the public hearing must also send an email to
The telephonic hearing will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during the telephonic hearing please contact the Publications and Regulations Branch of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) by sending an email to
Any questions regarding speaking at or attending a public hearing may also be emailed to
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Proposed rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend a regulation to clarify that their hearings may be conducted in person at the Library of Congress or an alternative location, or virtually, at the Judges' discretion. The Judges solicit comments on the proposed amendment.
Comments are due no later than March 29, 2021.
You may send comments, identified by docket number 21-CRB-
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, at 202-707-7658 or
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) Rule 351.9 addresses the procedures the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) follow in conducting hearings. 37 CFR 351.9. Although the rule does not currently specify the location for such hearings, historically they have been conducted in person at facilities within the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the Library of Congress's facilities have been closed to the public, which has required the Judges to conduct proceedings virtually. It is uncertain when the Library's facilities will again be available for public hearings. Therefore, the Judges believe that it is appropriate to codify the fact that future hearings may be conducted physically, either at the Library of Congress or an alternative location, or virtually, at the Judges' discretion, which this proposed rule would accomplish. The Judges seek comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 351 as set forth below:
Administrative practice and procedure, Copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend part 351 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
17 U.S.C. 803.
(a)(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) submitted by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Tribe) on September 25, 2017, to regulate air pollution within the exterior boundaries of the Tribe's Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and four tribal trust parcels (collectively, the Reservation). The EPA is proposing to approve the TIP based on maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through a permitted open burning program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110(o), 110(k)(3), and 301(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0742, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Kyle Olson, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-TRM, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6002,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” means the EPA.
The EPA is proposing approval of the Tribe's TIP submission which contains programs to address: Ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO
The Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.
The Tribe's TIP has been developed to protect the Reservation populace from air pollution by controlling open burning sources. The TIP establishes primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, SO
The CAA was originally enacted in 1963 and has been significantly amended over the years (most notably in 1970, 1977, and 1990). Among other things, the Act: Requires the EPA to establish NAAQS for certain pollutants; requires the EPA to develop programs to address specific air quality problems; establishes the EPA's enforcement authority; and provides for air quality research. As part of the 1990 amendments, Congress added section 301(d) to the Act authorizing the EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes “in the same manner as states” and directing the EPA to promulgate regulations specifying those provisions of the Act for which TAS is appropriate. In February of 1998, the EPA implemented this requirement by promulgating the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) (63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998), codified at 40 CFR part 49). The EPA included relevant provisions relating to implementation plans among the provisions for which TAS is appropriate (exceptions are identified in 40 CFR 49.4).
Under the provisions of the Act and the EPA's regulations, Indian tribes must demonstrate that they meet the criteria in section 301(d) of the Act and the TAR in order to be eligible for TAS. The eligibility criteria are: (1) The Indian tribe is federally recognized; (2) the Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers; (3) the functions the Indian tribe is applying to carry out pertain to the management and protection of air resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation (or other areas within the Indian tribe's jurisdiction); and (4) the Indian tribe is reasonably expected to be capable of performing the functions the Indian tribe is applying to carry out in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and all applicable regulations.
An implementation plan is a set of programs and regulations developed by the appropriate regulatory agency in order to assure healthy air quality through the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. These plans can be developed by states, eligible Indian tribes, or the EPA, depending on the entity with jurisdiction and the EPA's approval in a particular area.
For states, these plans are referred to as State Implementation Plans or SIPs. For eligible Indian tribes, these plans are called TIPs. Occasionally, the EPA will develop an implementation plan for a specific area or source. This is referred to as a Federal Implementation Plan or a FIP. Once final approval is published in the
The contents of a typical implementation plan may fall into three categories: (1) Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance; (2) “non-regulatory” components (
Upon submittal to the EPA, the EPA reviews implementation plans for conformance with federal policies and regulations. If the implementation plan conforms, the state's or eligible Indian tribe's regulations become federally enforceable upon EPA approval. The codification is usually accomplished by notice-and-comment rulemaking, with publications of proposed and final rules in the
For a tribe to receive EPA approval of a TIP, the tribe must, among other things, obtain a determination from the EPA that the tribe is eligible for TAS for purposes of the TIP and submit to the EPA a TIP that satisfies requirements of the Act and relevant regulations that apply to the plan elements and functions the tribe seeks to carry out.
The following technical elements in a TIP may include, but are not limited to:
• A list of regulated pollutants affected by the plan;
• Documentation that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements; and
• Regulations.
The TAR allows tribes to develop, adopt, and submit an implementation plan for approval as a TIP in a modular fashion, so it may not be necessary to meet all of the requirements identified above.
The EPA has the authority, under the Act, to enforce the regulations in an approved TIP. The EPA recognizes that, in certain circumstances, eligible Indian tribes have limited criminal enforcement authority. The TAR specifically provides that such limitations on an Indian tribe's criminal enforcement authority do not prevent a TIP from being approved. Where implementation of the TIP requires criminal enforcement authority, and to
On September 25, 2017, the Tribe requested an EPA determination under the provisions of 40 CFR 49.7 that the Tribe is eligible for TAS for the purpose of developing a TIP for air quality. On June 22, 2020, the EPA determined that the Tribe meets the eligibility requirements of section 301(d) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.6 for the purposes of developing and carrying out an implementation plan under the Act. EPA's decision on the TAS is final and is provided as background only in this action. It is not subject to further public comment as part of this TIP approval.
The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council gave the DEPNR authority to administer the Northern Cheyenne Clean Air Act (NCCAA) programs on behalf of the Tribe in Tribal Ordinance No. DOI-008 (2017) dated December 7, 2016. The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council had the authority to take this action pursuant to Article IV, Section 1(a), (i), and (r) of the Tribe's Amended Constitution and Bylaws.
The Tribe did not submit, and EPA is not proposing to approve, any criminal enforcement authority under the TIP. Accordingly, the EPA is responsible for pursuing any criminal enforcement action for violations of the Act or implementing regulations that occur in Indian country. Consistent with 49 CFR 49.7(a)(6) and 49 CFR 49.8, on May 14, 2020, the Tribe entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA Region 8 concerning criminal enforcement of air pollution rules and regulations as part of the TAS application process. Under the terms of this MOA, the Tribe would refer alleged criminal violations of the Act that exceed the Tribe's criminal authority to EPA Region 8 if the EPA approves the Tribe for CAA criminal enforcement authorities in the future. Neither the proposed action nor the MOA prevent the Tribe from pursuing criminal enforcement actions within the Tribe's criminal authority under tribal law.
On December 7, 2016, the NCCAA was approved by the Tribal Council as Tribal Ordinance No. DOI-008 (2017). On September 12, 2017, the Tribal Council passed Resolution No. DOI-201 (2017) authorizing submission of the NCCAA to the EPA as a TIP under the Act. The Tribe's staff completed the public notification process for a TIP required by 40 CFR 51.102 and received no public comments and no requests for a public hearing regarding the TIP.
The Tribe's TIP submittal includes ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, NO
The EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for six air pollutants: CO, lead, NO
The Tribe established primary and secondary air quality standards, which will remain consistent with any future EPA updates to the NAAQS, for the following air pollutants:
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the Tribe's standards for the pollutants listed in the table above, which are the same as the NAAQS, for incorporation into the TIP.
The proposed TIP establishes a general prohibition on open burning on the Reservation (see NCCAA Section 5.1), unless otherwise exempted under NCCAA Section 5.2 (
Permitting procedures for open burning are specified in NCCAA Section 5.7. Permits are required for open burning activity on the Reservation that is four or more feet in diameter or three or more feet in height (unless exempted under NCCAA Section 5.2) prior to commencing open burning activities. Permits may be issued only if the Air Quality Administrator determines, in consultation with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northern Cheyenne Agency personnel, that the proposed open burning activity will not cause an adverse impact on Reservation air quality or otherwise endanger public health or welfare on the Reservation. Permits are also required to contain certain minimum permit conditions, including setback requirements, equipment and supply requirements, wind speed limitations, and extinguishment conditions, etc. Violations of any applicable permit terms or conditions are considered violations of the NCCAA. For all permitted open burning activities, the permittee must notify the Air Quality Administrator at least two working days prior to commencing an open burning activity and must notify Northern Cheyenne Fire Protection not less than one hour prior to commencing the open burning activity (during regular business hours). Section 5.5 of the NCCAA specifies, however, that no person shall commence or continue an open burning activity within the Reservation that is determined by the Director of the Tribe's DEPNR, in consultation with the Air Quality Administrator, to cause or contribute to an exceedance of any Northern Cheyenne Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA is proposing to approve the conditions and procedures the Tribe has established for its open burning permitting program.
Section 3 of the proposed TIP covers civil enforcement and appeals. Under the TIP, the Tribe's Air Quality Administrator can issue compliance orders for TIP violations. A compliance order can include civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for each violation and an assessment of costs incurred by DEPNR. The Air Quality Administrator can file an action in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court pursuant to the Northern Cheyenne Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a penalty order or to seek preliminary injunctive relief against any person who is suspected to have violated the TIP or a compliance order.
Alleged violators can challenge compliance orders by petitioning the DEPNR Director for administrative review within 30 days of receiving the order. The Director shall promptly review petitions for administrative review and issue a written decision that upholds, vacates, or modifies the order. Alleged violators can challenge a decision by the Director by filing an action in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court pursuant to the Northern Cheyenne Rules of Civil Procedure. The Tribal Court shall uphold any decision by the Director unless it is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.
The EPA finds the Tribe has adequately established an enforcement mechanism to carry out its regulations, and the EPA proposes to approve it.
The EPA is proposing approval of the Tribe's proposed TIP, which contains programs to address ambient air quality standards for the NAAQS pollutants, an open burning program, and enforcement provisions. The public docket contains the Tribe's proposed TIP, TAS eligibility determination, and enforcement MOA with the EPA.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the TIP amendments described in Section VI of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP or TIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Indians, Indians—law, Indians—tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision package submitted by the State of Utah on November 5, 2019. The November 5, 2019 revision amends R307-204 to meet the requirements set forth in Utah's 2019 House Bill (H.B.) 155. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0541, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6103,
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to sections: R307-204-1. Purpose and Goals; R307-204-2. Applicability; R307-204-3. Definitions; R307-204-4. General Requirements; R307-204-5. Burn Schedule; R307-204-6. Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis); R307-204-7. Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis); R307-204-8. Large Prescribed Fires; R307-204-9. Large Prescribed Pile Fires; and R307-204-10. Requirements for Wildland Fire Use Events.
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
EPA does not directly regulate the use of fire within a state or in Indian country. The agency's authority is to enforce the requirements of the CAA, which requires states to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) adopted to protect public health and welfare. The Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires recommends that states/tribes implement Smoke Management Plans (SMPs) to mitigate the public health and welfare impacts of fires managed for resource benefits. The SMPs establish a basic framework of procedures and requirements for managing smoke from fires managed for resource benefits and are typically developed by states/tribes with cooperation and participation by wildland owners/managers. The goal of SMPs is to prevent deterioration of air quality and NAAQS violations; to address visibility impacts in mandatory Class 1 Federal areas; and to reduce the nuisance and public safety hazards posed by smoke intrusions into populated areas.
The SMP serves as the operational plan for the state administrative rule, R307-204, by providing the direction and operating procedures for all organizations involved in the use of prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland fire use. The procedures that land managers are required to follow to mitigate the impact of smoke on public health and visibility in the State is established by the rule, R307-204. The
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses the EPA's rulemaking action on SIP submissions by states. The CAA requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to the EPA. Section 110((a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a state to EPA.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), a state must show that its smoke management program and all federal or private programs for prescribed fire in the state have a mechanism in place for evaluating and addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application of burning. A state must also ensure that its prescribed fire smoke management programs have at least the following seven elements: Action to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation.
On June 5, 2019 the State of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Board approved proposed amendments to R307-204 to include requirements established by the Utah State Legislature set forth in 2019 H.B. 155.
“In the rules made by the board . . . . . the board shall require the land manager to:
(i) describe the use of state, county, or municipal resource in the large prescribed fire or large prescribed pile fire;
(ii) provide the division the burn plan for a large prescribed fire or large prescribed pile fire by no later than one week before the day of the burn window; and
(iii) notify the division of nonfull suppression event once a fire becomes a nonfull suppression event.”
The rule revisions include removing outdated terminology, such as, “wildland fire use,” “plan stage” and language regarding adjusting fire emission factors. Also, in EPA's 1998 “Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires,” it is stated that federally prescribed fire projects would be considered to conform with the implementation plan if they are managed under a certified basic SMP. Since, Utah's SMP meets that criteria, the State will be removing conformity from R307-204. Finally, Section R307-204-6. Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis), R307-204-7. Small Prescribed Pile Fires (de minimis), Section R307-204-8. Large Prescribed Fires and R302-20-9. Large Prescribed Pile Fires will be combined to reduce redundancies.
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Utah on November 5, 2019. The revisions meet the requirements set forth in Utah's State Legislature's H.B. 155 and reduce redundancies and outdated portions of the rule, while also streamlining it. EPA is proposing to approve revisions to sections: R307-204-1. Purpose and Goals; R307-204-2. Applicability; R307-204-3. Definitions; R307-204-4. General Requirements; R307-204-5. Burn Schedule; R307-204-6. Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis); R307-204-7. Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis); R307-204-8. Large Prescribed Fires; R307-204-9. Large Prescribed Pile Fires; and R307-204-10. Requirements for Wildland Fire Use Events. The revision for R307-204 meets the applicable CAA requirements and contains smoke management requirements for land managers within the State of Utah as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6).
In this document, the EPA, is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Utah rules promulgated in the Division of Administrative Rule (DAR), R307-204-1, R307-204-2, R307-204-3, R307-204-4, R307-204-5, R307-204-6, R307-204-7, R307-204-8, R307-204-9 and R307-204-10, as discussed in section III of the preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted on August 27, 2020 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). These revisions affect the public notice rule provisions for the New Source Review (NSR) and title V Operating Permit programs (title V) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revisions remove the mandatory requirement to provide public notice of draft CAA permits in a newspaper and allow electronic notice (e-notice) as an alternate noticing option. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to the CAA and implementing Federal regulations.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0467 at
Daniel Wolski, Physical Scientist, Air Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0557,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized revised public notice rule provisions for the NSR, title V, and Outer Continental Shelf permitting programs of the CAA.
EPA anticipates that e-notice, which is already being practiced by many
IEPA revised Chapter 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) part 252,
IEPA's regulations were the subject of a public hearing on January 11, 2018 and were adopted on August 17, 2018 with an effective date of August 1, 2018. EPA received IEPA's SIP submittal on August 27, 2020. Based on a review of the proposed revisions, EPA has preliminarily determined that IEPA's revisions meet the requirements of the Federal e-notice provisions.
EPA is proposing to approve IEPA's August 27, 2020 SIP program revisions addressing public notice requirements for CAA permitting. EPA has preliminarily concluded that the State's submittal meets the plan revisions requirements of CAA section 110 and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.161, 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.7.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to 35 IAC part 252 section 201 “Notice and Opportunity to Comment” and section 204, “Availability of Documents”, effective August 1, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission made by the State of Arizona to address Moderate area nonattainment plan requirements for purposes of the 1987 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0013 at
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3848 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) made a SIP submission to address emissions of PM from certain emission sources located in the West Pinal County PM
On
We approved an earlier version of ARS section 49-457 into the SIP on June 29, 1999 (64 FR 34726). There are no previous versions of AAC R18-2-611 “Definitions for R18-2-611.01” or AAC R18-2-611.03 “Agricultural PM General Permit for Animal Operations; Pinal County PM Nonattainment Area” in the SIP.
We note that on October 11, 2001, we approved AAC R18-2-611, “Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa PM
Emissions of PM, including PM
First, this submission would revise the existing SIP-approved version of ARS section 49-457 by, among other things, expanding the definition of “regulated agricultural activities” to include activities of dairies, beef feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine facilities. It would also expand the definition of “regulated area” to apply to any PM
Second, this submission would add new regulations to the Arizona SIP, applicable to the West Pinal County PM
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about the statute and rules.
SIP rules must meet applicable substantive requirements,
States must adopt and implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), in Moderate PM
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate control rules submitted for PM
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
5. “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
6. “PM-10 Guideline Document,” EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
7. “Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,” EPA 450/2-92-004, September 1992.
The revised statute and rules largely meet the evaluation criteria, with the exception of the specific deficiencies identified in section II.C below.
With respect to enforceability, AAC R18-2-611.03 states clear requirements, specifying that animal operators “shall implement” or “shall apply and maintain” BMPs.
Paragraphs I, J, and K of ARS section 49-457 provide a mechanism for the ADEQ director to revoke the agricultural general permit for an operator. These paragraphs set out a three-step process that the director may take if the director determines that a person who is engaged in a regulated activity is not in compliance with the agricultural PM general permit. First, for persons not previously subject to a compliance order, the director may issue an order requiring compliance with the general permit and specifying a period of not less than 60 days for the operator to submit a plan to the appropriate natural resource conservation district identifying the BMPs the operator will use to comply with the general permit. If noncompliance is repeated or continues, the director may issue a second order, requiring the submission of a plan to the ADEQ, within a specified period of time of not less than 60 days, specifying the BMPs the operator will use to comply with the general permit. Third, if the operator is still not complying with the terms of the agricultural general permit, the director may revoke the general permit with respect to that operator, and require that the operator obtain an individual permit, pursuant to ARS section 49-426.
Because the provisions in paragraphs I, J, and K refer to the “director,” the EPA understands that these provisions relate only to authorities of the ADEQ director. Provided that the statute and rules do not preclude enforcement of a violation of the terms of an agricultural general permit outside of the provisions in these paragraphs, states may elect to provide a specific means and process by which the director may revoke the agricultural general permit with respect to a particular operator.
Based on our review of the submission and the State's general enforcement authority, the EPA concludes that the procedure laid out in paragraphs I, J, and K does not inappropriately constrain the State's own authority to enforce a violation of an agricultural general permit. The EPA
Accordingly, the EPA concludes that the submitted rules and statutory amendments contain clear and enforceable requirements, and that the State possesses adequate authority to enforce the requirements for the agricultural general permit as set out in the submitted rules. If approved into the SIP, the submitted rules will be enforceable by the EPA, and by citizens through section 304 of the Act. Moreover, the procedures laid out in paragraphs I, J, and K do not affect the ability of the EPA and the public to enforce violations of ARS section 49-457 and the submitted rules. The EPA interprets those provisions to be specifications on ADEQ's exercise of its own enforcement discretion, setting out a procedure for revoking a permit, separate from the State's general enforcement authority. Neither EPA nor citizen suit plaintiffs are required to follow the same three-step process if they seek to enforce in the event of alleged violations.
With respect to the criterion of stringency, because the rules and revised statute were submitted as part of a PM
With respect to the evaluation criterion regarding SIP revisions, section 110(l) of the CAA provides that “[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].” Approving the submitted statute and rules into the SIP would expand the applicability of ARS section 49-457 to additional parts of the State, including the West Pinal County PM
The submitted provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the statutory revision and rules. We propose a limited disapproval of the statutory revision and rules based on the following deficiencies:
1. Subsection O of revised ARS section 49-457 may relax the SIP by preempting, as a matter of state law, more stringent existing SIP-approved rules. Although such preemption could not remove the preempted rules from the SIP without an EPA action under section 110(k) of the Act, the preemption of these rules as a matter of state law would render state authority for the preempted rules insufficient under section 110(a)(2).
2. Section H of revised ARS section 49-457 exempts a person who is subject to an agricultural general permit from the permitting requirement in ARS section 49-426. The scope of the exemption in subsection H for Maricopa County is bounded by a rule that is not in the SIP (nor has it been submitted to the EPA for SIP approval). Specifically, AAC R18-2-611.01, the animal operations AgBMP rule for Maricopa County, is not in the SIP, and the exemption in subsection H is based on a source being subject to the permit that is established under this rule. This would allow changes to the scope of the exemption, and thus changes to the SIP, without the process required by section 110 of the Act.
3. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 is not limited to minor sources and could exempt a major stationary source from CAA New Source Review (NSR) and title V permitting requirements.
4. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 is overbroad because although it is triggered by the ability to emit PM
5. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 may exempt non-fugitive emissions from review under the ADEQ minor NSR program, without a showing that such exemption would be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
6. Paragraph K of AAC R18-2-611.03 provides that a person may develop different PM-reducing management practices than those contained in the rule, and may “submit such practices that are proven effective through on-operation demonstration trials to the [AgBMP] Committee.” The paragraph states that “new best management practices shall not become effective unless submitted as described in A.R.S. § 49-457(L).” Subpart L of A.R.S. section 49-457 states that any approved modifications to the BMPs shall be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the
The deficiencies with the statute and rules are described in greater detail in the TSDs.
The TSDs describe additional revisions that we recommend if the State elects to modify the statute and rules to make them appropriate for full approval as part of the Arizona SIP.
Despite the deficiencies identified above, the EPA believes that the Arizona SIP would be strengthened by the addition of the statutory revision and rules. A limited approval of the provisions would place new control requirements on a category of sources that have a substantial emission impact in the West Pinal PM
The proposed limited approval and limited disapproval would put the entirety of the submitted statutory revision and rules in the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. It would simultaneously disapprove the deficiencies enumerated in section II.C. and would start sanction and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks for these deficiencies, as detailed below.
If we finalize a limited disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would require the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than two years after the disapproval unless the State submits, and we approve, a subsequent SIP submission that corrects the deficiencies identified in the final action.
In addition, a final limited disapproval would trigger the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the deficiencies identified in our final action before the applicable deadline.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the rules and statute described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from graphic arts printing operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0674 at
Nicole Law or Shaye Hong, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone at (415) 947-4126 or (415) 947-4104, or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was revised by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On August 23, 2018, the EPA determined that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.29 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.29 into the SIP on August 21, 1998 (63 FR 44792). The YSAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on August 13, 1997, and May 14, 2008, but those revisions were never submitted to the EPA. We have evaluated and compared the most recent submittal to the existing SIP approved version of Rule 2.29. If we take final action to approve the August 23, 2018 version of Rule 2.29, this version will
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 2.29 establishes VOC content limits and workplace standards to reduce emissions related to graphic arts operations. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as “Severe” for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and “Moderate” for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, this rule must implement RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing,” EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006.
5. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing.” EPA 453/R-06-002, September 2006.
6. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography,” EPA-450/2-78-033, December 1, 1978.
This rule meets CAA requirements and is consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until March 29, 2021. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the YSAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone concerning the control of oxides of nitrogen (NO
Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0324 at
Fausto Taveras, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3378, or by email at
The
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York SIP submitted by the State of New York on May 18, 2020. The SIP revision includes a newly-adopted regulation, Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Subpart 227-3, “Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
The EPA is also proposing to approve into the SIP the new version of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance Program” (New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation). New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation contained a NO
In March 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame (2008 8-hour ozone standard). In October 2015, the EPA revised this standard to 0.070 ppm averaged over an 8-hour time frame (2015 8-hour ozone standard).
On May 21, 2012, the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and, on July 20, 2012, the designations became effective.
On April 19, 2000, the EPA approved New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation into New York's SIP for ozone.
New York's 6 NYCRR Subpart 204, NO
In October 2005, the EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and interfered with maintenance of the 1997 ozone (as well as 1997 PM
CAIR was followed by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
On August 8, 2019, the EPA approved a New York “abbreviated” SIP revision, which established New York's CSAPR state trading program for ozone season NO
On May 18, 2020, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) submitted to the EPA a formal revision to its SIP. The proposed SIP revision consists of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
The rule requires, in pertinent part, all impacted SCCTs owners or operators to submit, by March 2, 2020, a compliance plan that, for each affected source, must contain identifying numbers (such as facility number, source number, and name) and a schedule that outlines how the owner or operator will comply with the rule's requirements. The compliance plan must also include a list of the emission sources in which the owner or operator will install controls, what those controls will be, and which sources will be replaced or repowered. NYSDEC has informed the EPA that the required compliance plans were received from the impacted SCCTs owners or operators.
As of May 1, 2023, the first phase of the NO
Under Section 227-3.5, New York's rule provides two additional compliance options to offer flexibility for owners and operators to meet the emission limits. The first option would allow owners and operators of affected SCCTs to elect an “ozone season stop”, by which the operating permit would include an enforceable condition that the affected source may not operate during the ozone season. The second option, the utilization of “electric and renewable energy resources”, would allow owners and operators to employ alternative resources while adhering to a facility-level average NO
In the May 18, 2020 SIP revision submittal, New York also requested that the EPA remove from the SIP its previous version of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance Program”, which New York repealed from the New York Code of Rules and Regulations on September 5, 2014.
For the following reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve New York's SIP revisions.
The EPA agrees with New York's evaluation that the newly-adopted regulation will lead to an estimated reduction of 18 tons of NO
EPA has also reviewed New Jersey and Connecticut's NO
As to the two additional compliance options mentioned in Section III, EPA proposes to approve (a) the “ozone season stop” compliance option because it would reduce the amount of peakers with low-level NO
The EPA has reviewed New York's SIP submittal, which seeks to incorporate 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
The EPA agrees with New York's evaluation that the previous version of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance Program”, should be removed from the New York SIP. The EPA has determined that, as discussed in section II, both New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation and Subpart 204 have been superseded by
The removal of New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation from New York's SIP will have no consequences for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in any area, now or in the future. Consistent with CAA section 110(l), the EPA has determined that the removal of New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to approve the removal of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, “Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance Program”, from the New York SIP.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before the EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as discussed in the
In this document, the EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference NYSDEC rule discussed in section III of this preamble in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through the docket for this action, EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0324, at
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, addressing New York's adopted regulation that reduces NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Intergovernmental Relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), new and updated administrative rules for the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. The new and amended administrative rules in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) would replace the currently effective procedural rules in the NSR SIP in their entirety. As part of this action, EPA is also proposing to approve the removal of obsolete language related to Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0126 at
Mari González, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6175,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366), EPA approved Ohio's procedural rules in OAC 3745-47 into the NSR SIP. These rules included processes for public notice procedures for permits in attainment and nonattainment areas.
On April 2, 2012, Ohio EPA adopted the new and amended rules of OAC 3745-47 and OAC 3745-49, which updated administrative and adjudication procedures and moved public notice procedures from OAC 3745-47 to OAC 3745-49.
On July 27, 2019, Ohio EPA adopted amendments to OAC 3745-49 to allow for modern electronic methods to be used for public noticing of SIP related projects and not limiting the process to publication of public notices in a newspaper.
On February 28, 2020, Ohio EPA submitted new and amended rules to EPA for approval which would replace OAC chapter 3745-47. The new and amended rules are located in OAC chapters 3745-49-01 “Administrative Procedures”, 3745-49-02 “Administrative procedures—definitions”, 3745-49-05 “Draft actions and proposed actions”, 3745-49-06 “Issuance of final actions”, 3745-49-07 “Public notice”, and 3745-49-08 “Contents of public notices”.
On June 19, 2020, Ohio EPA submitted a request to remove obsolete language in 40 CFR 52.1884. As explained below, EPA is proposing to approve the deletion of this section from the SIP because Ohio has a SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, and EPA concurs that the provision is obsolete.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ohio SIP submitted on February 28, 2020. This submittal includes revisions which replace the entire existing SIP-approved procedural rules in OAC 3745-47 with the administrative rules from OAC 3745-49-01, 3745-49-02, 3745-49-05, 3745-49-06, 3745-49-07, and 3745-49-08.
The rules in OAC 3745-49-01, which EPA is proposing to approve, pertain to administrative procedures and are composed of reorganized portions of previously SIP-approved rules from OAC 3745-47-01, 3745-47-02, and 3734-03. These rules detail the applicability and construction of administrative procedures rules. EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal provisions for administrative procedures for SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.163.
The rules in OAC 3745-49-02 contain administrative procedures definitions. This chapter of the rules contains reorganized definitions from previously approved chapter 3745-47-03, as well as new definitions. New definitions include: (C)(1) “claimant” which is added to define a person who claims information submitted to an agency is confidential because it constitutes a trade secret; (C)(2) “complainant” which defines a person who has filed a verified complaint; (P)(2) “personal knowledge” which is added to define knowledge gained through first hand observation or experience; (P)(4) “proposed public copy” which defines a version of information submitted to the agency which omits trade secret information; (P)(5) “public copy” which defines a version of information maintained by the agency which omits trade secret information; (P)(7) “public record” which is added to clarify that it has the same meaning as in section 149.43 of Ohio's Revised Code; (T) “trade secret” which is added to define information, not including discharge or emissions data, that is reasonable to maintain its secrecy and derives independent economic value from not being generally known; and (U) “unredacted copy” which defines a complete official version of information submitted to an agency from which trade secret information has not been withheld. The definition for (V) “verified complaint” which was previously approved into the SIP was revised and defined as a complaint which meets the requirements of ORC 3745.08 and OAC 3745-49-12. The remaining definitions in this section contain minor word changes and are reformatted versions of previously approved definitions from OAC 3745-47. The definitions in OAC 3745-49-02 are not defined within the Federal rules, and their approval into the SIP would not cause inconsistencies with the application of Federal regulations. EPA finds that the revised language and new definitions are consistent with Federal requirements for administrative procedures for SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.163.
The rules in OAC 3745-49-05, which EPA is proposing to approve, contain language on draft actions and proposed actions. This chapter contains language which has been reformatted and expanded from previously approved rules in OAC 3745-47-05 and 3745-47-07. EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements.
The rules in OAC 3745-49-06 contain language on the issuance of final actions. This chapter contains language which has been reformatted from previously approved rules in OAC 3745-47-05 and 3745-47-07. EPA finds that non-substantive changes have been made to the previously approved rule language, and the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements.
The rules in OAC 3745-49-07 contain updates to public notice requirements for SIP-related projects. This chapter contains reorganized and amended rules from previously approved chapter 3745-47-07 as well as new changes. The changes update noticing procedures
The rules in OAC 3745-49-08 contain requirements for contents of public notices. This chapter contains reorganized rules from previously approved chapters 3745-47-08 and 3745-47-05, amended rules, as well as new requirements. New requirements were added in subparts (A)(3) and (D)(3) to require that public notices of actions and public meetings, respectively, include instructions for those desiring to obtain additional information, a copy of any factsheet prepared, or a copy of the action. Similarly, new requirements were also added to subparts (A)(4) and (D)(4) to require public notices of actions and public meetings to include instructions for those desiring to be included in the mailing list. Language in subpart (B)(3)(c) was added to clarify that a draft action or proposed action shall not become final if an adjudication hearing is timely requested. New requirements for public notices of public meetings in subpart (D)(8) include requirements for providing a statement of issues to be addressed at a public meeting if activities or operations that are the subject of the action are not included in the public notice. The new language in subpart (D)(9) was added to require a statement that the purpose of the public meeting was to obtain additional information which the director will consider prior to taking further action on the matter under consideration. Part (E) was added to OAC 3745-49-08 to include requirements for public notices of verified complaints. Language in part (F) was reorganized from previously approved language in OAC 3745-47-08 and subpart (F)(5) was added to clarify that all other public notices shall also include a statement specifying that written comments regarding the subject of the public notice may be submitted within thirty days or any longer period as specified by the Ohio EPA. Additional new language in this chapter includes subpart (G) which addresses cases where duplicate information is required in multiple notices, subpart (H) which specifies the requirements for notices of any action to modify an action of the director, and subpart (I) which specifies that all notices required by OAC 3745-49-07 may be in summary form. The remaining language in OAC 3745-49-08 includes reorganized rules from previously approved chapters. EPA finds that the minor revisions and new rules in this chapter are consistent with Federal provisions and requirements concerning public availability of information found in 40 CFR 51.161.
EPA has determined that the rules in OAC 3745-49 are consistent with EPA's PSD regulations and that approval of these amendments, revisions, and new rules is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve these rules into the Ohio SIP.
EPA is also proposing to approve the removal of 40 CFR 52.1884 from the CFR. 40 CFR 52.1884 incorporates the provisions of the Federal PSD program into Ohio's state plan and only applies when the requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the CAA are not met. Since Ohio's PSD program was approved into the SIP on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2909), this language is no longer applicable. The language contained in 40 CFR 52.1884 became obsolete when EPA delegated authority to Ohio EPA to implement the Federal PSD program.
EPA has determined that removal of this obsolete language would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress and that approval of this revision is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not adversely impact air quality. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve deletion of the obsolete language from the Ohio SIP.
In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following rules in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-49: Rules 3745-49-01, 3745-49-02, 3745-49-06, and 3745-49-08, effective April 2, 2012 and Rule 3745-49-07, effective July 27, 2019, discussed in Section II of this action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the request by the State of Utah to redesignate the Logan, Utah-Idaho (UT-ID) nonattainment area (NAA) (“Logan NAA”) to attainment status for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0021, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA has promulgated NAAQS for certain pollutants, including PM
For all areas, regardless of designation, section 110 of the Act requires that each state adopt and submit for EPA approval a plan to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This plan is commonly referred to as a SIP. Section 110 contains requirements that a SIP must meet to gain EPA approval.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM
The Logan NAA is composed of portions of Cache County, UT and Franklin County, ID. The Cache Valley is an isolated, bowl-shaped valley measuring approximately 60 kilometers north to south and 20 kilometers east to west, almost entirely surrounded by mountain ranges. The Wellsville Mountains lie to the west, and on the east lie the Bear River Mountains; both are northern branches of the Wasatch Range. The State of Utah views topography as a barrier to air movement during the conditions that lead to elevated concentrations of fine particulates, and as the primary factor in determining where the population is located. The low-lying valleys that trap air during wintertime temperature inversions are also the regions where most people live. Additional information pertaining to the unique issues associated with the Logan NAA and studies completed on inversions can be found in the 9-factor analysis for Utah and Idaho in the November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688) action, “Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM
The EPA issued a rule in 2007
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM
Under subparts 1 and 4, the State was required to include the following elements in its Moderate attainment plan:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technologies (RACT), for the control of direct PM
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the Moderate area attainment date. CAA section 188(c)(1).
4. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP). CAA section 172(c)(2).
5. Quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment, and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date. The State is required to submit, not later than 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, a demonstration that all measures in the approved SIP have been implemented and the milestone has been met. CAA section 189(c); 40 CFR 51.1013(b). These submissions are referred to as “quantitative milestone reports.”
6. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. CAA section 172(c)(9).
8. A revision to the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program to set the applicable “major stationary source” thresholds to 100 tons per year (tpy). CAA section 302(j). Moderate area 2006 24-hour PM
On August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010), the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements rule (“PM
On September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42447), the EPA granted two one-year extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour PM
On October 19, 2018 (83 FR 52983), the EPA finalized a determination that the Logan PM
The suspension of planning requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1015 does not preclude the State from submitting suspended elements of its Moderate area attainment plan, nor does it preclude the EPA from approving suspended elements, for the purpose of strengthening the SIP. Accordingly, the EPA approved portions of the Logan NAA SIP on October 24, 2018 and November 23, 2018. On October 24, 2018, the EPA determined that the 2017 quantitative milestone report for the Logan PM
Finally, on November 23, 2018, the EPA approved portions of the Logan PM
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35832), the EPA approved revisions to R307-403, Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas. This rule covers the CAA's NNSR requirements for PM
For a NAA to be redesignated to attainment, the following conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met:
1. We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
2. The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
4. We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and
5. The state containing the area must meet all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
In the Calcagni Memorandum the Agency explains how it assesses the adequacy of redesignation requests against the conditions listed above.
On January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to the SIP for R307-110-10, a maintenance plan for the Logan area (Utah SIP Section IX.A.28), and a request that the EPA redesignate this area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
When the Utah SIP is amended by the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB), the amended sections must be incorporated into the Utah Air Quality Rules. Utah incorporates SIP sections into the State's rule R307-110. These rules are amended as needed to change the effective dates to match the UAQB approval date of various amendments to the Utah SIP. In this action we are proposing to approve submitted revisions to: (1) R307-110-10, which IBRs Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part A, Fine Particulate Matter, and thus incorporates the Logan 2006 24-hour PM
Section R307-110-10 incorporates amendments to Utah SIP Section IX.A into State regulations, thereby making them effective as a matter of State law. This is a ministerial provision, which only revises the effective date within the rule to December 4, 2019 and does not itself include any SIP measures.
Section R307-110-31 incorporates the amendments to Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability, into State rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of State law. This is a ministerial provision, which only revises the effective date within the rule to September 4, 2019 and does not itself include any control measures.
Section R307-110-36 incorporates the amendments to Utah SIP Section X,
The revisions to “Part A, General Requirements and Applicability” include additions to section “1. General Requirements” that address the following revisions to Utah Code Annotated (UCA) Section 41-6a-1642:
a. An amendment in 2013 to include the date that notice is required and the date the enactment, change, or repeal will take effect if a county legislative body enacts, changes, or repeals the local emissions compliance fee. Section 41-6a-1642 provides that for a county that is required to implement a new vehicle emissions I/M program, but for which no current federally approved SIP exists, a vehicle shall be tested at a frequency determined by the county legislative body, in consultation with the UAQB, that is necessary to comply with federal law or attain or maintain any NAAQS. The section also establishes procedures and notice requirements for a county legislative body to establish or change the frequency of a vehicle emissions I/M program.
b. An amendment in 2017 to UCA Section 41-6a-1642 to allow a county that imposes a local emissions compliance fee to use revenue generated from the fee to promote programs to maintain a NAAQS. Section 41-6a-1642 was also amended to state that vehicles may not be denied registration based solely on the presence of a defeat device covered in the Volkswagen partial consent decrees or an EPA-approved vehicle emission modification.
c. An amendment in 2019 regarding “Notification of Programmatic Changes.” This requires that county legislative bodies consult with the Director of the UDAQ before their public comment process for any amendments to their I/M regulations or ordinances. Consultation is to include a written notice describing the proposed changes to the I/M program.
The revisions to Part A (General Requirements and Applicability) also included changes to section 3 (General Summary) that addressed minor wording clarifications to the subsections entitled “
We have evaluated the Governor's November 5, 2019 submittal of the above revisions to the Utah SIP Section X Part A and are proposing approval.
Section X, Part F of the Utah SIP addresses requirements for the implementation of the motor vehicle I/M program in Cache County. Section X, Part F of the SIP contains three main components for the Cache County I/M program: (1) Language addressing applicability, a general description of the program, and the time frame for its implementation; (2) the Cache County Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program Ordinance 2018-15; and (3) the Bear River Health Department's (BRHD) Regulation 2013-04. We note that the Cache County Ordinance 2018-15 contains language that delegates the implementation of the Cache County I/M program to the BRHD.
a. Under the heading “1. Applicability,” the revisions to the Cache I/M program note that the Cache I/M program was approved by the EPA on October 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237), and that the I/M program has been fully implemented.
b. Under the heading “2. Description of Cache I/M programs,” the revisions to the Cache I/M program include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
c. Under the heading “3. I/M SIP Implementation,” the revisions to the Cache I/M program involve the new language described below. This section notes that the I/M program ordinance, regulations, policies, procedures, and activities specified in the I/M SIP revision shall be implemented by January 1, 2021.
(1) The revisions to Cache County's Ordinance 2013-04 (Implementation of a Vehicle Emissions and Maintenance Program in Cache County) involved:
(a) Revisions to the table of contents that reflect the removal of the TSI test in 2021, and renumbering of subsequent subsections.
(b) Revisions to section 1.0 (Definitions) to remove several definitions and to modify and add several definitions.
(c) Revisions to section 2.0 (Purpose) to clarify that the ordinance complies with applicable federal requirements and with Cache County Code Chapter 10.20.
(d) Revisions to section 3.0 (Authority and Jurisdiction of the Department) to revise subsections to indicate the authority is as per Cache County Code Chapter 10.20 and its subdivisions.
(e) Revisions to section 4.0 (Powers and Duties) to remove unneeded references to Technical Bulletins and to include “Certified Testing “Equipment” in place of “testing equipment.”
(f) Revisions to section 5.0 (Scope) to remove the unneeded reference to Technical Bulletins.
(g) Revisions to section 6.0 (General Provisions) updating the applicability to vehicles registered in Cache County or principally operated there; adding references to Cache County Code Chapter 10.20 and its applicable subdivisions; updating the reference to UAC Section 41-6a-1642(10); revising the list of vehicles that are exempted from I/M testing; clarifying the required I/M testing station signs; and inserting a new “Compliance Assurance List” section 6.8 with its requirements.
(h) Revisions to section 7.0 (Permit Requirements of the Vehicle Emissions I/M Program Station) removed unneeded language relevant to TSI testing and adding language that a wireless internet connection may be required.
(i) Revisions to section 8.0 (Training and Certification of Inspectors) added “Certified Testing Equipment” where “test equipment” previously appeared. The revisions also removed unneeded language relevant to TSI testing and the unneeded requirement for a “hands on” test. The revisions added language in new section 8.4.3 that an emission inspection certificate would not be issued to an inspector applying in Cache County who has a revoked or suspended certificate in another county.
(j) Revisions to section 9.0 (Inspection Procedure) remove most of the inspection procedures from this section and place them instead in the revised Appendix D “Test Procedures.” In addition, language relating to the TSI test was removed and clarifying language referencing a “Certified Emissions Inspector” and “Certified Testing Equipment” has been added. Other revisions were made regarding “Waivers,” emissions related repairs, and language in the new section 9.6 regarding the exploration of new emission inspection technologies that would be vetted with, and approved by, Cache County, the State, and the EPA.
(k) Revisions to section 10.0 (Engine Switching) involve clarification of the term “EPA policy” by including the reference to specific EPA policies (
(l) Revisions to section 1.0 (Specifications for Certified Testing Equipment) remove previously applicable requirements for calibration gases, gas calibration with leak checks, and warranty and maintenance requirements, as these provisions were only applicable to the TSI test.
(m) Revisions to section 12.0 (Quality Assurance) update references to “Certified Testing Equipment.”
(n) Revisions to prior section 13.0 (Cutpoint Standards for Motor Vehicle Exhaust Gases) remove this section in its entirety, as it was only applicable to the TSI test.
(o) Revisions to renumbered section 13.0 (Disciplinary Penalties and Right to Appeal) renumber subsections and replace the term “audit” with “inspection.”
(p) Revisions to renumbered section 14.0 (Penalty) involved the renumbering of the prior subsections to a new subsection 14.6 that states the Department shall request that the Utah Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoke the registration of any vehicle that is unable to meet the required emissions standards or has not complied with the required emissions testing requirements of UAC Section 41-1a-110(6).
(q) Revisions to renumbered section 15.0 (Severability) only involve the renumbering of the section.
(r) Revisions to renumbered section 16.0 (Effective Date) involve the renumbering of the section and change from the prior effective date of May 27, 2015 to January 1, 2021.
(s) Revisions to Appendix A only remove the reference to the fee for a TSI test.
(t) Revisions to Appendix B remove Appendix B in its entirety as it related to motor vehicle emissions cut-points applicable to the TSI test. As the TSI test was removed from the ordinance, this prior Appendix B is no longer relevant and was removed. The Appendix is now titled “Reserved.”
(u) Revisions to Appendix D (Test Procedures) involve the relocation of most of the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) testing procedures to Appendix D that were previously located in section 9.0 (Inspection Procedure). Additional language, regarding the OBD test procedures, was included that clarifies, updates, and supplements the prior OBD test procedures language in the prior Appendix D. Terms were updated to refer to “Certified Emissions Equipment” and “Certified Emissions Inspector.” Provisions were added for a “Compliance Assurance Inspection” for a vehicle and a “Referee Inspection” at the County's I/M Technical Center for vehicles having difficulty with the OBD test, and also for when a vehicle owner believes the emission test done at an inspection station was not done correctly. The prior Appendix D test procedures for the TSI test were removed.
(v) Revisions to Appendix E (Certified Testing Equipment Standards) involved the removal of “Technical Specifications and Calibration Gas” from the Appendix title. All provisions and requirements for the TSI test were removed. Only the necessary provisions and requirements for the OBD test were retained and updated.
(w) Revisions to Appendix F (Waivers for Not Ready Vehicles) include clarifications to the provisions for the second and third tests, additional language regarding statements about the vehicle from the vehicle manufacturer's dealership repair station, and a new item number 6 addressing cost requirements for a waiver.
(x) Revision to Appendix G (Engine Switching) removing Appendix G in its entirety. The revised, allowable engine switching provisions were incorporated into section 10.0 above (Engine Switching).
We have evaluated the Governor's November 5, 2019 submittal of the above revisions to Utah SIP Section X Part F and are proposing approval.
(2) The revisions to Cache County's Ordinance 2013-04 (Implementation of a Vehicle Emissions and Maintenance Program in Cache County) for the removal of the TSI test in 2021.
In December 2018, the BRHD proposed to the Cache County Council to amend the Cache County vehicle emissions and maintenance program. The BRHD proposal was to discontinue the TSI test for vehicles 1995 and older due to a diminishing fleet of older light duty gasoline vehicles participating in the program, combined with increasing cost of maintaining the TSI testing equipment. The emission reductions benefit from these older vehicles was minimal compared to the resources required to operate the TSI test, and removal of the TSI test would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2006 PM
The Cache County Council passed the proposal to discontinue the TSI program with an effective date of January 1, 2021. This effective date is reflected as part of the revisions to Ordinance 2013-04 discussed above. The TSI testing program covers light duty gasoline vehicles that are older than model year 1995 and was a component of the I/M control strategy used in the EPA-approved Logan PM
The UDAQ, EPA Region 8, and the BRHD coordinated regarding this Cache County I/M program relaxation to ensure that the proposed I/M program changes do not interfere with state and federal air quality regulations, as required under provisions of section 110(l) of the CAA. CAA section 110(l) allows revisions to a SIP to be approved so long as they do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of this chapter of the CAA. To evaluate the removal of the TSI test, the State prepared a CAA section 110(l) demonstration, as provided in Appendix A of the maintenance plan, and submitted that demonstration with the Governor's November 5, 2019 submittal.
On January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah submitted the Logan PM
The State concluded that the removal of the TSI test will not interfere with the ability of the Logan area to continue to attain the 2006 24-hour PM
In addition, the demonstration considered PM
EPA agrees with the State's CAA 110(l) demonstration regarding the removal of the I/M TSI for Cache County in 2021, in particular the conclusion that the removal will not have an adverse impact on the overall on-road mobile source inventory within the Logan PM
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the removal of the TSI test component of the BRHD's Ordinance 2013-04 I/M program in 2021 for vehicles 1995 and older.
For a NAA to be redesignated to attainment, the following conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met:
1. We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
2. The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
4. We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
5. The State containing the area must meet all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the “General Preamble,”
On January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to the SIP for R307-110-10, a maintenance plan for the Logan area, and a request that the EPA redesignate the area to attainment for PM
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). On October 19, 2018, the EPA finalized a determination that the Logan NAA had attained the 2006 24-hour PM
Whether an area has attained
Between 2016 and 2019, Utah and Idaho operated at least one PM
As part of the redesignation request for the Logan NAA, UDAQ submitted quality-assured, complete and valid ambient air quality data from the Smithfield monitoring site which demonstrates that the area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
As Table 2 indicates, the Logan
A separate EPA redesignation rulemaking will be conducted for the Idaho portion of the Logan NAA.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k).
On February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368), and February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989) the EPA approved revisions to several area source rules and approved new rules for PM
On September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237), the EPA finalized approval of SIP revisions to Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability; Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County; and Utah Rule R307-110-1, R307-110-31, and R307-110-36, which IBR the Utah SIP into the Utah Rules, IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability, and IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County, respectively. Additionally, the EPA is acting on revisions to R307-110-31, R307-110-36, Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability, and on Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County in this action. Our evaluation of these revisions is found in Section II.A.2, 3, 4, and 5 above.
Additionally, we completed a clean data determination (CDD) for the Logan PM
On November 23, 2018 (83 FR 59315), the EPA approved portions of the Logan PM
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), the EPA approved revisions to UAC R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas) into the SIP.
We have evaluated the actions above and have determined that through these actions, the State of Utah has a fully approved Logan PM
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, implementation of applicable federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
Utah has implemented multiple area source rules in the Logan NAA. On February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368), and February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989) the EPA approved revisions to several area source rules and approved new rules for PM
On September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237), the EPA finalized approval of SIP revisions to Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability; Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County; and to Utah Rule R307-110-1, R307-110-31, and R307-110-36, which IBR the Utah SIP into the Utah Rules, IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability, and IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County, respectively. Additionally, the EPA is acting on revisions to R307-110-31; R307-110-36; Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability; and on Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County. Our evaluation of these revisions is found in Section II.A.2, 3, 4, and 5 above.
Additionally, within section IX.A.28.b.3. of the Logan PM
We have evaluated the various state and federal control measures, historical emissions inventories, and the emission trends of the PM
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act requires that for a NAA to be redesignated to attainment, we must fully approve a maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after our approval of the redesignation. Eight years after our approval of a redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. The maintenance plan must also contain a contingency plan to ensure prompt correction of any violation of
PM
For each of these source categories, the pollutants inventoried were PM
Based on our review, we have determined that Utah prepared an adequate attainment inventory for the Logan PM
The Calcagni Memorandum states that where modeling was relied on to demonstrate maintenance, the plan must contain a summary of the air quality concentrations expected to result from the application of the control strategies. Also, the plan should identify and describe the dispersion model or other air quality model used to project ambient concentrations. The maintenance demonstration for the Logan area used a regional photochemical model.
Before the development of the Logan PM
The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) version 6.30 for air quality modeling was used for the Logan maintenance plan, with enhancements including snow chemistry and topographical and surface albedo refinements. The emissions processing model that UDAQ used in conjunction with CAMx was the
Part of the modeling exercise that UDAQ completed for the Logan maintenance plan was to test whether the model could successfully replicate the PM
UDAQ compared the 24-hour modeled and observed PM
Overall, UDAQ concluded that the model performance of replicating the buildup and clear out of PM
With acceptable model performance, the model can be utilized to make future-year attainment projections. For each future year, an attainment projection is made by calculating a concentration termed the Future Design Value (FDV). This calculation is made for each monitor included in the analysis, then compared to the NAAQS (35 µg/m
In making future-year projections, the output from the CAMx model is not considered the final answer; rather, the model is used in a relative sense. In doing this, a comparison is made using the predicted concentrations for both the year in question and a pre-selected base-year, which is 2017. This comparison results in a Relative Response Factor (RRF). An RRF greater than one indicates that according to the model, the predicted PM
According to the Calcagni
As part of the Moderate PM
With respect to the part of Franklin County, ID that is included in the Logan NAA, UDAQ provided general information on Idaho's Moderate PM
Based on the information described above and in our TSD, the EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately demonstrated that the Logan area will maintain the 2006 24-hour PM
Once a NAA has been redesignated to attainment, the state must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. Accordingly, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors. As described in the maintenance plan, Utah will continue to maintain and operate a PM
Utah's maintenance plan submittal for the Logan area must indicate how the State will track the progress of the maintenance plan. This is necessary because the emissions projections made for the maintenance demonstrations depend on assumptions of point and area source growth. In Section IX.A.28.c.(7), Utah commits to track and document measured mobile source parameters (
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan also include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. For the maintenance plan to be approved under section 175A, a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state. However, the contingency plan is an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered. The plan should discuss the measures to be adopted and a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation. The contingency plan must require that the state will implement all measures in the Part D nonattainment plan for the area before redesignation. The state should also identify the specific indicators, or triggers, that will be used to determine when the contingency plan will be implemented.
As stated in Section IX.A.28.c.(8) of the Logan maintenance plan, triggering the contingency plan does not automatically require a revision to the SIP, nor does it necessarily mean the area will be reclassified to nonattainment. Instead, Utah will normally have an appropriate timeframe to correct the potential violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency measures. If violations continue to occur, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected.
Upon monitoring a potential violation of the 2006 24-hour PM
The Logan maintenance plan list of contingency measures includes: (1) Reinstate TSI test portion of the Cache County I/M Program; (2) Measures to address emissions from residential wood combustion (
Based on the above, we propose to find that the contingency measures provided in the Logan PM
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, Utah is required to submit a revision to the maintenance plan eight years after the redesignation of the Logan area to attainment for PM
In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E) provides that it must have met all applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act. We interpret this to mean that, for a redesignation request to be approved, Utah must have met all requirements that applied to the subject area as of the time of submitting a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete redesignation request.
Section 110(a)(2) contains general requirements for attainment plans. For purposes of redesignation, the Utah SIP was reviewed to ensure that all applicable requirements under the amended Act were satisfied. On September 21, 2010, the State submitted an Infrastructure SIP to the EPA demonstrating compliance with the
Before a PM
The requirements of section 172(c) and 189(a) regarding attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM
We approved the requirements of the part D NNSR permit program for Utah on July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831). Once the Logan area is redesignated to attainment, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of the Act will apply. We must ensure that the State has made any needed modifications to its PSD regulations so that Utah's PSD regulations will apply in the Logan area after redesignation. Utah's PSD regulations, R307-405 Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD), which we approved as meeting all applicable federal requirements on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712) and January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4957), apply to any area designated unclassifiable or attainment, and thus will become fully effective in the Logan area upon redesignation of the areas to attainment.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. To effectuate its purpose, the EPA's conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from a Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval, are consistent with the MVEB(s) contained in a control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule.
The EPA notes that a PM
Utah's Logan PM
We note that 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) indicates that for maintenance plans that do not identify MVEBs for any other year than the last year of the
The EPA's transportation conformity rule allows for trading between the direct PM
As discussed in Section 4(a)(ii) (“Trading Ratios for Transportation Conformity”) of the maintenance plan, the State established a MVEB trading mechanism to allow for future increases in on-road mobile sources direct PM
The maintenance plan also notes that this trading mechanism will only be used by the Cache MPO for transportation conformity determination analyses for years after 2035. The maintenance plan further notes that to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability to meet the NO
The EPA has evaluated the Logan PM
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state under the Act must be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further review and action.
On June 5, 2019, the UAQB proposed amendments to Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Parts A and F, R307-110-31, and R307-110-36. The comment period was held from July 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019. No comments were received, and no public hearing was requested. On September 4, 2019, the UAQB adopted revisions to R307-110-31, R307-110-36, and to Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Parts A and F. These revisions became effective on September 5, 2019, and UDAQ submitted these revisions to the EPA on November 5, 2019.
On September 4, 2019, the UAQB proposed for public comment the Logan maintenance plan and redesignation request and revisions to R307-110-10. The public comment period was held from October 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019. UDAQ received comments from industry and citizens; and no public hearing was requested. UDAQ provided the comments and their responses within the submittal. The comments did not prompt UDAQ to substantively revise any documents. UDAQ made a few minor revisions to the plan once the data and modeling were verified. On December 4, 2019, the UAQB adopted R307-110-10 and the Logan maintenance plan/redesignation request, and they became effective on December 5, 2019. UDAQ submitted these revisions and the TSD to the EPA on January 13, 2020.
We are proposing to approve the Governor of Utah's submittal of January 13, 2020, which contains revisions to R307-110-10 and the Logan PM
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to R307-110-10; R307-110-31; R307-110-36; Utah SIP Section X.A.; Utah SIP Section X.F.; maintenance plan for the Utah portion of the Logan PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, and Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is proposing changes to the migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The proposed changes would update the regulations to incorporate revisions requested by these partners.
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will post all comments on
Eric J. Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 903-7210.
To ensure that any action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in
If you mail a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection via
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703
The take of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska occurs during the spring and summer, during which timeframe the sport harvest of migratory birds is not allowed. Regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 92. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds in Alaska may occur.
The migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations are developed cooperatively. The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (Council or AMBCC) consists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and representatives of Alaska's Native population. The Council's primary purpose is to develop recommendations pertaining to the subsistence harvest of migratory birds.
The Council generally holds an annual spring meeting to develop recommendations for migratory bird subsistence-harvest regulations in Alaska that would take effect in the spring of the next year. In 2020, the in-person spring meeting did not occur due to the coronavirus. Instead, the Council met virtually via teleconference on May 4, 2020, to approve subsistence harvest regulations that would take effect during the 2021 harvest season. The Council's recommendations were presented to the Pacific Flyway Council for review and subsequent submission to the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) for approval at the SRC meeting on October 20-21, 2020.
This proposed rule contains two changes to the subsistence harvest regulations recommended by the Council in 2020 for the subsistence harvest season, and three clarifications, as described below.
Per the collaborative process described above, this document proposes updates to the regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring and summer.
For the 2021 season, we are proposing one change to the regulations in part 92, subpart A (general provisions) and one change to part 92, subpart C (general regulations governing the subsistence harvest). In addition, we include three clarifications, as described below.
This proposed change to the regulations in part 92, subpart A (general provisions) would add another method (a permit) to invite a hunter from an excluded area to participate in the spring-summer subsistence hunt in the Upper Copper River region.
Current regulations in 50 CFR 92.5(d) allow immediate family members (children, parents, grandparents, and siblings) living in excluded areas to participate in the customary spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in a village's subsistence area, if invited via letter by the respective Village Council, to assist permanent residents of the village in meeting their nutritional and other essential needs or for teaching cultural knowledge. A letter of invitation is sent to the hunter with a copy provided to the Executive Director of the AMBCC, who will inform the Service's Alaska Regional Office of Law Enforcement within 2 business days. In addition to the letter of invitation, this proposal would add another method (a permit) to invite a hunter from an excluded area to participate in the spring-summer subsistence hunt in the Upper Copper River region. The permit would certify that the prospective hunter is an immediate family member as defined in 50 CFR 92.4 and is thereby authorized to assist family members in hunting migratory birds in the subsistence harvest area of the region.
To date, the AMBCC Executive Director has received two letters of invitation to hunt in the State of Alaska since the last revision of 50 CFR 92.5(d) in 2014 (79 FR 19454, April 8, 2014). The letter of invitation requirement is viewed by the Upper Copper River
This proposed change to the regulations in subpart A is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in harvest of birds and eggs in the Upper Copper River Region because invited hunters are authorized only to assist in fulfilling the needs of immediate family members in villages or teaching cultural knowledge.
This proposed change to the regulations in part 92, subpart C (general regulations governing the subsistence harvest general provisions) closes the harvest of emperor goose eggs statewide.
The abundance (index) of emperor geese
The harvest strategy in the Plan does not include guidance on making regulatory decisions in the absence of previous year's survey data; thus, the AMBCC's Emperor Goose Subcommittee convened on June 2, 2020, to consider available emperor goose population status information in the absence of the 2020 Coastal Zone index. They considered results from a number of approaches to infer emperor goose population status in 2020 including prediction from a demographic model (Osnas 2020). Results from the different approaches were in general agreement, and indicated that abundance of emperor geese in 2020 likely remains between the 23,000 and 28,000 population thresholds with low probability that abundance was below the closure threshold.
Because the predicted abundance of emperor geese remains between the population thresholds requiring consideration of conservation measures, the AMBCC Emperor Goose Subcommittee and AMBCC recommended the emperor goose season remain open in 2021. This recommendation includes outreach and educational efforts and closure of emperor goose egg gathering in Alaska to help limit harvest of emperor geese, considering the uncertainty in emperor goose population status in 2020 and the desire to reduce the probability of having a closed season in the future. This proposed regulatory change would affect the list of subsistence migratory bird species in § 92.22, which is in subpart C.
Current regulations in 50 CFR 92.5(b)(1) define the geographic boundaries of the Central Interior Excluded Area but mistakenly fail to include the Fairbanks North Star Borough. In 2007, the Service enacted the ADFG's request to expand the Fairbanks North Star Borough Excluded Area (72 FR 18317 April 11, 2007). This regulatory change appears in 50 CFR 92.5(b)(3). The expanded Fairbanks North Star Borough Excluded Area was renamed the Central Interior Excluded Area, but the description of the area defined in 50 CFR 92.5(b)(3) fails to specifically include the Fairbanks North Star Borough. The proposed clarification includes the words “Fairbanks North Star Borough” in the description of the Central Interior Excluded Area.
In 2020, the Service approved a 3-year experimental season for migratory bird hunting and egg gathering by registration permit only within the Kodiak Island Roaded Area in the Kodiak Archipelago Region of Alaska, as recommended by the AMBCC in 2019 (85 FR 73233, November 17, 2020). This regulatory change appears in 50 CFR 92.31. The Roaded Area was to remain closed to hunting and egg gathering for Arctic terns, Aleutian terns, mew gulls, and emperor geese. The regulation allows residents of the Kodiak Archipelago Region the opportunity to participate in subsistence hunting activities without the need for a boat in an area that otherwise restricts hunting to 500 feet offshore and offshore islands.
Initially, we and the AMBCC expected that the 3-year experimental season would begin in 2020 and continue through 2022. We associated those years with the 3-year experimental season in the supplementary information of the proposed and final rules in 2020, although years were not specified in the regulations allowing the season. Delay in publishing the proposed and final rules in 2020 prevented the 3-year experimental season from beginning in 2020 as initially expected. Therefore, we clarify here that our intent remains the same—to allow a 3-year experimental season for migratory bird hunting and egg gathering by registration permit along the Kodiak Island Roaded Area in the Kodiak Archipelago Region of Alaska—but that this season is now expected to occur during the 2021-2023 subsistence seasons. The experimental season will terminate at the completion of the third year, now expected to be in 2023. Reopening the Roaded Area after the 3-year experimental period will require a subsequent proposal from the AMBCC for continuation of the season under either operational or experimental status.
As described above, in 2020, the Service approved a 3-year experimental season for migratory bird hunting and egg gathering by registration permit within the Kodiak Island Roaded Area
On April 16, 2020, we published in the
Also, we are proposing to add the common snipe to the list of migratory birds open to subsistence harvest. On April 1, 2016, we published in the
The Service has dual objectives and responsibilities for authorizing a subsistence harvest while protecting migratory birds and threatened species. Although these objectives continue to be challenging, they are not irreconcilable, provided that: (1) Regulations continue to protect threatened species, (2) measures to address documented threats are implemented, and (3) the subsistence community and other conservation partners commit to working together.
Mortality, sickness, and poisoning from lead exposure have been documented in many waterfowl species, including threatened spectacled eiders (
We have monitored subsistence harvest for the past 25 years through the use of household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest areas, such as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Based on our monitoring of the migratory bird species and populations taken for subsistence, we find that this proposed rule will provide for the preservation and maintenance of migratory bird stocks as required by the MBTA. Communication and coordination between the Service, the AMBCC, and the Pacific Flyway Council have allowed us to set harvest regulations to ensure the long-term viability of the migratory bird stocks.
Spectacled eiders and the Alaska-breeding population of Steller's eiders are listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 7 of the ESA requires the Secretary of the Interior to review other programs administered by the Department of the Interior and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. The Secretary is further required to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Department of the Interior is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The Service's Alaska Region Migratory Bird Management Program conducted an intra-agency consultation with the Service's Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office on this proposed rule. A biological opinion will be updated based on new information to ensure these rulemaking actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Therefore, we expect this rulemaking will comply with the ESA.
Implementation of the Service's 2013 supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) on the hunting of migratory birds resulted in changes to the overall timing of the annual regulatory schedule for the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations and the Alaska migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations. The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the
The 2013 EIS moved the annual SRC meeting from July to October, and this procedural change has greatly shortened our period each year to publish the proposed regulations and solicit comments. We are further bounded by a subsistence harvest start date of April 2, 2021. Thus, we have established a 30-day comment period for this proposed rule (see
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It legalizes and regulates a traditional subsistence activity. It will not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns. The commodities that will be regulated under this rule are migratory birds. This proposed rule deals with legalizing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, does not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. A small economic benefit from this rule derives from the sale of equipment and ammunition to carry out subsistence hunting. Most, if not all, businesses that sell hunting equipment in rural Alaska qualify as small businesses. We have no reason to believe that this proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate distribution of benefits.
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This proposed rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, would not have an impact on prices for consumers.
(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It would not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate substantial effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.
We have determined and certified under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule is not specific to particular land ownership, but applies to the harvesting of migratory bird resources throughout Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. We discuss effects of this rulemaking on the State of Alaska in the
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that it would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 6, 2000), “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and Department of the Interior policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 1, 2011), we will send letters
We implemented the amended treaty with Canada with a focus on local involvement. The treaty calls for the creation of management bodies to ensure an effective and meaningful role for Alaska's indigenous inhabitants in the conservation of migratory birds. According to the Letter of Submittal, management bodies are to include Alaska Native, Federal, and State of Alaska representatives as equals. They develop recommendations for, among other things: Seasons and bag limits, methods and means of take, law enforcement policies, population and harvest monitoring, educational programs, research and use of traditional knowledge, and habitat protection. The management bodies involve village councils to the maximum extent possible in all aspects of management. To ensure maximum input at the village level, we required each of the 11 participating regions to create regional management bodies consisting of at least one representative from the participating villages. The regional management bodies meet twice annually to review and/or submit proposals to the statewide body.
This proposed rule contains existing, revised, and new information collections. All information collections require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The existing information collection requirements identified are currently approved by OMB under Control Number 1018-0124:
The harvest surveys collect information on the subsistence harvest in Alaska of ~60 species categories of birds and their eggs (geese, ducks, swans, crane, ptarmigan and grouse, seabirds, shorebirds, loons and grebes). Survey data includes species category and amounts of birds and eggs taken for subsistence use in each harvest season (spring, summer, fall, winter). The surveys rely on collaboration among the USFWS, the ADFG, and many Alaska Native organizations. Contracts and cooperative agreements are in place to facilitate the collection of data with Alaska Native organizations and other regional and local partners. Surveyors contact local residents. The ADFG Division of Subsistence coordinates the surveys on behalf of the AMBCC via a cooperative agreement with the USFWS.
The USFWS uses the survey data to:
(1) Inform harvest regulations for migratory birds and their eggs so they are consistent with the long-term sustainability of bird populations;
(2) Document subsistence harvest trends and track changes in harvest;
(3) Document the importance of birds as food and cultural resources for subsistence communities in Alaska;
(4) Protect sustainable harvest opportunities; and
(5) Assist in the development of management plans by State and Federal agencies.
Federal and State agencies use the data collected to develop harvest regulations and protect sustainable harvest opportunities. The USFWS adjusts harvest regulations as needed to provide maximum and sustainable subsistence harvest opportunities while accounting for current bird population status and population goals established in species' management plans. The AMBCC uses this information to make regulation recommendations to the Service Regulations Committee. Nongovernmental organizations use survey data to monitor the status of uses of migratory bird resources in Alaska and internationally. The survey also became a main line of communication between wildlife management agencies and the local communities and harvesters.
Participation in the surveys is voluntary for communities and households. In selected communities that agree to participate, surveyors compile a list of all permanent households or addresses, provide information about the survey, and assist households to complete the harvest report form (hardcopy) in in-person interviews. Households may offer comments on their harvest, on the availability of birds, on the survey, or any other topic related to bird harvest. The survey uses the following forms:
(1)
(2)
The revised and new information collection requirements identified below require approval by OMB in conjunction with the revision to OMB Control Number 1018-0124:
(1)
(1)
The Kodiak Roaded Area In-Season Harvest Report (FWS Form 3-2381-6) will be provided to permit holders at the time the permit is issued. Harvesters are required to record their harvest using this form during the season. At the end of the season (early Sept.), all permit holders are required to submit the completed Kodiak Roaded Area In-Season Harvest Report (FWS Form 3-2381-7) indicating whether they harvested birds and eggs, and if so, the kinds and amounts of birds and eggs harvested. Permit holders submit the completed form by mail to the ADFG for data analysis (the form includes the return address and is postage-paid). To ensure a more complete harvest reporting, the ADFG will mail a post-season harvest survey to permit holders who did not submit a completed in-season harvest log. The post-season mail survey includes two reminders. Reported harvests will be extrapolated to represent all permit holders based on statistical methods. Forms 3-2381-6 and 3-2381-7 are only completed twice per year (spring and summer seasons).
The additional information collection requirements associated with permits and invitation letters contained in this proposed rule identified below require approval by OMB and assignment of a new OMB control number:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The regulation allows a 3-year experimental season (this proposed rule updates the seasons from 2020-2022 to the 2021-2023 subsistence seasons) for migratory bird hunting and egg gathering by registration permit along the Kodiak Island Roaded Area in the Kodiak Archipelago Region of Alaska. The experimental season will terminate at the completion of the third year in 2023. Reopening the Roaded Area after the 3-year experimental period will require a subsequent proposal from the AMBCC for continuation of the season under either operational or experimental status.
(6)
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency 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,
Send your written comments and suggestions on this information collection to OMB by the date indicated in
The annual regulations and options are considered in a January 2021 environmental assessment, “Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska: Hunting Regulations for the 2021 Spring/Summer Harvest.” Copies are available from the person listed under
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This is not a significant regulatory action under this Executive Order; it allows only for traditional subsistence harvest and improves conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. Further, this proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211, and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Hunting, Treaties, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter G, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 703-712.
(b) * * *
(3) The Central Interior Excluded Area comprises the following: The Fairbanks North Star Borough and that portion of Unit 20(A) east of the Wood River drainage and south of Rex Trail, including the upper Wood River drainage south of its confluence with Chicken Creek; that portion of Unit 20(C) east of Denali National Park north to Rock Creek and east to Unit 20(A); and that portion of Unit 20(D) west of the Tanana River between its confluence with the Johnson and Delta Rivers, west of the east bank of the Johnson River, and north and west of the Volmar drainage, including the Goodpaster River drainage. The following communities are within the Excluded Area: Delta Junction/Big Delta/Fort Greely, McKinley Park/Village, Healy, Ferry, and all residents of the formerly named Fairbanks North Star Borough Excluded Area.
(d)
(1) A letter of invitation will be sent by the Tribal or village council to the hunter with a copy to the Executive Director of the Co-management Council, who will inform the Service's Alaska Region Law Enforcement Office and the Service's Co-management Council Coordinator within 2 business days. The Service will then inform any affected Federal agency when residents of excluded areas are allowed to participate in the subsistence harvest within their Federal lands.
(2) For the Upper Copper River Region, a permit may be issued by the Tribal Council or their authorized Tribal representative to the invited hunter certifying that the permit holder is an immediate family member authorized to assist eligible family members in hunting migratory birds in the Tribe's subsistence harvest area. A permit is valid for 2 years from date of issuance. A list of permit holders will be sent to the Executive Director of the Co-management Council, who will inform the Service's Alaska Region Office of Law Enforcement and the Service's Co-management Council Coordinator within 2 business days. The Service will then inform any affected Federal agency when residents of excluded areas are allowed to participate in the subsistence harvest within their Federal lands.
(a)
(2) Snow Goose (
(3) Greater White-fronted Goose (
(4) Brant (
(5) Cackling Goose (
(6) Canada Goose (
(7) Tundra Swan (
(8) Blue-winged Teal (
(9) Northern Shoveler (
(10) Gadwall (
(11) Eurasian Wigeon (
(12) American Wigeon (
(13) Mallard (
(14) Northern Pintail (
(15) Green-winged Teal (
(16) Canvasback (
(17) Redhead (
(18) Ring-necked Duck (
(19) Greater Scaup (
(20) Lesser Scaup (
(21) King Eider (
(22) Common Eider (
(23) Harlequin Duck (
(24) Surf Scoter (
(25) White-winged Scoter (
(26) Black Scoter (
(27) Long-tailed Duck (
(28) Bufflehead (
(29) Common Goldeneye (
(30) Barrow's Goldeneye (
(31) Hooded Merganser (
(32) Common Merganser (
(33) Red-breasted Merganser (
(b)
(2) Red-necked Grebe (
(c)
(2) [Reserved]
(d)
(2) [Reserved]
(e)
(2) Common Ringed Plover (
(f)
(2) Ruddy Turnstone (
(3) Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (
(4) Dunlin (
(5) Baird's Sandpiper (
(6) Least Sandpiper (
(7) Semipalmated Sandpiper (
(8) Western Sandpiper (
(9) Long-billed Dowitcher (
(10) Common Snipe (
(11) Wilson's Snipe (
(12) Spotted Sandpiper (
(13) Lesser Yellowlegs (
(14) Greater Yellowlegs (
(15) Red-necked Phalarope (
(16) Red Phalarope (
(g)
(2) Parasitic Jaeger (
(3) Long-tailed Jaeger (
(h)
(2) Thick-billed Murre (
(3) Black Guillemot (
(4) Pigeon Guillemot (
(5) Cassin's Auklet (
(6) Parakeet Auklet (
(7) Least Auklet (
(8) Whiskered Auklet (
(9) Crested Auklet (
(10) Rhinoceros Auklet (
(11) Horned Puffin (
(12) Tufted Puffin (
(i)
(2) Red-legged Kittiwake (
(3) Ivory Gull (
(4) Sabine's Gull (
(5) Bonaparte's Gull (
(6) Mew Gull (
(7) Herring Gull (
(8) Slaty-backed Gull (
(9) Glaucous-winged Gull (
(10) Glaucous Gull (
(11) Aleutian Tern (
(12) Arctic Tern (
(j)
(2) Arctic Loon (
(3) Pacific Loon (
(4) Common Loon (
(5) Yellow-billed Loon (
(k)
(2) [Reserved]
(l)
(2) Pelagic Cormorant (
(m)
(2) Snowy Owl (
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule to remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of squids and sculpins to fishmeal only. This proposed rule is necessary to allow the processing and sale of squids and sculpins as products other than fishmeal and thereby to help prevent waste of the incidental catch of these ecosystem component species. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) (Groundfish FMPs), and other applicable laws.
Submit comments on or before March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2020-0160, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as the “Analysis”) and the draft Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from
Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BSAI and GOA under the Groundfish FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Groundfish FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
All relevant comments submitted on this proposed rule and received by the end of the comment period (See
Squids and sculpins are defined in the ecosystem component (EC) category of the Groundfish FMPs. Directed fishing for EC species is prohibited. Incidental catch of squid species is retained in some groundfish fisheries and often utilized to prevent waste. Typically, sculpins are not retained but can be in some circumstances.
The Council's 2017 and 2019 actions to reclassify squids and sculpins, respectively, into the EC category of the Groundfish FMPs were based on the best available scientific information and were consistent with the National Standard guidelines. The Federal rulemakings to implement the Council's actions prohibited the use or sale of incidentally caught squids and sculpins unless processed into fishmeal, in accordance with the regulations governing other EC species (85 FR 41427, July 10, 2020 (sculpin); 83 FR 31460, July 6, 2018 (squid)). The purpose of this action is to provide flexibility for the use of incidentally caught squids and sculpins, thereby reducing the waste of these EC species, and to align the regulations with the long-standing use of incidentally caught squid species as bait.
The following sections of this preamble provide:
• A brief history of the restriction on processing and sale of squids and sculpins,
• The expected effects of and need for this action, and
• A description of the regulatory change proposed in this action.
EC species are stocks that a fishery management council (council) or the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has determined do not require conservation and management, but desire to list in an FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives (50 CFR 600.305(c)(5) & (d)(13) and 50 CFR 600.310(d)(1)). Retention and personal use of some EC species in the Groundfish FMPs (forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins) is allowed up to the applicable maximum retainable amount (MRA), which is the proportion or percentage of retained catch of a species closed for directed fishing (incidental catch species) to the retained catch of a species open for directed fishing (basis species) (50 CFR 679.20(e) & (i)). Current Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(i)(4) & (5) prohibit the processing, barter, trade, and sale of EC species in Alaska (forage fish, grenadiers, squids, and sculpins) unless they are processed as fishmeal.
Amendment 96 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 87 to the GOA FMP (Amendments 96/87) (75 FR 61639, October 6, 2010) established the EC category and designated prohibited species (defined in Table 2b to 50 CFR part 679, to include salmon, steelhead trout, crab, halibut, and herring) and forage fish (defined in Table 2c to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.20(i)) as EC species in both the Groundfish FMPs.
When Amendments 96/87 were recommended by the Council in 2010, the Council's stated intention was that prohibited species and forage fish would be in the new EC category. Because the retention, processing, and sale of prohibited species and forage fish was not permitted before their placement in the EC category, those restrictions remained in place and unchanged under Amendments 96/87. The Council did not indicate whether it intended that species added to the EC category at a later date would be subject to those same restrictions.
When the Council took action to recommend reclassifying squids in the EC category in 2017, harvesters and processors expected that incidentally caught squids in the groundfish fisheries could be processed and sold as bait, consistent with long-standing and common practice. Similarly, when the Council recommended reclassifying sculpins in the EC category in 2019, there was some interest in exploring food fish markets for incidentally caught sculpins, which have rarely been retained or processed. However, once squids and sculpins were reclassified in the EC category, existing Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(i) applied to all EC species and prohibited the processing, barter, trade, and sale of squids and sculpins as anything other than fishmeal.
In October 2019, the Council initiated an analysis to reconsider the processing and sale restrictions on squids and sculpins in the EC category. No other species in the EC category were considered in this analysis. As a result, processing and sale restrictions will remain in place for prohibited species, forage fish, and grenadiers under this action.
This action would continue to manage squids and sculpins as EC species in the Groundfish FMPs. Directed fishing of squids and sculpins would continue to be prohibited, and retention of squids and sculpins up to the MRA of 20 percent would continue to be permitted. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be maintained. The only proposed change to current regulations would be to remove the processing restrictions limiting processing and sale of squids and sculpins to fishmeal, and include new regulations on allowable fish products for squids and sculpins. Specifically, the proposed regulations would provide that retained catch of squids and sculpins not exceeding the MRA may be sold to a processor or processed into any product form, including (but not limited to) fishmeal, bait, and whole fish/food fish, for sale, barter, or trade. All other regulations pertaining to EC species would remain in place.
This proposed action would allow squid species to be processed as whole bait and be available to local fixed gear fisheries, which may reduce costs for those vessels. While there has never been a significant market for sculpin products, this action would allow for the exploration of potential markets for incidentally caught sculpins up to the MRA.
The potential social impacts of the alternatives on the fishing community are primarily economic in nature. Processing squid species into bait provides some revenue to shore-based processors (see Table 4-5 of the Analysis) and may reduce costs to local fleets, which currently purchase more expensive, imported bait. The potential economic impacts are limited, the potential benefits would be marginal, and no impacts were identified that would create adverse economic impacts on any fishing community or cause any other adverse social impacts.
The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this proposed action would provide groundfish harvesters and processors with additional flexibility to conduct their business in an efficient manner by providing them with more options for the processing and sale of incidentally caught squids and sculpins up to the MRA, and would help reduce waste of these incidentally caught species.
This proposed rule would remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of incidentally caught squids and sculpins to fishmeal only, and would allow retained catch of squids and sculpins not exceeding the MRA to be sold to a processor or to be processed into any product form. This proposed rule is necessary to allow the processing and sale of squids and sculpins as products other than fishmeal and to help prevent waste of the incidental catch of these species. To make that change, this proposed rule would revise language in 50 CFR 679.20(i).
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Groundfish FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would remove the regulatory restriction that limits processing of squids and sculpins to fishmeal only. The purpose of this action is to allow processing and sale of squids and sculpin products to provide enhanced economic opportunity and to prevent waste of the incidental catch of these species in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.
Entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed rule include the owners and operators of catcher vessels (CVs), catcher/processor vessels (C/Ps), and motherships in the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA, and eligible shore-based processing facilities. These are the participants currently regulated by the prohibition at 50 CFR 679.20(i).
In 2018, there were 182 CVs and 3 C/Ps in the BSAI, 756 CVs and 3 C/Ps in the GOA, and three motherships that met the definition of small entities. There also may be one or more shore-based processors that could be considered small entities because the processing company and its affiliates, worldwide, may employ fewer than 750 people. However, total employment numbers of processing companies and their affiliates, worldwide, are not available to make that small entity threshold determination. Based on the scope of this action, impacts to small, directly regulated entities are expected to be neutral or beneficial if the entities decide to use the flexibility this rule affords to process squids and sculpins into product forms in addition to fishmeal.
As described above, this action does not place any new regulatory burden on groundfish fishery participants. Instead, it allows increased flexibility for the processing and sale of squids and sculpins. For all of the reasons described above, this proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the small entities directly regulated by this proposed action. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(i)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Notice of information collection renewal.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 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. Comments are requested concerning whether the proposed or continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 725 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20543. Attention: Desk Officer for USAID.
Alecia S. Sillah, Supervisory FOIA Team Lead, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington DC 20523-2701; email:
The purpose of this collection is to enable the U.S. Agency for International Development to locate applicable records and to respond to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. Information includes sufficient personally identifiable information and/or source documents as applicable. Failure to provide the required information may result in no action being taken on the request. Authority to collect this information is contained in 5 U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 22 CFR 212-Subpart M.
Paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of USAID, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of USAID's estimate of the burden (including both hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. The comments will also become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee). The meeting is being convened to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable industry issues and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how USDA can tailor programs and services to better meet the needs of the U.S. produce industry.
The FVIAC will meet via webinar (virtually) on Tuesday, April 06, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The FVIAC will hear public comments during the webinar on Tuesday, April 06, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The deadline to submit written comments and/or sign up for oral comments is 11:59 p.m. ET, March 16, 2021.
The webinar for the meeting and public comment period can be accessed via the internet and/or phone. Access information will be available on the AMS website prior to each event. Detailed information can be found at
Darrell Hughes, Designated Federal Officer, Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, USDA-AMS-Specialty Crops Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 1575,
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Committee in 2001 to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
The AMS Deputy Administrator for the Specialty Crops Program serves as the Committee's Executive Secretary, leading the effort to administer the Committee's activities. Representatives from USDA mission areas and other government agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry are periodically called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee. AMS is giving notice of the Committee meeting to the public so that they may participate and present their views. The meeting is open to the public.
Agenda items may include, but are not limited to, welcome and introductions, administrative matters, consideration of topics for potential working group discussion and proposal, and presentations by subject matter experts as requested by the Committee. Please check the FVIAC website for a final agenda on Monday, April 05, 2021, via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the Maine State Advisory Committee to the Commission will hold virtual meetings on the third Thursdays on the following months: March 18, April 15 and May 20, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. (ET) for the purpose of reviewing and writing the report on for its digital equity project.
March 18, April 15, and May 20, 2021, Thursday at 12:00 p.m. (ET):
Barbara de La Viez at
These meetings are available to the public through the WebEx link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing. may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the call-in number found through registering at the web link provided for these meetings.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara de La Viez at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of silicon metal from Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia) and Iceland are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020.
Applicable February 26, 2021.
Brittany Bauer (Bosnia) and Emily Halle (Iceland), AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3860 and (202) 482-0176, respectively.
On December 11, 2020, Commerce published in the
The product covered by these investigations is silicon metal from Bosnia and Iceland. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
As stated in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in these investigations are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memoranda. Lists of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memoranda are attached to this notice as Appendices II and III. The Issues and Decision Memoranda are public documents and are 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 our analysis of the comments received, we made no changes to the rates assigned in the
There is one mandatory respondent in each investigation: R-S Silicon D.O.O. (Bosnia) and PCC Bakki Silicon hf (Iceland). These companies failed to cooperate in the Bosnia and Iceland investigation, respectively. Therefore, in the
In accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), Commerce preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silicon metal exported by PCC Bakki Silicon hf and all other producers/exporters from Iceland.
With respect to Bosnia, as discussed in the
With respect to Iceland, as discussed in the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
The estimated dumping margin assigned to the mandatory respondents in these investigations are based on AFA. As we made no changes to these margins since the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for the final determination for Bosnia, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend
In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of silicon metal from Iceland, as described in the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I, shall continue to apply to unliquidated entries of silicon metal exported by PCC Bakki and all other producers/exporters from Iceland that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 12, 2020, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin identified for each company in the table; (2) if the exporter is not a company identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determinations of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determinations as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of silicon metal from Bosnia and Iceland no later than 45 days after these final determinations. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, these proceedings will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue antidumping duty orders directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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 determinations are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of these investigations covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) covering the period of review (POR) October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable February 26, 2021.
Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2316.
On October 1, 2020, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel
On December 8, 2020, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated this administrative review of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioners withdrew their request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of hot-rolled steel from Turkey at a rate equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that S.A. Citrique Belge N.V. (Citrique Belge), a producer/exporter of citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Belgium, did not sell subject merchandise at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) January 8, 2018, through June 30, 2019.
Applicable February 26, 2021.
Stephanie Berger, 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) 482-2483.
On November 9, 2020, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by this order includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend.
The scope also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the
The scope includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively.
The scope does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the product.
Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and, if included in a mixture or blend, 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
As a result of this review, Commerce determines that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and exported by Citrique Belge during the POR.
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Because we calculated a zero margin for Citrique Belge in the final results of this review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Consistent with its recent notice,
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of these final results for all shipments of citric acid from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Citrique Belge will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 19.30 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with a final results of review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
This notice 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 this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is issuing a correction to a previously published
Applicable December 11, 2020.
David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136.
On December 11, 2020, Commerce published in the
We
This notice serves as a correction and is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan).
Applicable February 26, 2021.
Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0486.
On December 3, 2020, Commerce published the
The period of investigation is January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
As stated in the
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Commerce notes that, in making these findings, it relied on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we attempted to take additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, in situations where information has been provided but the information cannot be verified in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, Commerce may use “facts otherwise available” on the record in reaching the applicable determination. Accordingly, because Commerce was unable to verify certain information, and because that inability to verify information, or gather information in lieu of an on-site verification, was a result of a respondent failing to act to the best of its ability, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied an adverse inference in using facts otherwise available. in making our final determination.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties and the results of verification, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
As discussed in the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of the public announcement or, where there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in April, May, and June of 2021. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2021 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on April 16, May 6, and June 17, 2021. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on April 2, April 23, May 6, May 19, June 2, and June 29, 2021. See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Philadelphia, PA; Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Boston, MA. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Palm Coast, FL; Warwick, RI; Kenner, LA; Kitty Hawk, NC; Panama City, FL; and Philadelphia, PA. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by email at
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark Identification and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification workshops are posted online at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit that first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. April 16, 2021, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn Philadelphia International Airport, 8600 Bartram Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153.
2. May 6, 2021, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn Cypress Creek, 720 East Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334.
3. June 17, 2021, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Embassy Suites Boston at Logan Airport, 207 Porter Street, Boston, MA 02128.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2018 will be expiring in 2021. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 370 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. April 2, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 55 Town Center Boulevard, Palm Coast, FL 32164.
2. April 23, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886.
3. May 6, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton—New Orleans Airport, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
4. May 19, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
5. June 2, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 US Highway 231, Panama City, FL 32405.
6. June 29, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Embassy Suites by Hilton Philadelphia Airport, 9000 Bartram Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153.
To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification;
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification; and
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications.
Notice is hereby given that four applicants have applied in due form for a permit to conduct scientific research on 58 species of marine mammals. The species taken during research activities may include the following endangered or threatened cetaceans: Beluga whale (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
The applications and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on these applications should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D. (File Nos. 22306 and 23675), Amy Hapeman (File No. 24334), or Courtney Smith, Ph.D. (File No. 24378), (301) 427-8401.
The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
File No. 22306: NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037, (Responsible Party: David Weller, Ph.D.), proposes to conduct research on 48 species of cetaceans and 6 species of pinnipeds in U.S. and international waters of the Pacific and Southern Oceans. The objectives of the research are to monitor and understand trends and population dynamics of marine mammals by collecting data on abundance, distribution, density, survival, immigration/emigration, reproduction, health and condition, movement patterns, dive behavior, acoustics, demography and stock structure. Cetaceans may be taken during vessel and aerial surveys, including unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), for counts, photo-identification, photography, videography, photogrammetry, behavioral observations, passive acoustic recordings, biological sampling (exhaled air, feces, sloughed skin, and skin and blubber biopsies), and tagging (suction-cup and dart/barb). Pinnipeds may be taken during manned and unmanned aerial and ground surveys for counts, photo-identification, photography, videography, photogrammetry, and collection of scat and spew. Marine mammal parts may also be imported, exported, salvaged, or received for analysis and curation. See the application for complete numbers of animals requested by species, life stage, and procedure. The permit is requested for five years.
File No. 23675: Brianna Witteveen, Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, 118 Trident Way, Kodiak, AK 99615, proposes to conduct research in the North Pacific Ocean in Alaska focusing on nine cetacean species. The objectives of the research are to advance knowledge and improve understanding of the foraging behavior, prey use, and habitat overlap among sympatric cetaceans throughout their habitat. Cetaceans may be taken during vessel surveys for photo-identification, behavioral observations, active acoustic sonar for prey mapping, biological sampling (feces, sloughed skin, predation remains, and skin and blubber biopsies), and suction-cup tagging. Six additional marine mammal species may be unintentionally harassed during research targeting cetaceans. See the application for complete numbers of animals requested by species, life stage, and procedure. The permit is requested for 5 years.
File No. 24334: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802, (Responsible Party: Lori Quakenbush, Ph.D.) proposes to conduct research on five whale species in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (U.S. and international waters) adjacent to Alaska. Research topics would include movements, habitat use, migration routes, body condition, predation, stock structure, population abundance, behavior relative to feeding, social interactions, human disturbance, and social structure. Researchers would conduct vessel surveys for tagging (dart/barb, deep implant, suction cup, or dorsal ridge attachments depending on species), biopsy sampling, photo-identification, and UAS surveys for all species. The applicant also requests to conduct manned aerial surveys and captures for tagging with biological sample collection of four beluga whale stocks. The applicant also requests
File No. 24378: The University of Alaska Southeast, 1332 Seward Ave, Sitka, AK 99835 (Responsible Party: Jan Straley) proposes to conduct research on 18 species of cetaceans in Alaska, focusing on three species of large whales. The objective of the research is to further the biological understanding of Alaskan cetaceans by evaluating species abundance, population and stock structure, life history parameters, foraging behavior and prey specialization, social behavior, seasonal movements and migrations, and depredation interactions with longline fishing vessels. Research methods include close approach by vessels and UAS to conduct photo-identification, behavioral observations, underwater photography/video, active acoustic sonar for prey mapping, tagging (suction-cup and dart/barb), biological sampling (prey samples, exhaled air, sloughed skin, feces), and collection of water samples for environmental DNA (eDNA). Some marine mammal parts may be exported for analysis. See the application for complete numbers of animals requested by species, life stage, and procedure. The permit is requested for 5 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Paul Ponganis, Ph.D., University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0204, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on California sea lions (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Sara Young or Dr. Shasta McClenahan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The purpose of this research is to determine the role of physiological responses, oxygen store depletion, and eventual anaerobic metabolism in dive behavior and foraging ecology of California sea lions. On an annual basis, up to 15 adult females will be captured and instrumented to measure physiological responses (heart rate, stroke rate, oxygen depletion, temperature, inspired lung volumes and lactate accumulation) during dives. Two unintentional mortalities are requested annually. Up to 15 pups of the adult females used in the research, may also be marked with a neoprene patch. Take activities for adult animals include: Capture, restraint, anesthesia, internal and external instrumentation, blood sampling, flipper tagging, clipping vibrissae, and weighing, as well as necropsy and salvage of parts from any unintentional mortalities. Research will be conducted on San Nicolas Island, California. Re-captures for instrument removal will occur on San Nicolas Island. Takes of other species annually may include temporary disturbance of 100 harbor seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Lorrie Rea, Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1764 Tanana Loop ELIF Suite 240, Fairbanks, AK 99775, has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and export pinniped parts for scientific research.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Jennifer Skidmore or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to receive, import, and export pinniped parts to study the toxicology, ecology, and physiology of pinnipeds. An unlimited number of samples from up to 1,500 individual pinnipeds of each species, excluding walrus, may be received domestically and imported or exported world-wide on an annual basis. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
This information collection addresses submissions required by the regulations at 37 CFR 1.21, and 11.5-11.11, which set forth the requirements to apply for the examination for registration and to demonstrate eligibility to be a registered attorney or agent before the USPTO, including the fee requirements. The Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) collects this information to determine the qualifications of individuals entitled to represent applicants before the USPTO in the preparation and prosecution of applications for a patent. The OED also collects this information to administer and maintain the public roster of attorneys and agents registered to practice before the USPTO. The information in this information collection is used by the USPTO to review applications for the examination for registration and to determine whether an applicant may be added to, or an existing practitioner may remain
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) to the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: March 28, 2021.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
National Defense University, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of intent.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announces that it is reopening the public scoping period for the Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii (HDR-H) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). MDA will use the additional public scoping input to support preparation of the EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
MDA invites public comments on the updated scope of the HDR-H EIS during the 45-day public scoping period beginning with publication of this notice in the
Written comments, statements, and/or concerns regarding the scope of the EIS should be addressed to MDA HDR-H EIS and sent by email to
Ms. Heather Cavaliere, MDA Public Affairs at 256-450-1599 or by email to
A notice of intent to prepare the EIS for this project was previously published in the
During the original public scoping effort, MDA held three public scoping meetings on Oahu between June 19 and June 21, 2018. Due to the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, and consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance regarding large events and mass gatherings, MDA will provide an Online Open House website and hold two Telephone Public Meetings in place of in-person public scoping meetings. The Open House website has been developed to provide the public with HDR-H EIS-related information and the ability to comment on the Proposed Action. Access to this information can be found on MDA's website at
In accordance with the current 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.8, the Department of the U.S. Air Force, Department of the U.S. Army, Department of the U.S. Navy, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have been identified as cooperating agencies in preparing the EIS.
During the 2018 public scoping effort, MDA identified three alternative locations on the island of Oahu for the proposed HDR-H complex, which would consist of multiple buildings and facilities placed within and outside of a restricted fenced area. The overall complex would occupy up to approximately 50 acres and require up to approximately 100 additional acres for temporary construction laydown area and new infrastructure, depending on topographic and environmental conditions. Originally, one HDR-H alternative was identified at Kuaokala Ridge (KR) on state-owned land adjacent to the U.S. Air Force Kaena Point Satellite Tracking Station (KPSTS), while two other alternatives were identified at U.S. Army Kahuku Training Area (KTA) on DoD property and labeled as KTA Site 1 and Site 2. Since 2018, MDA has conducted additional and more intensive siting studies to confirm alternative selection, and optimize facility planning and design. As a result, in 2020 MDA removed both the KR and KTA Site 2 alternatives from further consideration and added a new alternative at the U.S. Navy Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on DoD property on the island of Kauai. The EIS analysis will include three alternatives: one on Oahu (KTA-1), one on Kauai (PMRF), and a No Action Alternative.
Because operation of the radar would create a hazard in areas of the National Airspace System where high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) would exceed FAA certification standards for aircraft electrical and electronic systems, MDA would coordinate with FAA to establish a Restricted Area within the radar's field-of-view where the flight of aircraft would be restricted.
Operation of the proposed HDR-H radar at the KTA-1 alternative would cause radio frequency interference with the U.S. Air Force Solar Observatory located at KPSTS. Because of the radio frequency interference, selection of the KTA-1 alternative would require the existing Solar Observatory mission to be relocated off island to another military installation in Hawaii and the existing facilities at KPSTS potentially demolished. Alternatives for relocating the Solar Observatory are PMRF on Kauai or the Air Force Research Laboratory Remote Maui Experiment facility situated on privately-owned lands leased to the U.S. Air Force on the island of Maui. Relocation of the Solar Observatory would require approximately one to two acres of privately-owned land for long-term operations. An additional acre of adjacent privately-owned land could be needed as temporary laydown area during Solar Observatory facility construction. Under the HDR-H alternative at PMRF, should it be selected, the existing Solar Observatory on Oahu would not require relocation.
At each HDR-H alternative location, impacts will be assessed for the following resource topics: Airspace management, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, geology and soils, hazardous materials and waste management, health and safety, infrastructure (utilities), land use, noise and vibration, socioeconomics, transportation, visual resources, and water resources.
This public scoping effort also supports compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. As such, MDA will be conducting consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations, government officials, and other interested parties regarding historic and cultural resources under Section 106 of the NHPA as appropriate.
MDA encourages all interested members of the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies to participate in the public scoping process for the preparation of this EIS. The public scoping process assists in determining the scope of issues to be
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, Department of Defense (DoD).
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Kellen Stout, 8899 E 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249 or call (317) 212-1801.
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, ATTN: Kelly Baxter, 1616 Capitol Ave., Ste. 9000, Omaha, NE 68102; call at 402-995-2447; or email at
Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000, Attn: CECW-CO-R, or call Department of the Army Reports clearance officer Karen Mulligan at (703) 428-6440.
The Corps of Engineers is required by three federal laws, passed by Congress, to regulate construction-related activities in waters of the United States. This customer survey provides feedback on the service the public has received from the Regulatory program during their permit or jurisdictional determination evaluations.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Television Access Projects, Assistance Listing Number 84.327C. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Rebecca Sheffield, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5040E, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6725. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Closed captioning and audio description technologies enhance learning experiences for children and youth with disabilities and English learners (Rodriguez & Diaz, 2017). Captioning increases the accessibility of video programming, particularly for audience members (children, parents, and teachers) who are deaf or have hearing loss and for those who are temporarily unable to hear a program or who benefit when auditory information is supported by text. Audio description increases access to visual content, especially for people with visual impairments or visual processing difficulties and for anyone temporarily unable to follow a program visually.
Children and youth with deaf-blindness have a spectrum of video access needs; therefore, captioning and audio description are most beneficial when provided in customizable formats. For example, students may need to change the size of captions or slow down descriptions; others may need separate transcription documents. Different descriptions may be required for the same video depending on individual needs and instructional purposes.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires most television programs to be captioned. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also requires networks to broadcast a comparatively limited amount of audio described programming. The FCC's requirements for captioning and description do not apply to online media, and when previously broadcast video is shared online, online versions may not be accessible.
The Department has made awards since 1995 to provide audio description and captioning under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. Despite these efforts and IDEA requirements for students to be provided with accessible instructional materials, not all video and multimedia content used in school settings is described or captioned. Content creators continue to produce media resources that must be remediated, rather than “born accessible,”
The projects must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased access to captioned and described video programming by children with sensory disabilities and other disabilities;
(b) Increased number of described and captioned educational video programs, both in English and in Spanish, available for use by children with disabilities;
(c) Increased cost effectiveness and efficiency in the production and dissemination of accessible video programming;
(d) Increased quality and usability of described and captioned products;
(e) Increased use of technology in the projects' production and dissemination workflows and related processes; and
(f) Increased alignment and coordination across the three 84.327C projects and the Captioned and Described Educational Media Center (84.327N).
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address the need for access to educational television programming to support equitable opportunities in early learning programs, schools, and workplaces for transition-aged youth. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data demonstrating the need for accessible educational television programming in schools, online settings, and workplaces for transition-aged youth and children and youth with disabilities, including children with disabilities who may be underserved; and
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of the benefits, services, or opportunities that are available through the use of educational television programming in schools, online settings, and workplaces that are fully accessible to children and youth with disabilities, including children with disabilities who may be underserved.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the project will—
(1) Apply knowledge of the populations served by the project to determine the preferences and unmet needs of educators, children and youth with disabilities, and the parents of these students in selecting the programming to be audio described, captioned, or both;
(2) Use criteria to select, produce, and add high-quality descriptions and captioning to widely available Spanish and English language video programming of high educational value for children and youth with disabilities and their families, teachers, and other professionals to use in K-12 classroom settings or online learning environments;
(3) Identify and use new and emerging technologies and processes that will improve the quality, availability, cost effectiveness, and usability of accessible educational media, materials, and products for children and youth with disabilities in the production of accessible educational video programming;
(4) Acquire, from producers, networks, program creators, and others, video programming to describe and caption to make the programming accessible to children and youth with disabilities; and
(5) Develop and implement, in collaboration with the Captioned and Described Educational Media Center (84.327N), documented routines and processes to improve access to, and increase the collection of, accessible educational video programming, online materials, and other related media that make it possible for children and youth with disabilities to participate in early learning environments, K-12 settings, and remote online environments to succeed in 21st-century educational environments.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of project resources,” how—
(1) The proposed key personnel, consultants, and contractors have the qualifications, experience, and commitment to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(2) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(3) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out proposed project activities. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The willingness of the potential television program providers or program owners, as appropriate, to permit and facilitate the audio description or the audio description and captioning of their programs;
(ii) Requirements and assurances that the programming that is made accessible under this project will continue to contain those audio descriptions and captions after the programming is aired; and
(iii) How programming audio described or captioned under this project would not otherwise be audio described or captioned to meet the FCC's requirements, or how this programming is specifically exempt from the FCC's requirements; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The total number of program hours proposed to be made accessible through audio description, or audio description and captioning, under this project;
(ii) The cost per hour for audio description and, if the applicant is proposing both audio description and captioning, the cost per hour for audio description and for captioning; and
(iii) A plan, if any, to increase the anticipated shelf-life and distribution of educational programming described, or captioned and described, under this project.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key personnel, consultants, and contractors will be sufficiently allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including, but not limited to, students and families, early intervention service providers, educators, researchers, and other OSEP funded projects.
(e) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan, as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population and measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities to assess the effectiveness of those activities.
In designing the evaluation plan, the applicant must—
(1) Provide a logic model
(2) Provide a plan to implement the activities described in this priority; and
(3) Provide a plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model or conceptual framework, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and resources.
The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks:
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must include—
(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative; and
(2) In the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or a virtual conference, during each year of the project period.
(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive OSEP review meeting during the last half of the second year of the project period.
(3) Information on how the project will maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
(4) In Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
(a) The recommendations of an OSEP review team consisting of experts who have experience and knowledge in providing access to video programming through accessible high-quality audio description and captioning. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.
Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
a. Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
b. Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project; and
(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
(iv) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel;
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iv) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization; and
(v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and
(v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project;
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate; and
(v) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
6.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
•
•
•
•
•
•
These measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Captioned and Described Educational Media Center, Assistance Listing Number 84.327N. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5128, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6039. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Ensuring that educational materials used in various learning environments are accessible to students who have hearing or vision impairments is an ongoing challenge and extends to a variety of critical content areas, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and Spanish language materials. STEM materials are often not in accessible formats, and few Spanish language materials are captioned or described. Therefore, eligible students who are hearing or vision impaired or who are English learners (ELs) who speak Spanish are placed at a disadvantage.
Research has demonstrated that accessible technologies like captioning and audio description contribute to gains in knowledge and understanding, improved retention, and increased interest in, and enjoyment of, the world for students with sensory disabilities (
In the past, the rights to accessible educational films and videos were purchased with Federal funds to make them available to eligible users with disabilities. Over the years, however, national broadcast television network program providers and the Television Access (84.327C) projects have collaborated to provide accessible educational television programs available at no cost and available on-demand to children with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, March 16, 2015). As a result, the Television Access (84.327C) projects now secure media from program providers at no cost.
The need to support a Center that provides captioning and audio description for educational curricular materials and educational media that is appropriate for use in early learning and K-12 settings (including face-to-face, remote/online, and hybrid learning) continues to grow. Furthermore, the rapid growth, changes, and quality of accessible technology and captioning and description services must keep pace with advancements in new and emerging forms of media and technologies. A Center can provide easy access, e-learning opportunities, and cutting-edge digital technology for children and youth with sensory disabilities who need support and guidance in understanding how to use these technologies. In addition, a Center can provide families, educators, school administrators, and paraprofessionals with direct supports to access and use resources that are audio described and captioned and make appropriate curricular material selections.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Improved selection, acquisition, captioning, audio description, dissemination, and public awareness of curricular and accompanying learning materials through a free loan service for eligible users;
(b) Increased number of described and captioned educational video programming,
(c) Improved access and use of accessible curricular materials and online media products for early childhood providers, K-12 educators, children and youth with disabilities, ELs, teachers, families, and other professionals;
(d) Increased supports, resources, and trainings related to the use of accessible described and captioned media in early learning environments and K-12 settings for children and youth with disabilities, their families, teachers, and other professionals, including collections of described and captioned curricula, training materials, modules, webinars, and other informational resources;
(e) Increased access to content through a dedicated online portal and through the use of new and emerging technologies and processes; and
(f) Improved coordination and efficient use of funding across the Television Access (84.327C) projects and this Center to more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of States, administrators, educators, service providers, children and youth with disabilities, ELs, and their families, and more efficient use of the funding available to support these activities.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the following application and administrative requirements in this priority:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Use applicable national, State, regional, or local data to demonstrate the need for the Center to oversee the selection and acquisition for captioning and audio description for children with sensory disabilities, families, educators, paraprofessionals, including children with disabilities, and ELs who may be underserved; and
(2) Increase knowledge and understanding of the benefits, services, or opportunities that are available by using accessible educational materials and educational television programming in early childhood environments, K-12, and remote/online settings.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the project will—
(1) Improve the quality, usability, availability, and access to the content of a free online site to make it possible for eligible users to easily borrow media from the loan service;
(2) Provide secure access to on-demand, curricular materials, accessible educational video programming, and e-learning modules;
(3) Select educational curricular material and television programs of high educational value and quality that are widely available and appropriate for use in early learning environments and K-12 settings (face-to-face, remote/online, or hybrid learning environments) for children and youth with disabilities and ELs;
(4) Implement strategies and procedures for identifying and prioritizing educational media and curricular materials that are not currently readily accessible to students but are appropriate for eligible users attending early learning programs and elementary and secondary schools that meet the educational needs of those students, including ELs;
(5) Coordinate with the Television Access (84.327C) projects and media producers and distributors for the Center to acquire (at no cost) the rights to caption, describe, and widely distribute selected media, including distribution in alternate formats, such as video streaming;
(6) Provide training, support, and resources (
(7) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet these requirements, the applicant must describe how it will—
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for technical assistance and information; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;
(8) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—-
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model
(9) Use a logic model or conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks:
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,” how—
(1) The proposed key personnel, consultants, and contractors have the qualifications, experience, and commitment to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(2) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(3) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out proposed project activities. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe the willingness of the potential television program providers or program owners, as appropriate, to permit and facilitate the video description or the video description and captioning of their programs; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
(d) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population; and measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities to assess the effectiveness of those activities.
In designing the evaluation plan, the applicant must—
(1) Provide a logic model or conceptual framework that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) Provide a plan to implement the activities described in this priority; and
(3) Provide a plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model or conceptual framework, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and resources.
The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks:
(4) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to
(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application consistent with the logic model (
(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly—
(A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the evaluation activities; and
(B) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIPP, as needed to specify the project performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual performance report;
(iv) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the first six months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, including regular meetings (
(v) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (d)(4) of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan. Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this activity.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel, consultants, and contractors will be sufficiently allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and resources provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must include—
(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading charts, and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative; and
(2) In the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(ii) A two and one-half-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or a virtual conference, during each year of the project period.
(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the last half of the second year of the project period.
(3) Information on how the project will maintain a website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(4) In Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts who have experience and knowledge in providing captioning and description services for children and youth with disabilities. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.
Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses; and
(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
(ii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
(v) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;
(iv) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; and
(v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and
(v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project;
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate; and
(v) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
6.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115—232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
•
•
•
•
•
•
These measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the National Technical Assistance Center for Postsecondary Education and Training for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Assistance Listing Number 84.326D. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Louise Tripoli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5124, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7554. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The purpose of the TA&D program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research. The purposes of the PD program are to (1) help address State-identified needs for personnel—in special education, related services, early intervention, and regular education—to work with children and youth with disabilities; and (2) ensure that those personnel have the skills and knowledge—derived from practices that have been determined through research and experience to be successful—that are needed to serve those children. Finally, the purposes of the ETechM2 program are to (1) improve results for children with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students with disabilities in a timely manner.
This priority is:
Many people have low expectations of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Deaf individuals' expectations about their abilities and future educational attainment do not develop in a vacuum—parents, teachers, and other professionals make a significant contribution to how those expectations and beliefs are formed. Parental expectations are an important contributor to long-term outcomes (
Continuing education and training after high school can play a major role in overall quality of life. Educational attainment is linked to many life outcomes, including physical health, personal stability, community involvement, among others. Educational attainment also contributes to increased employment opportunities, career advancement, and earnings. For deaf people, continuing education and training after high school appears to be an important component of narrowing the employment gap between deaf and hearing people. In 2017, 83.7 percent of deaf adults in the United States had successfully completed high school, compared to 89.4 percent of hearing adults (Garberoglio et al., 2019).
Although an increasing number of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are attending postsecondary education and training programs, they have poor rates of completion compared to their non-disabled peers, which is often due to inadequate postsecondary skill preparation. National data shows that in 2017 only 5 percent of deaf people were enrolled in postsecondary institutions of any type, compared to 11 percent of hearing people (Garberoglio et al., 2019). In addition, data from the 2017 American Community Survey showed that only 18.8 percent of deaf adults in the United States had completed a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 34 percent of hearing adults (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2019).
Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing have unique and varying communication and language barriers that require a range of accommodations for success in postsecondary education and training settings. For example, different accommodations are needed for a student who has hearing aids or a cochlear implant and uses oral-auditory strategies, a student with a cochlear implant who uses sign language in addition to oral-auditory strategies, and a student who uses sign language only. Postsecondary institutions must be well-informed about relevant requirements and the various accommodations that may be appropriate for students who are deaf or hard of hearing (
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), outline postsecondary institutions' obligations to ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability. These obligations include providing academic adjustments and auxiliary aids and services for students with disabilities (28 CFR 35.160-35.164; 28 CFR 36.303; 34 CFR 104.44). With the rapid pace of technological advancement and the increasing sophistication of technology, it is important for personnel at postsecondary institutions, other relevant organizations, and public agencies to stay current on available technology and policies to ensure communication access for their deaf or hard of hearing students. For example, personnel must be knowledgeable about a variety of interpreting, transcription, and note-taking services and remote or on-site captioning technologies (
Individuals with disabilities, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, often need to simultaneously access services from several different agencies to successfully meet their needs. To address the diverse and complex needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families, policymakers and other professionals have stressed the importance of ensuring individuals with disabilities have access to a comprehensive set of services and supports to help them develop the skills they will need to access and persevere in postsecondary education and training settings. Currently, no single system or agency is responsible for providing all the necessary supports to help individuals with disabilities develop these essential skills. Providing support for improved interagency collaboration at State and local levels may produce better outcomes in postsecondary education and training for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing (Garberoglio et al., 2020).
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased numbers of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing who are admitted to, persist in, and complete postsecondary, vocational, technical, and continuing and adult education and training, including adult basic education and developmental education programs;
(b) Improved collaboration among postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies so they are more effective at the following activities:
(1) Identifying roles, responsibilities, and procedures for outreach to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are interested in pursuing postsecondary education and training, including outreach to secondary school students who have identified postsecondary education and training goals as part of an individualized education program or individualized plan for employment;
(2) Identifying and providing education and employment training opportunities for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are not college bound;
(3) Improving the ability of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to be effective self-advocates in postsecondary education and training settings;
(4) Providing TA and services to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families; and
(5) Implementing evidence-based practices
(c) An increased body of knowledge on how to effectively utilize technology to promote access and provide accommodations (
(d) Expanded dissemination of lessons learned from implementing EBPs and strategies to inform national, State, and local efforts to improve postsecondary education and training outcomes for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing; and
(e) Improved capacity of postsecondary institutions' career planning and placement offices to serve deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address the training and information needs of postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies for better implementing evidence-based practices and strategies that will increase the number of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing who, without remedial coursework, are admitted to, persist in, and complete college or other postsecondary education and training, including adult basic education and developmental education programs. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present applicable national and State data demonstrating the training needs of postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies to better implement EBPs and strategies that will increase enrollment and completion in postsecondary education and training for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; and
(ii) Identify current issues and policy initiatives in secondary transition, postsecondary education, career preparation, and employment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; and
(2) Address the current and emerging needs of postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies for better implementing strategies to improve postsecondary education and training outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;
(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The current research on the most effective ways to support students who are deaf or hard of hearing in postsecondary education and training;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How it will develop and use state-of-the-art communication tools and platforms, including virtual conferences, social media, and searchable databases, and the latest knowledge translation methods and techniques to improve postsecondary opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that will receive the products and services designed to impact the postsecondary education and training needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local, district, or State level;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies to build training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with students, families, postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies at the State and local levels (
(E) Its proposed plan for working with students, families, postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies at the State and local levels to focus on building capacity of personnel to work with non-college-bound deaf and hard of hearing individuals to build up their technical, academic, and soft skills for employment opportunities; and
(v) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant will systematically distribute information, products, and services to varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will—
(1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer, a project liaison with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIPP),
(i) Revise the logic model submitted in the application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application consistent with the revised logic model and using the most rigorous design suitable (
(iii) Revise the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly—
(A) Specifies the evaluation questions, measures, and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to answer these questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the evaluation activities;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 review) for continued funding described under the heading
(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIPP, as needed, to specify the project performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual performance report;
(2) Dedicate sufficient staff time and other resources during the first six months of the project to collaborate with CIPP staff, including regular meetings (
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and revising and implementing the evaluation plan. Please note in your budget narrative the funds dedicated for this activity.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan includes a minimum 0.50 full-time equivalent (FTE) position for the project director;
(4) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(5) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A kick-off meeting either virtually or in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting either virtually or in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
(ii) A project directors' conference either virtually or in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
(iii) Two annual two-day trips, either virtually or in Washington DC, to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting either virtually or in Washington, DC, during the second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry- recognized standards for accessibility;
(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and
(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts who have experience and knowledge in providing technical assistance to personnel who work with deaf or hard of hearing students at the postsecondary education level. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.
20 U.S.C. 1462, 1463, 1474, 1481, and 1482.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
2.a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
a. Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
b. Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles,
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(iv) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
6.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Promoting the freedom of speech and religious liberty in alignment with
(d) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(e) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
•
•
•
•
•
The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance reports.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Delta Edge Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 15, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Crossett Solar Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 15, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that on February 16, 2021, Western Area Power Administration submitted tariff filing: Formula Rates for Western Area Power Administration-Rate Order No. WAPA-194, to be effective 3/25/2021.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed for Reliability Standards CIP-013-2 (Cyber Security—Supply Chain Risk Management), CIP-005-7 (Cyber Security—Electronic Security Perimeter(s)), and CIP-010-4 (Cyber Security—Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability
Comments on the collection of information are due APRIL 27, 2021.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. RD21-2-000) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
We are submitting the additional requirements (and related burden estimates) described in Docket No. RD21-2-000 to OMB under the interim information collection number FERC-725B2 in order to submit the request to OMB timely. FERC-725B continues to cover the current requirements of the standards, before implementation of the additional requirements of Docket No. RD21-2-000.
Pursuant to Reliability Standard CIP-013-2 Requirement R1, responsible entities should update their supply chain risk management plans to include Electronic Access Control or Monitoring Systems and Physical Access Control Systems. The act of implementing the modified plans and procedures may result in additional documentation, as required by Reliability Standard CIP-013-2, Requirement R2. In addition to the above one-time paperwork requirements, pursuant to Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, Requirement R3, responsible entities are required to review their supply chain risk management plan and associated procedures every 15 months.
Also, implementation of the technical requirements in Reliability Standard CIP-005-7, Requirement R3.1 and Requirement R3.2 is likely to result in initial documentation burden.
Reliability Standard CIP-010-4, Requirement R1.6 will require modification of certain procedures, as well as initial implementation and documentation of said procedures. The compliance-related requirements of the above-mentioned standards will continue on an ongoing basis.
If the modified Reliability Standards become effective by April 1, 2021, the effective date of the approved Reliability Standards will be October 1, 2022.
The NERC petition was filed with the Commission on December 14, 2020. The docket was noticed on January 7 with a 21-day comment/intervention period, ending on January 28, 2021. No comments or interventions were received.
• 2% of the time is spent by Electrical Engineers (code 17-2071, at $70.19/hr.),
• 15% of the time is spent by Legal (code 23-0000, at $142.65/hr.),
• 31.5% of the time is spent by Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code 15-1122, at $71.47/hr.),
• 10% of the time is spent by Computer and Information Systems Managers (Occupation Code: 11-3021, at $101.58/hr.),
• 10% of the time is spent by Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000, at $97.15/hr.), and
• 31.5% of the time is spent by Management Analyst (Code: 43-0000 at $66.23/hr.). Therefore, for reporting requirements, we use the weighted hourly cost (for wages and benefits) of $86.05.
For recordkeeping requirements, for hourly cost (for wages and benefits), we are using $41.03 for Information and Record Clerks (code 43-4199).
The proposed standards are not changing the reporting or recordkeeping requirements, however the proposed standards are expanding the types of assets to which the reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene, in the above-referenced proceeding, a Commissioner-led workshop via webcast as part of an effort to establish the Office of Public Participation on April 16, 2021, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.
The workshop will provide interested parties with the opportunity to provide input to the Commission on the creation of the Office of Public Participation. The Commission intends to establish and operate the Office of Public Participation to “coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission,” including assistance to those seeking to intervene in Commission proceedings, pursuant to section 319 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). 16 U.S.C. 825q-1. Congress directed the Commission to provide, by June 25, 2021, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report on the Commission's progress towards establishing the Office of Public Participation, including an organizational structure and budget for the office, beginning in fiscal year 2022.
The Commission plans to hear input on the following considerations in forming the Office of Public Participation, including: (1) The office's function and scope as authorized by section 319 of the FPA; (2) the office's organizational structure and approach, including the use of equity assessment tools; (3) participation by tribes, environmental justice communities, and other affected individuals and communities, including those who have not historically participated before the Commission; and (4) intervenor compensation. The Commission seeks nominations for stakeholder panelists to provide input about each of these areas of consideration at the workshop by March 10, 2020. Each nomination should indicate name, contact information, organizational affiliation, what issue area the proposed panelist would speak on, and suggested workshop topics to
Supplemental notices will be issued prior to the workshop with further details regarding the agenda, panelists, meeting registration information, and electronic log-in information. The workshop will be open for the public to attend, and there is no fee for attendance. Information on the workshop will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
The Commission also plans to separately convene several listening sessions to hear from stakeholders their recommendations on creating the Office of Public Participation. A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the listening sessions with session dates and additional details.
The workshop will be accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For questions about the workshop, please contact Stacey Steep, Office of General Counsel, (202) 502-8148,
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 27, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
In 2016, the Commission expanded the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC-hosted online public file database to SDARS licensees, among other entities. These public files include the political files.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 27, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the
On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted the
To address a concern that budgets and deployment plans for 2021 are largely complete, which could make it difficult for some competitive ETCs to achieve the 2021 support usage requirement, the Commission adopted a rule that affords such competitive ETCs the flexibility to use less than one-third of their legacy support in 2021 and make up for any shortfall in 2021 by proportionally increasing the requirement in 2022 (above the two-thirds of its support the competitive ETC is required to spend on 5G in that year).
The certification will be used by the Commission to identify how much a competitive ETC that chooses to avail itself of the flexibility concerning its 2021 and 2022 legacy high-cost support usage requirements will spend on 5G in 2021 and the spending shortfall it must make up in 2022, and to confirm the competitive ETC's commitment to make up its 2021 spending shortfall in 2022 in accordance with its certification and the Commission's rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 27, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission also amended rules to allow non-public emergency services to receive the CPN of all incoming calls from blocked numbers requesting assistance. The Commission believes amending its rules to allow non-public emergency services access to blocked Caller ID promotes the public interest by ensuring timely provision of emergency services without undermining any countervailing privacy interests. Carriers now have a recordkeeping requirement in order to provide emergency serve providers with the information they need to assist callers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 27, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
License Application to FCC/FCC Form 2100 (Reporting Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(f), 73.6029(f), and 74.782(g)): A broadcaster must file an application (FCC Form 2100) with the Commission, and receive Commission approval, before: (i) Moving its ATSC 1.0 signal to the facilities of a host station, moving that signal from the facilities of an existing host station to the facilities of a different host station, or discontinuing an ATSC 1.0 guest signal; (ii) commencing the airing of an ATSC 3.0 signal on the facilities of a host station (that has already converted to ATSC 3.0 operation), moving its ATSC 3.0 signal to the facilities of a different host station, or discontinuing an ATSC 3.0 guest signal; or (iii) converting its existing station to transmit an ATSC 3.0 signal or converting the station from ATSC 3.0 back to ATSC 1.0 transmissions. As directed by the Commission, the Media Bureau will be amending FCC Form 2100 and the relevant schedules (Schedules B, D & F) (See Schedule B—Full Power License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0837); Schedule D—LPTV/Translator License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0017); and Schedule F—Class A License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0928)) as necessary to implement the Next Gen TV licensing process and collect the required information (detailed below). The form will be revised to establish the streamlined “one-step” licensing process for Next Gen TV applicants, including adding the above listed purposes (i-iii) to the form. FCC staff will use the license application to determine compliance with FCC rules and to determine whether the public interest would be served by grant of the application for a Next Gen TV station license.
Next Gen TV Broadcaster On-Air Notices to Consumers (Third-Party Disclosure Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), and 74.782(h)): Commercial and noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast TV stations that relocate their ATSC 1.0 signals (
Next Gen TV Broadcaster Written Notices to MVPDs (Third-Party Disclosure Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(h), 73.6029(h), and 74.782(i)): Next Gen TV stations relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals (
Local Simulcasting Agreements (Recordkeeping Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(e), 73.6029(e), and 74.782(f)): Broadcasters must maintain a written copy of any local simulcasting agreement and provide it to the Commission upon request. FCC staff will review the local simulcasting agreement (when applicable) to determine compliance with FCC rules and to determine whether the public interest would be served by grant of the application for a Next Gen TV station license.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The Commission's
A.
B.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0082; -0084).
Comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2021.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
To arrive at the estimated annual burden the FDIC assessed the number of potential respondents to the information collection by identifying the number of FDIC-supervised institutions who reported activity that would be within the scope of the information collection requirements according to data from the most recent CALL Report. Additionally, the FDIC estimated the frequency of responses to the recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements by assessing the dollar volume of activity that would be within the scope of the information collection. In some instances the FDIC used information provided by other sources to estimate the magnitude and scope of activity attributable to FDIC-supervised institutions when more immediate information sources did not exist.
2.
Like Regulation E, Regulation CC has consumer protection disclosure requirements. Specifically, Regulation CC requires depository institutions to make funds deposited in transaction accounts available within specified time periods, disclose their availability policies to customers, and begin accruing interest on such deposits promptly. The disclosures are intended to alert customers that their ability to use deposited funds may be delayed, prevent unintentional (and costly) overdrafts, and allow customers to compare the policies of different institutions before deciding at which institution to deposit funds. Depository institutions must also provide an awareness disclosure regarding substitute checks. The regulation also requires notice to the depositary bank and to a customer of nonpayment of a check. Regulation DD also has similar consumer protection disclosure requirements that are intended to assist consumers in comparing deposit accounts offered by institutions, principally through the disclosure of fees, the annual percentage yield, and other account terms. Regulation DD requires depository institutions to disclose yields, fees, and other terms concerning deposit accounts to consumers at account opening, upon request, and when changes in terms occur. Depository institutions that provide periodic statements are required to include information about fees imposed, interest earned, and the annual percentage yield (APY) earned during those statement periods. It also contains rules about advertising deposit accounts. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation and the reduced number of FDIC-supervised institutions since the last submission in 2014. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on February 25, 2021.
This meeting will also discuss: Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 29, 2021.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than March 15, 2021.
1.
Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Open Market Committee amended its Rules of Organization to replace the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” with “Chair” and Vice Chair,” respectively.
The amendments to the Rules of Organization became effective on February 17, 2021.
Matthew Luecke, Deputy Secretary of the Federal Open Market Committee, (202) 452-2576, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551; or Alye S. Foster, Deputy Associate General Counsel (202-452-5289), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) has replaced the references in its Rules of Organization to “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman,” with “Chair” and “Vice Chair,” respectively. Although the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” are referenced in the Federal Reserve Act, traditionally these terms have been used to refer to persons regardless of gender. As the terms are not intended to be and, in practice, are not gender-specific, the Committee is replacing the terms “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” in the Committee's Rules of Organization with their gender-neutral equivalents of “Chair” and “Vice Chair,” respectively. This change also aligns the Committee's Rules of Organization with its practice.
The Committee has incorporated the amendments into the Committee's Rules of Organization, which are uncodified regulations for use by the Committee and are issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552. Because the amendments relate solely to the internal organization, procedure, or practice of the Committee, the public notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply.
For the reasons discussed above the Committee has amended its Rules of Organization as follows:
All references to “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” are revised to read “Chair” and “Vice Chair,” respectively, wherever they appear.
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), announces the following meeting for the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment (CHACHSPT). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by audio and web conference lines (1,000 audio and web conference lines are available). The public is welcome to listen to the meeting by accessing the telephone number 1-669-254-5252, and the passcode is 47035054 (1,000 lines are available). The web conference access is
The meeting will be held on April 20, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT and April 21, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT.
The teleconference access is 1-669-254-5252, and the passcode is 47035054. The web conference access is
Staci Morris, Committee Management Specialist, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop US8-6, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 718-7479;
Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below by Monday, April 19, 2021. Persons who desire to make an oral statement, may request it at the time of the public comment period on April 20, 2021 at 4:25 p.m., EDT.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announce the following meeting for the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment (CHACHSPT). This business meeting is open to the public, limited only by audio and web conference lines (1000 audio and web conference lines are available). The public is welcome to listen to the meeting by accessing the telephone number 1-669-254-5252, and the passcode is 55572151 (1000 lines are available). The web conference access is
The business meeting will be held on April 12, 2021, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT.
The teleconference access is 1-669-254-5252, and the passcode is 55572151. The web conference access is
Staci Morris, Committee Management Specialist, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop US8-6, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone (404) 718-7479;
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the webcast lines available. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for the web conference link
The meeting will be held on April 14, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EDT and April 15, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EDT.
This is a virtual meeting. Meeting times are tentative and subject to change. The confirmed meeting times, agenda items, and meeting materials including instructions for accessing the live meeting broadcast will be available on the CLIAC website at
Nancy Anderson, MMSc, MT (ASCP), Senior Advisor for Clinical Laboratories, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop V24-3,
It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments pertinent to agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item. In general, each individual or group requesting to present an oral comment will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Speakers should email
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC, announces the following meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory Board). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. There are 200 spaces for the audio conference and computer lines combined. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining a teleconference line and/or computer connection (information below).
The meeting will be held on April 14, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., EDT and April 15, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., EDT. A public comment session will be held on April 14, 2021 at 5:15 p.m. and will conclude at 6:15 p.m. or following the final call for public comment, whichever comes first. Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2021.
You may submit comments by mail to: Sherri Diana, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-34, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
Rashaun Roberts, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Mailstop C-24, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email
The Advisory Board's charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2020, and will terminate on March 22, 2022.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The development of streamlined submissions forms enhances the collaboration and partnership between states and CMS by documenting our policy for states to use as they are developing program changes. Streamlined forms improve efficiency of administration by creating a common and user-friendly understanding of the information we need to quickly process requests for state plan amendments, waivers, and demonstration, as well as ongoing reporting.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requests an information collection request to support the implementation of the CAHPS for MIPS survey to add an item on telehealth to address the Public Health Emergency (PHE) be processed under the emergency clearance process associated with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In order to address our stakeholders and the increased use of telehealth services due to the PHE for COVID-19, a question is being added to the CAHPS for MIPS survey. The question is being added to integrate one telehealth item to assess the patient-reported usage of telehealth services (for example, phone or video visit). The additional question collects self-reported information from CAHPS for MIPS Survey respondents on the modalities of care (in-person, telephone or video visit) received during the last 6 months. This survey item would be utilized for informational purposes only and would not be used for quality scoring or payment purposes. We are requesting Emergency Approval in order to make this telehealth item part of the survey starting in CY 2021, which is in alignment with what our stakeholders have requested. In order to do this, there are tasks that need to be completed by late spring such as vendor training, preparing letters and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) scripts.
Comments must be received by April 9, 2021.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted within 42 days in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following ICR. More detailed information can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public: Submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:
1.
This 2021 information collection request addresses changes to the CAHPS for MIPS Survey associated with the CY 2021 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) final rule. In order to address the increased use of telehealth care due to the Public Health Emergency (PHE) for COVID-19, an additional question is added to the CAHPS for MIPS survey to integrate one telehealth item to assess the patient-reported usage of telehealth services. In addition, the cover page of the CAHPS for MIPS Survey is revised to include a reference to care in telehealth settings. The CAHPS for MIPS survey results in burden to three different types of entities: Groups and virtual groups, vendors, and beneficiaries associated with administering the survey. Virtual groups are subject to the same requirements as groups; therefore, we will refer only to groups as an inclusive term for both unless otherwise noted. The estimated time to administer the 2021 CAHPS for MIPS survey has increased from 12.9 minutes to 13.1 minutes; however, there was an overall decrease in burden as the number of respondents decreased.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, HHS is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (ACBSCT or Council) has been rechartered. The effective date of the recharter is February 19, 2021.
Robert Walsh, Executive Secretary, Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08W60, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Phone: (301) 443-6839; email:
ACBSCT provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning the activities under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 274k; Section 379 of the Public Health Service Act. The Council is governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
ACBSCT advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to the activities of the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory Program. One of its principal functions is to provide a consolidated, comprehensive source of expert, unbiased analysis and recommendations to the Secretary on the latest advances in the science of blood stem cell transplantation.
The recharter for ACBSCT was approved on February 18, 2021, and filed on February 19, 2021. Recharter of ACBSCT gives authorization for the Council to operate until February 19, 2023.
A copy of the ACBSCT charter is available on the ACBSCT website at
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.
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 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 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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council, May 12, 2021, 08:30 a.m. to May 13, 2021, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from May 12-13, 2021 to May 20, 2021. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0031, Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering Regulations; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0671], and must be received by March 29, 2021.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 81939, December 17, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0092, Sewage and Graywater Discharge Records for Certain Cruise Vessels Operating on Alaskan Waters; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0752], and must be received by March 29, 2021.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 81938, December 17, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0082, Navigation Safety Information and Emergency Instructions for Certain Towing Vessels; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0672], and must be received by March 29, 2021.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 81936, December 17, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0127, Marine Transportation System Recovery; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 29, 2021.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0670], and must be received by March 29, 2021.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 82495, December 18, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
• CG-11410, Marine Transportation System Recovery Essential Elements of Information.
• CG-11410A, Marine Transportation System Recovery Facility Status.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
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
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 29, 2021.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Holle' Waddell by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency 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 that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on August 3, 2020 (85 FR 46715) and determined on November 6, 2020 that it would conduct an expedited review (86 FR 7411, January 28, 2021).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 22, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5163 (February 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On February 22, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent order with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey in the Chapter 11 matter entitled
The consent order relates to liabilities asserted by the United States and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) against Arsynco, Inc. (“Arsynco”), under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601
Under the consent order, the United States shall have an allowed general unsecured claim in the amount of $9,566,000 for EPA's asserted past and future response costs. In addition, the United States, on behalf of the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and the State of New Jersey, collectively the “Trustees”, shall have an allowed general unsecured claim in the amount of $8,215,000 for asserted natural resource damages.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent order. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent order may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 27, 2021.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to email them to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On February 19, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve claims the United States and State of Missouri have brought pursuant to Sections 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 260.350-260.430, and § 260.510 against Delta Asphalt, Inc. (“Delta”) related to Operable Unit 5 (“OU5”) of the Madison County Mines Superfund Site in Madison County, Missouri.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Delta will place proprietary controls on its property to provide the Environmental Protection Agency and the State access in order to perform remedial actions, as well as place limits on any use of the property that could interfere with the remedy. In exchange, the United States and the State provide covenants not to sue or to take administrative action against Delta pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973, and Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 260.350-260.430 and §§ 260.500-550, with regard to the Site.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under Section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $11.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of FM Approvals LLC for expansion of recognition as a Nationally Recognized
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 15, 2021.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
OSHA will place comments and requests for a hearing, including personal information, in the public docket, which will be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that FM Approvals LLC (FM) is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL. FM requests the addition of five test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
FM currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at: FM Approvals LLC, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062. A complete list of FM's scope of recognition is available at
FM submitted an application to OSHA to expand recognition as a NRTL to include five additional test standards on May 16, 2019 (OSHA-2007-0041-0014). OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
Table 1 lists the appropriate test standards found in FM's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the agency evaluates the document to (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the document represents a product and not a component, and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications). OSHA becomes aware of new test standards through various avenues. For
In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determined that this test standard is appropriate and proposes to include it in the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
FM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application files, and pertinent documentation, indicate that FM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include the addition of these five test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of FM's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether FM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the recognition as a NRTL. OSHA additionally welcomes comments on the proposal to add five additional test standards to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant FM's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Confined Spaces in Construction Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by April 27, 2021.
Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Standard specifies several information collection requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. Employers and employees would use these information collection requirements when they identify a confined space at a construction worksite. The purpose of the information would permit employers and employees to systematically evaluate the dangers in confined spaces before entry is attempted, and to ensure that adequate measures have been implemented to make the spaces safe for entry. In addition, the information collection requirements of the Standard specify requirements for developing and maintaining a number of records and other documents. Further, OSHA compliance safety and health officers would need the information to determine, during an inspection, whether employers are complying with the requirements.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires employers who identify a permit required confined space (PRCS) to post danger signs or take other equally effective means to inform employees of the existence and location of, and the danger posed by, permit spaces. The note following paragraph (b)(1) provides an example of the content of the optional danger sign.
Paragraph (b)(2) requires employers to inform, in a timely manner and in a manner other than posting, the employees' authorized representatives and the controlling contractor, of the hazards of confined spaces and the location of those spaces.
Paragraph (d) requires any employer that has employees who will enter a confined space to have and implement a written permit confined space program and to make the program available for inspection by employees and their representatives. Employers may write detailed permit space programs, while making the entry permits associated with the written programs less specific than the programs, provided the permits address the hazards of the particular space; conversely, the program may be less specific than the entry permit, in which case the employer must draft a detailed permit.
Paragraph (e)(1) sets forth the six conditions that an employer must meet before the employees can enter a permit space under the alternate procedures specified in paragraph (e)(2).
Paragraph (e)(1)(v) requires employers to document the initial conditions before entry, including the determinations and supporting data required by paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) of the Standard (develop monitoring
In addition, paragraph (e)(2)(ix) requires the employer to verify that the permit space is safe for entry and that the employer took the measures required by paragraph (e)(2) (the procedures that employers must follow for permit space entries made under paragraph (e)(1)). The verification must be in the form of a certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the certifying individual. The employer must make the alternate procedure documentation of paragraphs (e)(1)(v) and (e)(2)(ix) available to entrants or to their employees' authorized representatives before entry.
Paragraph (e)(2)(vii) allows for the use of job-made hoisting systems if a registered professional engineer approves these systems for personnel hoisting prior to use in entry operations regulated by § 1926.1203(e). Unlike the proposed rule, the final rule requires an engineer's approval to be in writing to ensure that the specifications and limitations of use are conveyed accurately to the employees implementing the job-made hoist, and that the approval can be verified.
Paragraph (g)(3) requires an entry employer seeking to reclassify a space from permit to non-permit status to document the basis for determining that it eliminated all permit space hazards through a certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the certifying individual. In addition, the employer must make the certification available to each employee entering the space or his or her authorized representative. A reevaluation aimed at reestablishing compliance with paragraph (g) will involve the demonstrations, testing, inspection, and documentation required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3). The employer must substantiate all determinations so that employers, employees, and the agency have the means necessary to evaluate those determinations and ensure compliance with the conditions that would enable the employer to conduct entry operations using the alternate procedures specified by § 1926.1203 following reclassification.
In paragraph (h), OSHA designates the controlling contractor, rather than the host employer, as the information hub for confined spaces information-sharing and coordination because the
Paragraph (h)(1) requires the host employer to share with the controlling contractor information that the host has about the location of known permit spaces, the hazards or potential hazards in each space or the reason it is a permit space, and any previous steps that it took, or that other employers took, to protect workers from the hazards in those spaces.
OSHA requires controlling contractors to obtain the information specified in paragraph (h)(1) from the host employer (
Paragraph (h)(2)(i) requires the controlling contractor to obtain from the host employer, before permit space entry, available information regarding permit space hazards and previous entry operations.
Paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require the controlling contractor, before entry operations begin, to share with the entrants, and any other entity at the worksite whose activities could foreseeably result in a hazard in the permit space, the information that the controlling contractor received from the host employer, as well as any additional information the controlling contractor has about the topics listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) (
Paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(C) requires the controlling contractor, before entry operations begin, to share with each specified entity any precautions or procedures that the host employer, controlling contractor, or any entry employer implemented earlier for the protection of employees working in permit spaces.
This provision sets forth the information-exchange requirements for entry employers.
Paragraph (h)(3)(i) requires an entry employer to obtain information about the permit space entry operations from the controlling contractor, and works with paragraph (h)(2), which requires the controlling contractor to share information about permit-space entry operations with the entry employer.
Paragraph (h)(3)(ii) requires an entry employer to inform the controlling contractor of the permit space program that the entry employer will follow, including information about any hazards likely to be confronted or created in each permit space. This exchange must take place prior to entry to ensure that the controlling contractor is informed of all the hazards in a timely manner and can take action, if needed, to prevent an accident or injury before entry operations begin.
Paragraph 1203(h)(4) requires controlling contractors and entry employers to coordinate permit space entry operations in two circumstances: (1) When more than one entity performs entry operations at the same time, or (2) when permit space entry is performed at the same time that any activities that could foreseeably result in a hazard in the permit space are performed.
Paragraph (h)(5)(i) requires the controlling contractor to debrief each entity that entered a permit space, at the end of entry operations, about the permit space program followed, and any hazards confronted or created in the permit space(s) during entry operations, and then, as required by paragraph (h)(5)(iii), relay appropriate information to the host employer. Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) requires the entry employer to share the same information with the controlling contractor in a timely manner.
Paragraph (i) provides that, in the event no employer meets the definition of a controlling contractor on a particular worksite, the host employer or other employer that arranges for permit space entry work must fulfill the information exchange and coordination duties of a controlling contractor.
The agency requires each employer with employees who will enter a permit space to have and implement a written permit space program at the construction site (with the exception of ventilation-only entries conducted in accordance with § 1926.1203(e)). Also see discussion of 29 CFR 1926.1203(d) and 29 CFR 1926.1212(a), requirements that pertain to the written program.
As required elements of the written program, OSHA considers all provisions of § 1926.1204 to be information collection requirements:
Paragraph 1926.1204(c) requires an employer to develop procedures needed to facilitate safe entry operations into permit spaces. The subparagraphs in (c) provide specific elements of the required procedures that employers must include in the permit program: Identifying safe entry conditions that employers must meet to initiate and conduct the entry safely (paragraph (c)(1)); providing each authorized entrant with the opportunity to observe monitoring or testing (paragraph (c)(2)); isolating the PRCS (paragraph (c)(3)); purging, inerting, flushing, or ventilating the permit space (paragraph (c)(4)); ensuring that monitoring devices will detect an increase in atmospheric hazard levels in the event that the ventilation system malfunctions, and to do so in adequate time for employees to safely exit the space (paragraph (c)(5)); providing barriers to protect entrants from external hazards (paragraph (c)(6)); verifying that conditions are acceptable for entry and preventing employees from entering the permit space with a hazardous atmosphere unless demonstrating that personal protective equipment (PPE) will be effective for each employee (paragraph (c)(7)); and eliminating any conditions that could make it unsafe to remove an entrance cover (paragraph (c)(8)). Before entry is authorized, each entry employer must document the completion of these measures by preparing an entry permit, as required by paragraph 1926.1205(a).
Under paragraphs (g) through (l), entry employers are also required to develop procedures for: Having an attendant respond to emergencies affecting multiple permit spaces monitored (paragraph (g)); specifying employees' name, confined space entry roles and duties (paragraph (h)); summoning rescue and emergency services, rescuing entrants from permit spaces, providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees, preventing unauthorized personnel from attempting a rescue (paragraph (i)); cancelling entry permits (paragraph (j)); coordinating entry operations (paragraph (k)); and for terminating an entry permit and entry operations (paragraph (l)).
Paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(1)(i) (for PRCSs using alternate procedures) require tagging in accordance with the definition of “isolate” or “isolation” (see paragraph 1202), which requires employers to “lockout or tagout . . . all sources of energy.”
Paragraph (e)(6) requires each entry employer to immediately provide the results of any testing conducted in accordance with paragraph 1204 to each authorized entrant or that employee's authorized representative.
Paragraph (m) requires each entry employer to review the permit space program whenever the procedures are inadequate, and to revise those procedures when necessary.
Paragraph (n) requires each entry employer to review the permit space program at least every year and make revisions to the procedures as necessary. This provision requires an employer to review cancelled permits within one year after each entry.
An employer conducting a permit space entry must post an entry permit outside the permit space to document the employer's efforts to identify and control conditions in that permit space. Section 1205 sets forth the required process for establishing entry permits and § 1926.1206 sets forth the required specific information that must be identified on the permit.
Paragraph (a) requires each entry employer to prepare, prior to entry into a PRCS, an entry permit containing all the information specified in § 1926.1204(c) (practices and procedures for ensuring safe entry).
Paragraph (b) requires the entry supervisor to sign the permit before entry begins. Similarly, paragraph 1926.1210(b) requires the entry supervisor to verify that the employer performed all tests specified by the entry permit, and that all procedures and equipment so specified are in place before he or she may sign the permit and allow entry. The paragraph also specifies that the entry supervisor must verify this information by checking that the corresponding entries made on the permit.
Paragraph (c) requires an employer to make the completed entry permit available to all authorized entrants, or their authorized representatives, at the time each employee enters the space, by posting it at the entry portal or by any other equally effective means, so that entrants can confirm that pre-entry preparations have been accomplished.
Paragraph (f) requires the employer to retain each entry permit for at least 1 year to facilitate the review of the permit required by paragraph 1926.1204(n) of the Standard. Any problems encountered during an entry operation must be noted on the pertinent permit so that appropriate revisions to the permit space program can be made. Employers should list the problems encountered during entry resulting in the cancellation or suspension of a permit on the entry permit.
An employer conducting a permit space entry must post an entry permit outside the permit space to document the employer's efforts to identify and control conditions in that permit space (see § 1926.1205(c)).
Paragraphs 1926.1206(a)-(p) and 1926.1209(c) set forth the information which must be identified on the permit. Paragraph (a) requires the employer to identify the permit space workers are planning to enter. Paragraph (b) requires the employer to record the purpose of the entry. This information must be sufficiently specific, such as identifying specific tasks or jobs that employees are to perform within the space, to confirm that the employer considered performance of each specific construction activity in the hazard assessment of the PRCS. Paragraph (c) requires the employer to record the date and authorized duration of the planned entry. Paragraph (d) and paragraph 1209(c) require the employer to record the identity of the authorized entrants so that the attendant is capable of safely overseeing the entry operations. Employers can meet this requirement by referring in the entry permit to a system such as a roster or tracking system used to keep track of who is currently in the PRCS. Under paragraph (e), when a permit program requires ventilation, OSHA requires employers to ensure that they have a monitoring system in place
Under paragraph (d), employers must maintain training records. In addition, the employer record must contain the names of each employee trained, the trainer's name, and the dates of training, and the employer must make these records available for inspection by employees and their authorized representatives for the period of time that the employee is employed by the employer. This documentation can take any form that reasonably demonstrates the employee's completion of the training.
Paragraph (c) requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant communicates effectively with the attendant to facilitate the assessment of entrant status and timely evacuation as required by § 1209(f).
Paragraph (d) requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant alerts the attendant whenever one of the following circumstances in paragraphs 1926.1208(d)(1)-(2) arises: (1) There is a warning sign or symptom of exposure to a dangerous situation; or (2) the entrant recognizes a prohibited condition. In some instances, a properly trained authorized entrant may be able to recognize and report his/her own symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or slurred speech, and take the required action. In other cases, the authorized entrant, once the effects begin, may be unable to recognize or report them. In these latter cases, this provision requires that other, unimpaired, authorized entrants in the PRCS, who employers must properly train to recognize signs, symptoms, and other hazard exposure effects in other authorized entrants, report these effects to the attendant.
Paragraph (e) requires the attendant to communicate with authorized entrants as necessary to assess and keep track of the entrants' status and to notify entrants if evacuation under paragraph 1926.1209(f) of the Standard is necessary. Use of the word “assess” connotes an interactive duty in which the attendant may ask questions of the entrant, or ask the entrant to perform a task so that the attendant can evaluate the entrant's status.
Paragraph 1926.1209(f) requires the attendant to assess the activities and conditions inside and outside the space to determine if it is safe for entrants to stay in the space. OSHA requires the attendant to evacuate the permit space under any of the four “conditions” listed in paragraphs 1926.1209(f)(1) through (f)(4): (1) The attendant notices a prohibited condition, (2) the attendant identifies the behavioral effects of hazard exposure in an authorized entrant, (3) there is a condition outside the space that could endanger the authorized entrants, or (4) the attendant cannot effectively and safely perform the duties required under § 1926.1209. If the attendant notices a condition or activity outside the space not addressed by the entry coordination procedures, then the attendant or entry supervisor could, directly or through the controlling contractor, seek to correct the condition or stop the activity (such as described in the above example). If the attendant cannot address the situation immediately, then the attendant must order the entrants to evacuate the permit space until the employer resolves the problem.
Paragraph (g) requires the attendant to call upon rescue and other emergency services as soon as he or she decides that authorized entrants may need assistance to escape from permit space hazards.
Paragraph (h) requires the attendant to take the actions specified in § 1926.1209(h)(1) through (h)(3) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering a permit space while entry is taking place.
If someone other than an authorized entrant happens to approach the PRCS, paragraph (h)(1) specifies that the attendant must make that individual aware that he/she must stay away from the PRCS. Some construction sites may be accessible to the public, so the attendant also would be responsible for warning members of the public who may attempt to enter a permit space at the site.
Paragraph (h)(2) requires the attendant, should an unauthorized
Paragraph (h)(3) requires the attendant to notify the entry supervisor, along with the authorized entrants, of unauthorized persons who have entered the PRCS.
Paragraph (b) is described above in the discussion of paragraph 1926.1205(a). Paragraph (d) is described below in the discussion of paragraph (c).
Paragraph (a)(1) requires an employer to assess a prospective rescue service's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner. Paragraph (a)(2) requires an employer to assess a prospective rescue service's ability to provide adequate and effective rescue services. In evaluating a prospective rescue provider's abilities, the employer also must consider the willingness of the service to become familiar with the particular hazards and circumstances faced during the permit space entries. Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of § 1926.1211 require the employer to provide the designated rescuers with information about the confined spaces and access to those spaces to allow the rescuers to develop appropriate rescue plans and to perform rescue drills.
Paragraph (a)(4) requires an employer to inform the designated rescue service of the known hazards associated with the permit space in the event that a rescue becomes necessary. To meet the requirements of this provision, the employer would have to inform the rescue service prior to issuing a permit that the employer selected the service to rescue the employees in the event of an emergency, and that the employer is relying on the rescue services to perform these rescues when necessary. Compliance with this paragraph, as well as with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, often requires the employer to provide this information to the rescue service immediately prior to each permit space entry. Similarly, if an entry involves hazards not usually encountered by the rescue service, or hazards or a configuration that would require the rescue service to use equipment that it does not always have available, then the employer would have to notify the rescue service of these hazards and conditions prior to beginning the entry operation.
Paragraph (a)(5) requires an employer to provide the designated rescue team or service with access to all permit spaces from which the rescue may need to perform a rescue so that the rescue team or service, whether in-house or third party, can develop appropriate rescue plans.
If an entry employer determines that it will use non-entry rescue, it must confirm, prior to entry, that emergency assistance
Paragraph (d) requires an employer to provide relevant information about a hazardous substance to a medical facility treating an entrant exposed to the hazardous substance if the substance is one for which the employer must keep a SDS or other similar information at the worksite.
Paragraph (a) requires employers to consult with affected employees and their authorized representatives in the development and implementation of the written permit space program required by § 1926.1203.
Paragraph (b) requires that affected employees and their authorized representatives have access to all information developed under this standard. Other sections of this standard already specifically require that employers make information available to employees and their representatives. These provisions include §§ 1926.1203(d) (written program); 1926.1203(e)(1)(v) and (e)(2)(ix) (alternate procedure certification); 1926.1203(g) (reclassification certification); 1926.1204(e)(6) (monitoring and testing results); 1926.1205(c) (completed permit); and 1926.1207(d) (training records).
Paragraph 1926.1213 requires an employer, who must retain documentation under the Standard, to make this information available to the Secretary of Labor, or a designee, upon request. The request from the Secretary or the Secretary's designee (for example, OSHA) may be either oral or written.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply—for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The agency requests approval for an adjustment increase of 47,047.02 burden hours (from 660,103 to 707,150.02) to adjust for an increase in the estimated number of affected employers. For the same reason, the agency also requests approval for an increase of $82,670.19 in capital costs (from $1,017,859 to $1,100,529.19) for signs, tags, and gas monitors.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments.
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly business meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2021, 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
This meeting will occur via Zoom videoconference. Registration is not required. Interested parties are encouraged to join the meeting in an attendee status by Zoom Desktop Client, Mobile App, or Telephone to dial-in. Updated information is available on NCD's event page at
To join the Council Meeting by telephone, dial one of the preferred numbers listed. The following numbers are (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): (312) 626-6799; (646) 876-9923; (301) 715-8592; (346) 248-7799; (408) 638-0968; (669) 900-6833; or (253) 215-8782. You will be prompted to enter the meeting ID 917-2634-9831 and passcode 271768.
In the event of teleconference disruption or failure, attendees can follow the meeting by accessing the Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) link provided. CART is text-only translation that occurs real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.
Following welcome remarks and introductions, the Chairman will provide a report; followed by a discussion on open items from the November 2020 Council Meeting; reports provided by the Executive Director and representatives from the Executive Committee; an update on policy projects for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2021; discussion of follow-up projects on former policy reports; a schedule of 2021 Council Meetings; and any unfinished business before adjournment.
Nicholas Sabula, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), or
Due to last-minute confirmations or cancellations, NCD may substitute
The National Science Board (NSB), hereby gives notice of an agenda item changed on short notice to the meeting listed below.
The original
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:10 p.m. EST, and Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:45 a.m. EST.
The meeting will be held by videoconference. Members of the public may observe the public meeting, which will be streamed to the NSF You Tube channel. For meetings on Tuesday, February 23, go to:
For meetings on Wednesday, February 24, go to:
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an expiring information collection request (ICR) with minor edits, CSRS/FERS Documentation in Support of Disability Retirement Application, Standard Form 3112.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 29, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to:
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0228) was previously published in the
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Standard Form 3112, CSRS/FERS Documentation in Support of Disability Retirement Application, collects information from applicants for disability retirement so that OPM can determine whether to approve a disability retirement under title 5, U.S.C. Sections 8337 and 8455. The applicant will only complete Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C. Standard Forms 3112B, 3112D and 3112E will be completed by the immediate supervisor and the employing agency of the applicant.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 27, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, RM 2469, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, C/O Henry Thibodeaux, or via email to
A copy of this information collection request, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, RM 2469, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, C/O Henry Thibodeaux, via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The previous collection (OMB No. 3206-0252, published in the
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. Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
3. Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions performs assessment and related consultation activities for Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The assessments are authorized by various statutes and regulations: Section 4702 of Title 5, U.S.C.; E.O. 12862; E.O. 13715; Section 1128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136; 5 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103(a)(5), 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 4702, 7701 note; E.O. 13197, 66 FR 7853, 3 CFR 748 (2002); E.O. 10577, 12 FR 1259, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; and Section 4703 of Title 5, United States Code.
This collection request includes surveys we currently use and plan to use during the next three years to measure agency performance, climate, engagement, and leadership effectiveness. OMB No. 3206-0252 covers a broad range of surveys all focused on improving organizational performance. Non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one of these surveys. All of these surveys consist of Likert-type, mark-one, and mark-all-that-apply items, and may include a small number of open-ended comment items. Organizational Assessment Surveys (OAS) typically include a customized set of 50-150 standard items pulled from an item bank of nearly 500 items and a small set of 5-10 custom items developed to meet the agency's specific needs. OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions administers a supplemental OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (OPM FEVS), a type of organizational assessment survey, to employee groups not covered by the official OPM FEVS administration. Exit Surveys consist of approximately 100 items that assess reasons why employees decided to leave their organization. Customization is possible. The New Leaders Onboarding Assessment (NLOA) is a combined assessment consisting of approximately 100 items, including items measuring organizational climate, employee engagement, and leadership. New Employee Surveys consist of approximately 100 items that assess satisfaction with the hiring, orientation, and socialization of new employees. Training Needs Assessment Surveys consist of approximately 100 items that assess an agency's climate for training and employees' training preferences. Program Evaluation surveys evaluate the effectiveness of government initiatives, programs, and offices. Program Evaluation surveys are always customized to assess specific program elements. Program Evaluation surveys may contain from 20 to 200 items, with an average of approximately 100 items. The surveys included under OMB No. 3206-0252 are almost always administered electronically.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an existing information collection request (ICR) 3206-0036, Establishment Information Form (DD 1918), Wage Data Collection Form (DD 1919), and Wage Data Collection Continuation Form (DD 1919C). As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act, OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Send comments on or before April 27, 2021. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Personnel Management, Employee Services, Pay and Leave, 1900 E Street NW, Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200, Attention: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave, by phone 202-606-7400, or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Federal Wage System (FWS) is the pay system established under 5 U.S.C. 5341
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206-0219, USAJOBS.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 29, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Solutions, Federal Staffing Center, USAJOBS, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still or send them via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Solutions, Federal Staffing Center, USAJOBS, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still, or by sending a request via electronic mail to
USAJOBS is the Federal Government's centralized source for most Federal jobs and employment information, including both positions that are required by law to be posted at that location and positions that can be posted there at an agency's discretion. The Applicant Profile and Resume Builder are two components of the USAJOBS application system. USAJOBS reflects the minimal critical elements collected across the Federal Government to begin an application for Federal jobs under the authority of sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of title 5, United States Code. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0219) was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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,
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Section 15(c) of the Act.
Russell Investment Company and Russell Investment Funds (each a “Trust,” and collectively the “Trusts”), each a Massachusetts business trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series and Russell Investment Management, LLC (“Adviser”), a Washington limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) that serves an investment adviser to such series (collectively the “Applicants”).
The requested exemption would permit each Trust's board of trustees (the “Board”) to approve new sub-advisory agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements for the Subadvised Series (as defined below), without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section 15(c) of the Act.
The application was filed on June 8, 2020, and amended on October 2, 2020, and January 19, 2021.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number or an Applicant using the “Company” name box, at
1. Applicants request an exemption from Section 15(c) of the Act to permit the Board,
2. Applicants request that the relief apply to Applicants, as well as to any future series of each Trust and any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that intends to rely on the requested order in the future and that: (i) Is advised by the Adviser;
3. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to each Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with each Trust (each an “Advisory Agreement”). The Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board, will provide continuous investment management services to each Subadvised Series. Applicants are not seeking an exemption from the Act with respect to the Advisory Agreements.
4. Applicants state that the Subadvised Series may seek to provide exposure to multiple strategies across various asset classes, thus allowing investors to more easily access such strategies without the additional transaction costs and administrative burdens of investing in multiple funds to seek to achieve comparable exposures.
5. To that end, the Adviser may achieve its desired exposures to specific strategies by allocating discrete portions of the Subadvised Series' assets to various sub-advisers. Consistent with the terms of each Advisory Agreement and subject to the Board's approval,
6. Section 15(c) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company having a board from entering into, renewing or performing any contract or agreement whereby a person undertakes regularly to act as an investment adviser (including a sub-adviser) to the investment company, unless the terms of such contract or agreement and any renewal thereof have been approved by the vote of a majority of the investment company's board members who are not parties to such contract or agreement, or interested persons of any such party, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval.
7. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
8. Applicants assert that boards of registered investment companies, including the Board, typically hold in-person meetings on a quarterly basis. Applicants state that during the three to four month period between board meeting dates, market conditions may change or investment opportunities may arise such that the Adviser may wish to make a Sub-Adviser Change. Applicants also state that at these moments it may be impractical, and/or costly to hold an additional in-person Board meeting, especially given the geographic diversity of Board members and the additional cost of holding in-person meetings.
9. As a result, Applicants believe that the requested relief would allow the Subadvised Series to operate more efficiently. In particular, Applicants assert that without the delay inherent in holding in-person Board meetings (and the attendant difficulty of obtaining the necessary quorum for, and the additional costs of, an unscheduled in-person Board meeting), the Subadvised Series would be able to act quicker and with less expense to add or replace sub-advisers when the Board and the Adviser believe that a Sub-Adviser Change would benefit the Subadvised Series.
10. Applicants also note that the in-person meeting requirement in Section 15(c) of the Act was designed to prohibit absentee approval of advisory agreements. Applicants state that condition 1 to the requested relief is designed to avoid such absentee approval by requiring that the Board approve a Sub-Adviser Change at a meeting where all participating Board members can hear each other and be heard by each other during the meeting.
11. Applicants, moreover, represent that the Board would conduct any such non-in-person consideration of a Sub-Advisory Agreement in accordance with its typical process for approving Sub-Advisory Agreements. Consistent with Section 15(c) of the Act, the Board would request and evaluate such information as may reasonably be necessary to evaluate the terms of any Sub-Advisory Agreement, and the Adviser and sub-adviser would provide such information.
12. Finally, Applicants note that that if one or more Board members request that a Sub-Adviser Change be considered in-person, then the Board would not be able to rely on the relief and would have to consider the Sub-Adviser Change at an in-person meeting.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Independent Board Members will approve the Sub-Adviser Change at a non-in-person meeting in which Board members may participate by any means of communication that allows those Board members participating to hear each other simultaneously during the meeting.
2. Management will represent that the materials provided to the Board for the non-in-person meeting include the same information the Board would have received if approval of a Sub-Adviser Change were sought at an in-person Board meeting.
3. The notice of the non-in-person meeting will explain the need for considering the Sub-Adviser Change at a non-in-person meeting. Once notice of the non-in-person meeting to consider a Sub-Adviser Change is sent, Board members will be given the opportunity to object to considering the Sub-Adviser Change at a non-in-person Board meeting. If a Board member requests that the Sub-Adviser Change be considered in-person, the Board will consider the Sub-Adviser Change at an in-person meeting, unless such request is rescinded.
4. A Subadvised Series' ability to rely on the requested relief will be disclosed in the Subadvised Series' registration statement.
5. In the event that the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the Application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's rules to permit the listing
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's rules to permit the listing and trading of index options on Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options (“XND”). The XND options contract will be the same in all respects as the current Nasdaq-100 Index options (“NDX”)
The Nasdaq-100 Index is a modified market capitalization-weighted index that includes 100 of the largest non-financial companies listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”),
Currently, the Exchange lists and trades NDX options that are based on the full value of the Nasdaq-100 Index. In an effort to attract additional interest in index options based on the Nasdaq-100 Index, the Exchange now proposes to list and trade a new micro option contract based on this index. XND options will trade independently of and in addition to NDX options, and the XND options will be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options based on the Nasdaq-100 Index, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise limits. Similar to NDX, XND options will be European-style and cash-settled, and will have a contract multiplier of 100. The contract specifications for XND options will mirror in all respects those of the NDX options contract already listed on the Exchange, except that the Exchange proposes that XND options will be based on 1/100th of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, and will be P.M.-settled pursuant to proposed Options 4A, Section 12(a)(5).
Similar features are available with other index options contracts listed and/or approved for trading on the Exchange and other options exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliate, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”), which lists options on NQX (a reduced value index based on
The value of the Nasdaq-100 Index has increased significantly in recent years such that the value of the index stood at 12,112.11, as of the opening of trading on November 25, 2020. As a result of the increase in the value of the underlying Nasdaq-100 Index, the premium for NDX options has also increased. The Exchange believes that this has caused NDX options to trade at a level that may be uncomfortably high for certain retail and other investors. The Exchange believes that listing options at a micro value will attract a greater source of retail customer business. Further, listing options on a micro index will provide an opportunity for investors to trade and hedge the market risk associated with the Nasdaq-100 Index.
With an exercise settlement value based on 1/100th of the Nasdaq-100 Index, the Exchange believes that retail and other investors would be able to use this trading vehicle while extending a smaller outlay of capital. Furthermore, the proposed micro index will have a notional value at a level that is comparable to similar products that have been successful in the market, including the S&P 500 Mini SPX Options Index (XSP), which had an index value of (363.55) as of the opening of trading on November 25th, 2020. The Exchange therefore believes that basing the proposed XND options contract on 1/100 of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index should attract additional investors, and, in turn, create a more active and liquid trading environment.
XND options will also be P.M.-settled as the Exchange believes that market participants, and in particular, retail investors, who are the target audience for this product, prefer P.M.-settled index options. P.M.-settlement is preferred by retail investors as it allows market participants to hedge their exposure for the full week. A.M.-settled options by contrast are based on opening prices on the day of expiration and therefore stop trading on the day prior, leaving residual risk on the day of expiration. Feedback from Members that handle retail order flow has indicated that P.M.-settlement is needed to garner retail investor support for this product. In this regard, the Exchange notes that there is ample precedent for P.M.-settlement of broad-based index options as described in various P.M.-settled pilot filings.
Pursuant to Phlx Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5), XND would become part of the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. Pursuant to the provisions of this pilot which currently is set to expire on May 4, 2021, the Exchange may open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that Weekly Expirations shall be P.M.-settled and new series in Weekly Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration. Further, the Exchange may open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that EOMs shall be P.M.-settled and new series in EOMs may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program
(A) Weekly Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that Weekly Expirations shall be P.M.-settled and new series in Weekly Expirations may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
(B) End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that EOMs shall be P.M.-settled and new series in EOMs may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
The maximum number of expirations that may be listed for EOMs in a given class is the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations need not be for consecutive end of month expirations; however, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively. EOMs that are first listed in a given class may expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. Other expirations in the same class are not counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a broad-based index class.
(C) Duration of Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. The Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program shall be through May 4, 2021.
(D) Weekly Expirations and EOM Trading Hours. Transactions in Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time), except that on the last trading day, transactions in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern time) and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern time).
The Exchange does not believe that the introduction of a new P.M.-settled Nasdaq-100 Index contract will cause any market disruptions. The Exchange will monitor for any disruptions caused by P.M.-settlement of the proposed XND options contract or the development of any factors that could cause such disruptions. P.M.-settled options predominate in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market, and the Exchange is not aware of any adverse effects in the OTC market attributable to the P.M.-settlement feature. The Exchange is merely proposing to offer a P.M.-settled product in an exchange environment, which offers the additional benefits of added transparency, price discovery, and stability.
XND options will be available for trading during the Exchange's standard trading hours for index options,
XND options will trade with a minimum trading increment of $0.01 for options for all other series.
The Exchange proposes that XND options will have monthly expiration dates on the third Friday of each month (
Further, the Exchange proposes to permit XND options to be listed and traded in accordance with the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. This would permit the Exchange to open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an End of Month (“EOM”) expiration). Weekly Expirations would be subject to all provisions of Options 4A, Section 12 and would be treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. New series in Weekly Expirations could be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration. The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
Generally, pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(a)(2), except as provided in Supplementary Material .04 to Options 4A, Section 12,
As with NDX, in determining compliance with Options 4A, Section 6, Position Limits, there will be no position limits for broad-based index option contracts in the XND class.
Full value, reduced value, long term and quarterly expiring options based on the same index shall be aggregated. Reduced value or mini-size contracts shall be aggregated with full value or full-size contracts and counted by the amount by which they equal a full value contract (
Since the Exchange is proposing to list a micro index contract that is based on 1/100 of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, Options 4A, Section 6(e) would apply. In addition, as with NDX, there would be no exercise limits for XND.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Options 4A, Section 12(a)(5) titled “European-Style Exercise” similar to ISE Rules at Options 4A, Section 12(a)(4). The rule would provide,
(i) Full-size Nasdaq 100 Index; and
(ii) Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options.
The addition of this rule text will bring greater clarity to the Exchange's rules regarding which index options will trade European-Style Exercise.
The Exchange also proposes to add rule text within Options 4A, Section 12(b)(2) which describes LEAPS. This rule text is similar to rule text within ISE Options 4A, Section 12(b). The Exchange proposes to provide,
(i) Index long-term options series may be based on either the full or micro index value of the underlying index. There may be up to ten (10) expiration months, none further out than sixty (60) months. Strike price interval, bid/ask differential and continuity rules shall not apply to such options series until the time to expiration is less than twelve (12) months.
(ii) When a new index long-term options series is listed, such series will be opened for trading either when there is buying or selling interest, or forty (40) minutes prior to the close, whichever occurs first. No quotations will be posted for such options series until they are opened for trading.
(iii)
(A) Nasdaq 100 Index
(1) Expiration Months. Micro index long term options series may expire at six-month intervals. When a new expiration month is listed, series may be near or bracketing the current index value. Additional series may be added when the value of the underlying index increases or decreases by ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent.
Similar to ISE, the Exchange proposes to provide within the rule text that Index LEAPS may be based on either the full or micro index value of the underlying index.
With respect to new index LEAPS, the Exchange proposes to permit such series to be opened for trading either when there is buying or selling interest, or forty (40) minutes prior to the close, whichever occurs first, similar to ISE. Also, similar to ISE, no quotations will be posted for such options series until they are opened for trading.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to note the expiration months for Micro index LEAPS. Micro index LEAPS may expire at six-month intervals. When a new expiration month is listed, series may be near or bracketing the current index value. Additional series may be added when the value of the underlying index increases or decreases by ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent. These proposed changes are similar to ISE.
The Exchange represents that it has sufficient capacity to handle additional quotations and message traffic associated with the proposed listing and trading of XND options. Further, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the listing of the maximum number nonstandard expirations permitted pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5).
Index options are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes. The Exchange represents that it has adequate surveillance procedures to monitor trading in XND options thereby aiding in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange notes that it is amending Options 4A, Section 12 to include the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options within the Rule to conform to the amendments proposes herein.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade XND options on a pilot basis for a pilot period expiring on May 4, 2021 (“Pilot Program”). If the Exchange were to propose an extension of the program or should the Exchange propose to make the program permanent, then the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the program. The Exchange notes that any positions established under the pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, a position in an XND options series that expires beyond the conclusion of the pilot period could be established during the pilot. If the Pilot Program were not extended, then the position could continue to exist. However, the Exchange notes that any further trading in the series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
The Exchange proposes to submit a Pilot Program report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program (the “annual report”). The annual report would contain an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The analysis would examine trading in the proposed option product as well as trading in the securities that comprise the Nasdaq-100. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report would provide analysis of index price volatility and share trading activity. In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with periodic interim reports while the pilot is in effect that would contain some, but not all, of the information contained in the annual report. The annual report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis. The annual report would contain the following volume and open interest data:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
(2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
(3) monthly volume for each individual series;
(4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
(5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration date; and
(6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1) through (6) above periodically as required by the Commission while the pilot is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a confidential basis.
Finally, the annual report would contain the following analysis of trading patterns in Expiration Friday, P.M.-settled XND option series in the pilot: (1) A time series analysis of open interest; and (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes. Also, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual report would contain the following analysis related to index price changes and underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays: a comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given Expiration Friday
The Exchange proposes to add rule text at Options 4A, Section 12(a)(6) which provides, “In addition to A.M.-settled Nasdaq-100 Index options approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(a)(5), the Exchange may also list options on the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options (“XND”) whose exercise settlement value is derived from closing prices on the expiration day (“P.M.-settled”). XND options will be listed for trading for a pilot period expiring on May 4, 2021.”
The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in Q1 2021. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to Participants with the date of implementation.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new and innovative products to the marketplace. Specifically, the Exchange believes that XND options would provide additional opportunities for market participants to trade and hedge exposure to the Nasdaq-100 Index. The proposed XND options product is similar to NDX options that are currently listed and traded on the Exchange with two important differences: (1) XND options will be based on 1/100 the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, and (2) XND options will be P.M.-settled. These differences are based on the Exchanges experience listing NDX options, and are designed to attract additional participation from retail and other investors. Based on feedback received from members, the Exchange believes that the proposed contract specifications will be attractive to market participants, and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The nonstandard expirations would expand the ability of investors to hedge risks against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur during the month and at the end of the month. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that weekly expirations and EOMs should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives.
Currently, the Exchange believes that there continues to be unmet market demand for exchange-listed index options on the Nasdaq-100 Index. This unmet demand stems in part from the high value of the Nasdaq-100 Index and the consequently higher cost of purchasing NDX options. As noted above, the value of the Nasdaq-100 was 12,112.11 as of the opening of trading on November 25, 2020, and this high value has made it more difficult for retail and other investors to comfortably purchase options on the index. The Exchange believes that a micro index option would allow additional participation from these investors. Specifically, the Exchange believes that basing the contract on a micro value of the Nasdaq-100 Index will encourage additional participation by retail and other investors due to the reduced capital outlay needed to trade these options. The ISE NQX product has attracted retail trading volume to a certain point given that the NQX product represents
Furthermore, based on member feedback, the Exchange believes that providing P.M.-settlement will make this product more attractive to market participants and help garner additional support for this new index options product. Specifically, the Exchange believes that P.M.-settlement will be attractive to retail and other investors that want to use these options to hedge an entire week of risk without leaving residual risk on the day of expiration, and without having to actively manage these positions, for example, by rolling their hedge into the next expiration. For this reason, other popular index option products have been transitioning to P.M.-settlement. For example, due to market demand for P.M.-settlement, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”) transitioned its heavily traded SPX index options to P.M.-settlement, and removed related A.M.-settled products.
When cash-settled index options were first introduced in the 1980s, they generally utilized closing-price settlement procedures (
XND options will be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options based on the Nasdaq-100 Index, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise limits. The Exchange therefore believes that the rules applicable to trading in XND options are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the Exchange represents that it has sufficient systems capacity and adequate surveillance procedures to handle trading in XND options.
With respect to the Exchange's proposal to adopt new Supplementary Material .03 to Options 3, Section 3 to provide that minimum increments for bids and offers for XND options be the same as those for QQQ, regardless of the value at which the option series is quoted, may promote competition and benefit investors. This proposal aligns the minimum increments for XND options with those for QQQ options in order to allow market participants to quote in minimum increments of $0.01 is consistent with the Act because allowing participants to quote in smaller increments may provide the opportunity for reduced spreads, thereby lowering costs to investors. In addition, because both XND and QQQ are based on Nasdaq-100 Index it would be reasonable for the minimum increments of bids and offers to be the same for both types of options.
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. XND options would be available for trading to all market participants. The proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of a new option product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The listing of XND will enhance competition by providing investors with an additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the Nasdaq-100 Index. Furthermore, this product could offer a competitive alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain broad market exposure. Finally, it is possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or different index to compete with the Nasdaq-100 Index and seek Commission approval to list and trade options on such an index.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Commission statement.
The Commission is issuing a statement regarding applications for orders approving the substitution of certain securities pursuant to section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (the “Act”) (and
The Commission's statement is effective upon publication in the
Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
Variable insurance contracts (variable annuities and variable life insurance policies) are issued by insurance companies and typically have a two-tier structure. The top tier is a separate account of the insurance company, registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (“UIT”). The separate account, in turn, has subaccounts that invest in numerous (sometimes hundreds of) underlying mutual funds (open-end investment companies registered under the Act) and exchange-traded funds (collectively, “Investment Options”). Contract holders typically allocate their assets across these various Investment Options available through the separate account. Under the contracts, the insurance company typically reserves the right, subject to compliance with applicable laws, to substitute Investment Options with other Investment Options after appropriate notice. The contracts also typically permit the insurance company to limit the manner in which a contract owner may allocate purchase payments to the subaccounts that invest in an Investment Option.
Section 26(c) of the Act prohibits a depositor or trustee of a UIT that invests in the securities of a single issuer from substituting the securities of another issuer without the approval of the Commission.
In the past four decades, nearly 200 substitution applications under section 26(c) by insurance companies sponsoring variable annuity and variable life insurance products that offer multiple Investment Options have been approved by the Commission.
Based on the Commission's administrative experience with substitution orders, we are stating our position that the substitution by an insurance company of registered open-end investment companies used as Investment Options for variable life insurance policies or variable annuity contracts will not provide a basis for an enforcement action if the insurance company does not obtain an order from the Commission under section 26(c) (and section 17(b) for certain substitutions) so long as the terms and conditions of the proposed substitution are substantially similar to those approved by a prior order for a substitution pursuant to section 26(c) obtained by the insurance company since January 1, 2004.
When making the sort of substitution discussed in this Commission statement, the insurance company should submit correspondence accompanying its disclosure of the upcoming substitution made via a prospectus supplement filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 497 under the 1933 Act. Such correspondence should: (1) Indicate that the substitution is of the type discussed in this Commission statement; (2) identify the prior order with terms and conditions substantially similar to those in the substitution; (3) confirm that the substitution is consistent with the terms and conditions of the identified prior order; and (4) explain why each existing fund and corresponding replacement fund are substantially similar, including a comparison of the investment objectives, strategies and risks of each existing fund and its corresponding replacement fund.
Any insurance company that has not obtained an order under section 26(c) for a substitution since January 1, 2004 will need to apply for one, and any insurance company that prefers to receive such an order is able to continue to apply for one.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application and a temporary order under Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Applicants request a temporary order to permit Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Trust for Advised Portfolios (the “Trust”), to suspend the right of redemption of its outstanding redeemable securities.
The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and Infinity Q Capital Management LLC, the Fund's investment adviser (“Infinity Q” and together with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on February 22, 2021.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary at
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Daniel T. Gallagher, Attorney-Adviser, Jennifer L. Sawin, Senior Counsel, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end series management investment company. Infinity Q is the investment adviser to the Fund, a series of the Trust. Infinity Q is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Infinity Q valued its assets under management as of January 31, 2021, at approximately $3.0 billion, of which approximately $1.8 billion was attributable to the Fund. The Fund is a “commodity pool” under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act, and Infinity Q is a “commodity pool operator” registered with and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
2. Applicants state that the request for relief arises from Infinity Q's inability, as required under the Fund's valuation procedures, to value certain Fund holdings and the Fund's resulting inability to calculate net asset value (“NAV”). According to Applicants, the Fund's current portfolio includes swap instruments (the “Swaps”) for which
3. Applicants represent that they have begun the effort to value these Swap positions accurately and have retained an independent valuation expert. They currently believe that this may take several days or weeks. Applicants state that Infinity Q and the Fund are also determining whether the fair values previously calculated for positions other than the Swaps are reliable, and the extent of the impact on historical valuations. According to Applicants, as a result, the Fund was unable to calculate an NAV on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when the Fund will be able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to satisfy requests for redemptions of Fund shares.
4. Applicants believe that the best course of action for current and former shareholders of the Fund is to liquidate the Fund in a reasonable period of time, determine the extent and impact of the historical valuation errors, and return the maximum amount of proceeds to such shareholders. Applicants represent that relief permitting the Fund to suspend redemptions and postpone the date of payment of redemption proceeds with respect to redemption orders received but not yet paid will permit the Fund to arrive at a valuation for the Swaps and any other portfolio holdings for which current and reliable market quotations are not available, and to liquidate its holdings in an orderly manner.
1. Applicants request an order pursuant to Section 22(e) of the Act to suspend the right of redemption with respect to shares of the Fund effective February 19, 2021, and postpone the date of payment of redemption proceeds with respect to redemption orders received but not yet paid as of February 22, 2021, for more than seven days after the tender of securities to the Fund, until the Fund completes the liquidation of its portfolio and distributes all its assets to current and former shareholders, as described in the conditions, or until the Commission rescinds the order granted herein. Applicants believe that the relief requested is appropriate for the protection of shareholders of the Fund.
1. Section 22(e)(1) of the Act provides that a registered investment company may not suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security in accordance with its terms for more than seven days after the tender of such security to the company or its designated agent except for any period during which the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is closed other than customary week-end and holiday closings, or during which trading on the NYSE is restricted.
2. Section 22(e)(3) of the Act provides that redemptions may be suspended by a registered investment company for such other periods as the Commission may by order permit for the protection of security holders of the registered investment company.
3. Applicants submit that granting the requested relief would be for the protection of the shareholders of the Fund, as provided in Section 22(e)(3) of the Act. Applicants assert that in requesting an order by the Commission, the goal of the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) and Infinity Q is to ensure that the Fund's current and former shareholders will be treated appropriately in view of the otherwise detrimental effect on the Fund of Infinity Q's inability to calculate a fair value for any of the Swaps and an accurate NAV for the fund. The requested relief is intended to permit an orderly liquidation of the Fund's portfolio and ensure that all of the shareholders are protected in the process.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Board, including a majority of the independent Trustees, will: (A) Create a plan for the orderly liquidation of Fund assets (“Asset Liquidation Plan”) and will submit the Asset Liquidation Plan to the staff of the Division of Investment Management no later than March 1, 2021; and (B) create a plan for making appropriate payments to current and former Fund shareholders (the “Plan of Distribution”), including those whose redemption orders have been received but not paid, and will submit the Plan of Distribution to the staff of the Division of Investment Management no later than 90 days following the date of the order.
2. The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, will engage an independent third party to assist in determining the fair value of the Swaps and any other Fund holdings for which current and reliable market quotations are not readily available, including re-evaluating the historical valuations of the Fund.
3. Without the prior written approval of the Board or the Board's designee (other than Infinity Q), Infinity Q and any of its associated persons shall not direct any transactions, access assets of the Fund or make or alter any valuations of the Fund's portfolio.
4. Pending distribution, the Fund (with the prior written approval of the Board or a designee of the Board other than Infinity Q) will invest proceeds of cash dispositions of portfolio holdings solely in U.S. government securities, cash equivalents, securities eligible for purchase by a registered money market fund with legal maturities not in excess of 90 days and, if the Board determines to be necessary to protect the value of a portfolio position in a rights offering or other dilutive transaction, additional securities of the affected issuer. The Fund (with the prior written approval of the Board or a designee of the Board other than Infinity Q) may also invest cash in positions that offset existing portfolio positions or enter into other
5. The Fund will make liquidating cash distributions solely in accordance with the Plan of Distribution.
6. The Fund and Infinity Q will make and keep true, accurate and current all appropriate records, including but not limited to those surrounding the events leading to the requested relief, the Asset Liquidation Plan, the Plan of Distribution (and distributions made pursuant thereto), the valuation and sale of Fund portfolio holdings, and communications with shareholders (including any complaints from shareholders and responses thereto).
7. The Fund and Infinity Q will promptly make available to Commission staff all files, books, records and personnel, as requested, relating to the Fund.
8. The Fund and Infinity Q will provide periodic reporting, no less frequently than weekly, to Commission staff regarding all activities carried out pursuant to the Asset Liquidation Plan and the Plan of Distribution.
9. Infinity Q, its affiliates, and its and their associated persons, will not receive any fee for managing the Fund.
10. The Fund will be in liquidation and will not be engaged and does not propose to engage in any business activities other than those necessary for the protection of its assets, the protection of current and former shareholders and the winding-down of its affairs.
11. The Fund and Infinity Q will appropriately convey accurate and timely information to current and former shareholders of the Fund with regard to the status of the Fund and its liquidation (including posting such information on the Fund's website), including, without limitation, information concerning the dates and amounts of distributions, press releases and periodic reports, and will maintain a toll-free number to respond to shareholder inquiries.
12. The Fund shall consult with Commission staff prior to making any material amendments to the Asset Liquidation Plan and the Plan of Distribution.
13. The Fund will comply with the requirements of Section 30 of the Act and the rules thereunder and will file a report containing a liquidation audit,
14. The Fund and Infinity Q will comply with all provisions of the Federal securities laws.
15. The relief granted pursuant to this application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or legal proceedings involving or against the Applicants.
Based on the representations and conditions in the application, the Commission permits the temporary suspension of the right of redemption for the protection of the Fund's security holders. Under the circumstances described in the application, which require immediate action to protect the Fund's security holders, the Commission concludes that it is not practicable to give notice or an opportunity to request a hearing before issuing the order.
By the Commission.
86 FR 10609, February 22, 2021.
Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:30 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:30 p.m., has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to extend the March 31, 2021 compliance date of previously approved amendments to Form G-32 until August 2, 2021 in order to provide brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers”) additional time to operationalize compliance with the amended form (the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a “noncontroversial” rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed
The Commission approved amendments to MSRB Rule G-32, on disclosures in connection with primary offerings, in June 2019 (“Rule G-32 amendments”).
In March 2020, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) pandemic.
In October 2020, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change to clarify how dealers acting as underwriters in the primary offering of municipal securities must manually complete three of the data fields on amended Form G-32 that previously had been described as auto-populated with NIIDS data (“new Form G-32 clarifying amendment”).
The MSRB recognizes that the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic persist, including ongoing safety concerns and continuing operational challenges for dealers.
The MSRB published the updated “EMMA Dataport Manual for Primary Market Submissions” (“manual”) on January 29, 2021.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,
The proposed rule change does not alter any rule language but provides dealers with additional time to comply with certain obligations under MSRB Rule G-32. In addition, the proposed rule change will alleviate some of the operational challenges dealers may be experiencing and allow them to more
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that MSRB rules be designed not to impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4586-DR), dated 02/19/2021.
Issued on 02/22/2021.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 02/19/2021, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Arkansas Southern Railroad, L.L.C. (ARS), a Class III railroad, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to amend and extend its leases from The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) of two lines of railroad: (1) Between milepost 4.0 near Heavener, Okla., and milepost 33.0 at Waldron, Ark.; and (2) between milepost 32.0 at Ashdown, Ark., and milepost 0.0 at Nashville, Ark. (excluding the 601 track switch at Ashdown) (collectively, the Lines).
According to ARS, it has operated the Lines since 2005 pursuant to lease agreements with KCS,
ARS certifies that the Leases contain an interchange commitment.
ARS certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed $5 million and will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier.
The earliest this transaction may be consummation is March 14, 2021, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 5, 2021.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36354, should be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on ARS's representative, Bradon J. Smith, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to ARS, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Louisiana Southern Railroad, L.L.C. (LAS), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to continue to lease from the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) and operate approximately 165.8 miles of rail lines extending: (1) Between a point 1,600 feet south of Highway 80 near Gibsland, La., and milepost B-192, near Pineville, La.; (2) on the Sibley Branch, between milepost 83.5, at Sibley, La., and milepost 78.8, at Minden, La.; (3) between milepost 49.6, near Cullen, La., and milepost 78.8, at Minden; and (4) between milepost 78.8, at Minden, and milepost B-102, near Bossier, La., on the Hope Subdivision (the Lines).
LAS states that it and KCS executed amendments on July 20, 2020 (Amendments), to the Amended and Restated Lease Agreements from 2016 (Restated Leases)
LAS states that the Restated Leases contain interchange commitments and that the affected interchanges are with Louisiana and North West Railroad Company, LLC, at Gibsland and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at Tioga, La., both of which are located on the Gibsland-Pineville line segment, and with UP at Bossier City, La. (on the Hope Subdivision). Accordingly, LAS has provided additional information regarding the interchange commitments, as required by 49 CFR 1150.43(h). LAS states that it will continue to be the operator of the Lines.
LAS certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in LAS's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, but that its current annual revenues exceed, and are expected to continue to exceed, $5 million. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.42(e), if a carrier's projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million, it must, at least 60 days before this exemption is to become effective, post a notice of its intent to undertake the proposed transaction at the workplace of the employees on the affected lines, serve a copy of the notice on the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected lines, and certify to the Board that it has done so. However, LAS has filed a petition for waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice requirements. LAS's waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision. The Board will establish the effective date of the exemption in its separate decision on the waiver request.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 5, 2021.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36355, should be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on LAS's representative, Bradon J. Smith, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to LAS, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the submission of FAA Form 8710-4 for the certification process of rotorcraft external-load operators. The information to be collected is necessary to evaluate the applicants' eligibility for certification.
Written comments should be submitted by April 27, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Raymond Plessinger by email at:
The information collected includes: type of application, operator's name/DBA, telephone number, mailing address, physical address of the principal base of operations, chief pilot/designee name, airman certificate grade and number, rotorcraft make, model and registration numbers to be used, and load combinations requested.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
The FHWA, on behalf of the FDOT, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by FDOT and other Federal Agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to the proposed interchange on Interstate 95 at Pioneer Trail (County Road 4118) in Volusia County, State of Florida. These actions grant licenses, permits, or approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of FDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions. A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 26, 2021. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For FDOT: Jason Watts, Director, Office of Environmental Management, FDOT, 605 Suwannee Street, MS 37, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; telephone (850) 414-4316; email:
Effective December 14, 2016, the FHWA assigned, and the FDOT assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that FDOT and other Federal Agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, or approvals for the proposed improvement highway project. The actions by FDOT and other Federal Agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Type 2 Categorical Exclusion (CE) issued on January 27, 2021 and in other project records for the listed project. The Type 2 CE and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting FDOT at the address provided above. The Type 2 CE and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
The project subject to this notice is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
PT. Multistrada Arah Sarana, Tbk (MASA) has determined that certain Achilles, Corsa, Radar, and Milestar brand tires in various sizes do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139,
Send comments on or before March 29, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
I.
This notice of receipt of MASA's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II.
• Achilles 868 All Seasons, ATR Sport 2, Desert Hawk H/T2, 122, ATR-K Sport, and Desert Hawk UHP.
• Radar Renegade H/T and Renegade A/T.
• Corsa All Terrain XL and Highway Terrain.
• Milestar MS932XP, Patagonia M/T, and Grantland.
In support of its petition, MASA submitted the following reasoning:
1.
a. MASA stated their belief that a TIN marking noncompliance does not create any operational safety risk for the vehicle. The tires comply with applicable FMVSS performance requirements and all other applicable regulations. A summary of production tire compliance audit testing will be provided to NHTSA separately from this filing.
b. The incorrect TIN marking with additional characters in the optional code has no bearing on tire performance.
c. The subject tires are properly marked with all other markings required under FVMSS No. 139, such as paragraph S5.5(c), maximum permissible inflation pressure, and paragraph S5.5(d), maximum load rating. The necessary information is available on the sidewall of the tire to ensure proper application and usage.
d. The subject tires contain the DOT symbol on both sidewalls, thus, indicating conformance to applicable FMVSS.
2.
a. All information required by 49 CFR 574.5 for the TIN (plant code +size code+ option code+ date code) is present on the sidewall of the tire.
b. For identification and traceability purposes, the key information of the plant code and manufacturing date is present on the tire.
c. The existence of extra characters in the optional code does not inhibit the ability of a tire distributor, the tire dealer, or the consumer to register the tires.
d. ln the event that dealer/owner notifications are required, the TIN, as molded on the subject tires, is sufficient to ensure proper communication and identification of the tires.
e. To date, there is no record of a distributor, dealer, consumer, or other concerned party raising a question about tires with the extraneous characters
7.
MASA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject tires that MASA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after MASA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(A) Applicants with a 3/31 fiscal year end date will treat FY 2020 as their most recent historic fiscal year and FY 2021 as their current year.
(B) Applicants with a 6/30 fiscal year end date will treat FY 2020 as their most recent historic fiscal year and FY 2021 as their current year.
(C) Applicants with a 9/30 fiscal year end date and a completed FY 2020 audit will treat FY 2020 as their most recent historic fiscal year and FY 2021 as their current year.
(D) Applicants with a 9/30 fiscal year end date but without a completed FY 2020 audit will treat FY 2019 as their most recent historic fiscal year and FY 2020 as their current year.
(E) Applicants with a 12/31 fiscal year end date, with or without a completed FY 2020 audit, will treat FY 2019 as their most recent historic fiscal year and FY 2020 as their current year.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to award more or less than the amounts cited above in each category, based upon available funding and other factors, as appropriate.
1. 50% or more of the Applicant's past activities must be directed to Native Communities.
2. The Applicant's certification Target Market must have one or more of the following characteristics.
a. For qualifying with an Investment Area Target Market, the Applicant must demonstrate that the Investment Area approved for certification is also a geographic area of Federally-designated reservations, Hawaiian homelands, Alaska Native Villages and U.S. Census Bureau designated Tribal Statistical Areas; and/or
b. For qualifying with an Other Targeted Population (OTP) Target Market, the Applicant's Target Market approved for certification must be an OTP of Native Americans or American Indians, including Alaska Natives living in Alaska and Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii.
For purposes of this NOFA, a Native Community is defined as Native American, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian populations or Native American areas defined as Federally-designated reservations, Hawaiian homelands, Alaska Native Villages and U.S. Census Bureau-designated Tribal Statistical areas.
The CDFI Rapid Response Program Budget is the amount of the award and must be expended in the 12 eligible activity categories prior to the end of the Budget Period.
CDFI Rapid Response Program Recipients must meet certain PG&Ms:
(i) All CDFI Rapid Response Program Recipients must expend 90% of the Recipient's first payment amount in the first year of the Budget Period and expend 100% of the total award amount by the Budget Period end date.
(ii)(a) Recipients that receive an award greater than $200,000 (the minimum award amount) and that do not qualify for CDFI Rapid Response Program funding designated to benefit Native Communities, must meet the following requirement:
(ii)(b) Recipients that receive an award greater than $200,000 (the minimum award amount) and that qualify for CDFI Rapid Response Program funding designated to benefit Native Communities must meet the following requirement:
Final PG&Ms may differ and will be set forth in the final CDFI Rapid Response Program Assistance Agreement. Financial Products and expended award funds used to satisfy the CDFI Rapid Response Program Performance Goals may not also be reported for Performance Goals related to CDFI Program and NACA Program awards.
The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301-8303 and section 2 CFR 200.216 of the Uniform Requirements,
For purposes of this NOFA, the 12 eligible activity categories are defined below:
All Applicants must register in the
The CDFI Fund will not extend the Application deadline for any Applicant that started the
Each Application must be signed by a designated Authorized Representative in AMIS before it can be submitted. Applicants must ensure that an Authorized Representative is an employee or officer and is authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the Applicant. Consultants working on behalf of the Applicant may not be designated as Authorized Representatives. Only a designated Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact, included in the Application, may submit the Application in AMIS. If an Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact does not submit the Application, the Application will be deemed ineligible.
a.
b. AMIS Submission Information: AMIS is a web-based portal where Applicants will directly enter their Application information and add the required attachments listed in Table 5. AMIS will verify that the Applicant provided the minimum information required to submit an Application. Applicants are responsible for the quality and accuracy of the information and attachments included in the Application submitted in AMIS. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages Applicants to allow for sufficient time to review and complete the Application components and documents included in Table 5, and remedy any issues prior to the Application deadline. Each Application must be signed by an Authorized Representative in AMIS before it can be submitted. Applicants must ensure that the Authorized Representative is an employee or officer and is authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the Applicant. Consultants working on behalf of the Applicant may not be designated as Authorized Representatives. Only an Authorized Representative or an Application Point of Contact may submit an Application. If an Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact does not submit the Application, the Application will be deemed ineligible. Applicants may only submit one CDFI Rapid Response Program Application. Upon submission, the Application will be locked and cannot be resubmitted, edited, or modified in any way. The CDFI Fund will not unlock or allow multiple Application submissions.
However, in cases where a Federal government administrative or Federal government technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the SF-424 or the Application, Applicants are provided two opportunities to submit a written request for acceptance of late submissions. The CDFI Fund will not consider the late submission of the SF-424 or the Application that was a direct result of a delay in a Federal Government process, unless such delay was the result of a Federal government administrative or Federal government technological error.
a. SF-424 Late Submission: In cases where a Federal government administrative or Federal government technological error directly resulted in the late submission of the SF-424, the Applicant must submit a written request for acceptance of the late SF-424 submission and include documentation of the error no later than two business days after the SF-424 deadline. The CDFI Fund will not respond to requests for acceptance of late SF-424 submissions after that time period. Applicants must submit late SF-424 submission requests to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS Service Request to the CDFI Program with a subject line of “Late SF-424 Submission Request.”
b. AMIS Application Late Submission: In cases where a Federal government administrative or Federal government technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the Application in AMIS, the Applicant must submit a written request for acceptance of the late Application submission and include documentation of the error no later than two business days after the Application deadline. The
a. A Recipient shall use CDFI Rapid Response Program funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. (C)(1) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. With the exception of Depository Institution Holding Company Applicants, CDFI Rapid Response Program grants may not be used to support the activities of, or otherwise be passed through, transferred, or co-awarded to, third-party entities, whether Affiliates, Subsidiaries, or others, unless done pursuant to a merger or acquisition or similar transaction, and with the CDFI Fund's prior written consent.
c. CDFI Rapid Response Program funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay CDFI Rapid Response Program funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301-8303 and section 2 CFR 200.216 of the Uniform Requirements, with respect to any Direct Costs.
a. Step 1: Eligibility Review: The CDFI Fund will evaluate each Application to determine its eligibility status pursuant to Section III of this NOFA.
b. Step 2: Financial Analysis and Compliance Risk Evaluation:
i. Step 2(a): Financial Analysis: For Regulated Institutions, the CDFI Fund will consider financial safety and soundness information from the Appropriate Federal or State Banking Agency. As detailed in Table 4, each Regulated Institution CDFI Rapid Response Program Applicant must have a CAMELS/CAMEL rating of at least “4” and/or no significant materials concerns from its regulator.
For non-regulated Applicants, the CDFI Fund will evaluate the financial health and viability of each non-regulated Applicant using financial information provided by the Applicant. For the Financial Analysis, each non-regulated Applicant will receive a Total Financial Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. The Total Financial Composite Score is based on the analysis of twenty-three (23) financial indicators. Applications will be grouped based on the Total Financial Composite Score. Applicants must receive a Total Financial Composite Score of one (1), two (2), three (3), or four (4) to advance to Step 3. Applicants that receive a Total Financial Composite Score of five (5) will not advance to Step 3.
ii. Step 2(b): Compliance Risk Evaluation: For the compliance analysis, the CDFI Fund will evaluate the compliance risk of each Applicant using information provided in the Application as well as an Applicant's reporting history, reporting capacity, and performance risk with respect to the CDFI Fund's PG&Ms. Each Applicant will receive a Total Compliance Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. Applicants that receive an initial Total Compliance Composite Score of four (4) or five (5) will be confirmed by CDFI Fund Staff. If the Applicant is deemed a high compliance risk (score of a 4 or 5) after the CDFI Fund reviews, the Applicant will not advance to Step 3.
c. Step 3: Final Award Decision: The CDFI Fund will conduct a due diligence review to evaluate each CDFI Rapid Response Program Application to ensure its adherence with the CDFI Fund's policies and procedures as well as applicable Federal regulations. The due diligence review includes an analysis of programmatic risk factors including but not limited to financial stability; history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance); audit or regulator findings; and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements. If an Applicant is found to be a significant risk as a result of this due diligence review, the CDFI Fund may eliminate the Applicant from consideration for a CDFI Rapid Response Program grant or may reduce the Applicant's award size. The CDFI Fund also reserves the right to reduce the award size for Applicants that have a CAMEL/CAMELS, or equivalent, rating of four (4) or Total Financial Composite Score of four (4) during the due diligence review.
d. Step 4: Award Amount Determination: The CDFI Fund determines an award amount for each Application using a formula-based approach based on the due diligence performed, the Applicant's requested amount, and certain other factors, including but not limited to, the Applicant's deployment track record, minimum award size, submission of audited financial statements, amount targeted to a Native Community, and funding availability. Award amounts may be reduced from the requested award amount as a result of the above factors. All approved Applicants will be awarded at least the minimum award amount noted in Table 2. Award sizes for Applicants without audited financial statements will be limited to no more than $200,000. The funding available will be split among successful Applicants using a formula approach that ensures the following: (i) an Applicant's final award amount does not exceed its requested award amount, (ii) an Applicant's final award amount does not exceed either (a) 150% of the dollar volume of its Total On-Balance Sheet Financial Products Closed in Eligible Markets and/or Target Markets for its most recent historic fiscal year, or (b) the minimum award size ($200,000), whichever is greater, (iii) an Applicant's final award amount does not exceed $200,000 if it does not have audited financial statements, (iv) an Applicant's award amount is adjusted based on the due diligence review, and (v) a minimum of $25 million of the total CDFI Rapid Response Program funds awarded are allocated to benefit Native Communities.
Based on the anticipated formula, the CDFI Fund does not anticipate that any applicant will receive the maximum award amount of $5 million. The award is dependent on the number of awards made, for example: if there are 510 awards, the estimated largest award would be $3.3 million; if there are 800 awards, the estimated largest award would be $1.8 million; and if there are 1,050 awards, the estimated largest award would be $1.4 million.
The CDFI Fund must ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that Recipients which are non-regulated CDFIs are financially and managerially sound, and maintain appropriate internal controls (12 U.S.C. 4707(f)(1)(A) and 12 CFR 1805.800(b)). Further, the CDFI Fund must determine that an Applicant's capacity to operate as a CDFI and its continued viability will not be dependent upon assistance from the CDFI Fund (12 U.S.C. 4704(b)(2)(A)). If it is determined that the Applicant is incapable of meeting these requirements, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to deem the Applicant ineligible or terminate the award.
The CDFI Fund will minimize the time between the Recipient incurring costs for eligible activities and award payment(s) in accordance with the Uniform Requirements. Advanced payments for eligible activities will occur no more than one year in advance of the Recipient incurring costs for the eligible activities. Following the initial closing, there may be subsequent closings involving additional award payments. There will be a limit of two additional award payments. Any documentation in addition to the Assistance Agreement that is connected with such subsequent closings and payments shall be properly executed and timely delivered by the Recipient to the CDFI Fund.
In addition, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Assistance Agreement and the award made under this NOFA pending the criteria described in the following table:
The CDFI Fund may also collect data that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the impact of the CDFI Rapid Response Program. Reporting requirements will be outlined in the final CDFI Rapid Response Program Assistance Agreement and could include reporting beneficiary demographic data. Reporting requirements may be added or modified at any time at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Each Recipient is responsible for the timely and complete submission of the Annual Reporting Requirements. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Recipient and additional entities or signatories to the Assistance Agreement to request additional information and/or documentation. The CDFI Fund will use such information to monitor each Recipient's compliance with the requirements of the Assistance Agreement and to assess the impact of the CDFI Rapid Response Program. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify these reporting requirements, including increasing the scope and frequency of reporting, if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice to Recipients.
The cost principles used by Recipients must be consistent with Federal cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the CDFI Rapid Response Program grant. In addition, the CDFI Fund will require Recipients to: maintain effective internal controls; comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and the Assistance Agreement; evaluate and monitor compliance; take appropriate action when not in compliance; and safeguard personally identifiable information.
Pub. L. 116-260; 12 U.S.C. 4701, et
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
This proposed rule—
• Would expand PCAFC to eligible veterans of all service eras, as specified.
• Would define new terms and revise existing terms used throughout the regulation. Some of the new and revised terms would have a substantial impact on eligibility requirements for PCAFC (
• Would establish an annual reassessment to determine continued eligibility for PCAFC.
• Would revise the stipend payment calculation for Primary Family Caregivers.
□ Would establish a transition plan for legacy participants and legacy applicants who may or may not meet the new eligibility criteria and whose Primary Family Caregivers could have their stipend amount impacted by changes to the stipend payment calculation.
□ Would add financial planning and legal services as new benefits available to Primary Family Caregivers.
• Would revise the process for revocation and discharge from PCAFC.
• Would reference VA's ability to collect overpayments made under PCAFC.
The background for PCAFC and this information collection resides in Title I of Public Law (Pub. L.) 111-163, Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Caregivers Act”), which established section 1720G(a) of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) “Assistance and Support Services for Caregivers.” Section 1720G required VA to establish a Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) of eligible veterans. The Caregivers Act also required VA to establish a Program of General Caregiver Support Services (PGCSS) that is available to caregivers of covered veterans of all eras. VA implemented the PCAFC and the PGCSS through its regulations in part 71 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Through PCAFC, VA provides family caregivers of eligible veterans (as defined in 38 CFR 71.15) certain benefits, such as training, respite care, counseling, technical support, beneficiary travel (to attend required caregiver training and for an eligible veteran's medical appointments), a monthly stipend payment, and access to health care coverage (if qualified) through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). 38 U.S.C. 1720G(a)(3), 38 CFR 71.40.
In order to administer these benefits to caregivers, it is necessary that the VA receive information about the nature of benefit being sought and the persons who will be serving as primary or secondary family caregivers and receiving benefits. This information is collected with VA Form 10-10CG, which is currently approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2900-0768. Additional information will be collected by VA when a participating veteran provides required notice of a change of address and will be added to OMB Control Number 2900-0768.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 27, 2021.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
This notice shall be published in the
(b) For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, USAID, DFC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.
(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 any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the