International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is establishing a specific listing and Administration Controlled Substances Code Number (drug code) for 4F-MDMB-BINACA (also known as 4F-MDMB-BUTINACA or methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobutyl)-1
Effective June 22, 2021.
Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
4F-MDMB-BINACA (also known as 4F-MDMB-BUTINACA or methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobutyl)-1
When compared to the chemical structure of 5F-AMB, 4F-MDMB-BINACA meets the statutory definition of a positional isomer in 21 CFR 1300.01(b), which cross-references the term “positional isomer” in 21 CFR 1308.11(d). Both 5F-AMB and 4F-MDMB-BINACA possess the same molecular formula and core structure, and have the same functional groups. They only differ from one another by a rearrangement of an alkyl moiety between functional groups. Accordingly, under 21 CFR 1308.11(d), 4F-MDMB-BINACA, as a positional isomer of 5F-AMB, has been and continues to be a schedule I controlled substance.
This rule is prompted by a letter dated May 7, 2020, in which the United States government was informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that 4F-MDMB-BINACA has been added to Schedule II of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (1971 Convention). This letter was prompted by a decision at the 63rd Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in March 2020 to schedule 4F-MDMB-BINACA under Schedule II of the 1971 Convention (CND Dec/63/8). Preceding this decision, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2), published two notices in the
As discussed above in this final rule, 4F-MDMB-BINACA—by virtue of being a positional isomer of 5F-AMB—has been controlled in schedule I of the CSA temporarily since April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17119), and permanently since January 24, 2020 (85 FR 4211). Therefore, all regulations and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I substances have been and remain applicable to 4F-MDMB-BINACA. Drugs controlled in schedule I of the CSA satisfy and exceed the required domestic controls of Schedule II under Article 2 of the 1971 Convention.
As discussed above, this rule does not affect the continuing status of 4F-MDMB-BINACA as a schedule I controlled substance in any way. This action, as an administrative matter, merely establishes a separate, specific listing for 4F-MDMB-BINACA in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA controlled substances code number (drug code) for the substance. This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of 4F-MDMB-BINACA, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for 5F-AMB.
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. 4F-MDMB-BINACA is currently controlled in schedule I as a positional isomer of 5F-AMB, and 4F-MDMB-BINACA has no currently accepted medical use in treatment to
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), DEA finds that notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary and that good cause exists to dispense with these procedures. The addition of a separate listing 4F-MDMB-BINACA and its DEA controlled substances code number in the list of schedule I substances in 21 CFR 1308.11(d) makes no substantive difference in the status of this drug as a schedule I controlled substance, but instead is “a minor or merely technical amendment in which the public is not particularly interested.”
In addition, because 4F-MDMB-BINACA is already subject to domestic control under schedule I as a positional isomer of 5F-AMB and no additional requirements are being imposed through this action, DEA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately upon publication in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). DEA is concerned that delaying the effective date of this rule potentially could cause confusion regarding the regulatory status of 4F-MDMB-BINACA. 4F-MDMB-BINACA is currently controlled as a schedule I controlled substance, and this level of control does not change with this rulemaking.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. 4F-MDMB-BINACA already is a controlled substance in the United States under schedule I, as it is a positional isomer of a schedule I hallucinogen, 5F-AMB. In this final rule, DEA is merely making an administrative change by amending its regulations to separately list 4F-MDMB-BINACA in schedule I and to assign the DEA controlled substances code number 7043 to the substance. A separate listing for 4F-MDMB-BINACA and its DEA controlled substances code number will not alter the status of 4F-MDMB-BINACA as a schedule I controlled substance. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does 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 rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not 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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA or other laws. As noted in the above section regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA determined that there was good cause to exempt this final rule from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, DEA has determined that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Sea World Fireworks for nightly shows from Memorial Day to Labor Day in 2021, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for the Southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced for the location identified in Item 7 of Table 1 to § 165.1123 from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m., each day without actual notice from June 22, 2021 through September 6, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 15, 2021 until June 22, 2021.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone for the Sea World Fireworks on the waters of Mission Bay, CA in § 165.1123, Table 1, Item 7 of that section, from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on specific evenings from Memorial Day to Labor Day in 2021. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks events. Our regulation for Southern California annual fireworks events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. Under the provisions of § 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone covering the channel closure for the Northeast Shelter Island Channel Entrance. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) Sensitive Site Strategy Evaluation Program (SSSEP) boom deployment exercise. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on June 22, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because NPRM would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the details of the Sensitive Site Strategy Evaluation Program boom deployment excersise with enough time to solicit and repond to public comments on an NPRM. As such, the channel closure on June 22, 2021 would occur before an NPRM and final rule could be issued.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the CDFW OSPR SSSEP boom deployment exercise will be a safety concern to anyone
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on June 22, 2021. The safety zone will cover the Northeast Shelter Island Channel Entrance and all navigable waters of San Diego Bay encompassed by a three hundred yard circle centered on the coordinate 32°43′13.7″N, longitude 117°13′7.8″W. No vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain in the zone during its enforcement unless permission is obtained from the COTP or a designated representative. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk to, the persons and vessels that operate on and in the vicinity of the Northeast Shelter Island Channel Entrance in the Sector San Diego's Area of Responsibility. This TFR will close the Northeast Shelter Island Channel Entrance.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on safety zone being of a limited duration, limited to a relatively small geographic area, and the presence of safety hazards in the area encompassing the Northeast Shelter Island Channel Entrance.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit entry through the Northeast Shelter Island Channel entrance. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education.
Interpretation.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issues this interpretation to clarify the Department's enforcement authority over discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on gender identity under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
This interpretation is effective June 22, 2021.
Alejandro Reyes, Director, Program Legal Group, Office for Civil Rights. Telephone: (202) 245-7272. 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.
OCR has long recognized that Title IX protects all students, including students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, from harassment and other forms of sex discrimination. OCR also has long recognized that Title IX prohibits harassment and other forms of discrimination against all students for not conforming to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity. But OCR at times has stated that Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination does not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To ensure clarity, the Department issues this Interpretation addressing Title IX's coverage of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in light of the Supreme Court decision discussed below.
In 2020, the Supreme Court in
The Department issues this Interpretation to make clear that the Department interprets Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to provide the reasons for this interpretation, as set out below.
Title IX Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling and analysis in
The Supreme Court in
The Court provided numerous examples to illustrate why “it is impossible to discriminate against a person” because of their sexual orientation or gender identity “without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee's sex, and the affected employee's sex is a but-for cause of his discharge.
In another example, the Court showed why singling out a transgender employee for different treatment from a non-transgender (
For the reasons set out below, the Department has determined that the interpretation of sex discrimination set out by the Supreme Court in
a.
Like Title VII, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex.
Title IX provides, with certain exceptions: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
Title VII provides, with certain exceptions: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex[ ] . . .; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's . . . sex[ ] . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a). (Title VII also prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin.)
Both statutes prohibit sex discrimination, with Title IX using the phrase “on the basis of sex” and Title VII using the phrase “because of” sex. The Supreme Court has used these two phrases interchangeably. In
In addition, both statutes specifically protect
Further, the text of both statutes contains no exception for sex discrimination that is associated with an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. As the Court stated in
Moreover, the Court in
In short, the Department finds no persuasive or well-founded basis for declining to apply
Numerous Federal courts have relied on
The Department also concludes that the interpretation set forth in this document is most consistent with the purpose of Title IX, which is to ensure equal opportunity and to protect individuals from the harms of sex discrimination. As numerous courts have recognized, a school's policy or actions that treat gay, lesbian, or transgender students differently from other students may cause harm.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division issued a Memorandum from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Pamela S. Karlan to Federal Agency Civil Rights Directors and General Counsels regarding Application of
The memorandum stated that, after careful consideration, including a review of case law, “the Division has determined that the best reading of Title IX's prohibition on discrimination `on the basis of sex' is that it includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.” Indeed, “the Division ultimately found nothing persuasive in the statutory text, legislative history, or caselaw to justify a departure from
Consistent with the analysis above, OCR will fully enforce Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department. As with all other Title IX complaints that OCR receives, any complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity also must meet jurisdictional requirements as defined in Title IX and the Department's Title IX regulations, other applicable legal requirements, as well as the standards set forth in OCR's Case Processing Manual,
Where a complaint meets applicable requirements and standards as just described, OCR will open an investigation of allegations that an individual has been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in education programs or activities. This includes allegations of individuals being harassed, disciplined in a discriminatory manner, excluded from, denied equal access to, or subjected to sex stereotyping in academic or extracurricular opportunities and other education programs or activities, denied the benefits of such programs or activities, or otherwise treated differently because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. OCR carefully reviews allegations from anyone who files a complaint, including students who identify as male, female or nonbinary; transgender or cisgender; intersex; lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, heterosexual, or in other ways.
While this interpretation will guide the Department in processing complaints and conducting investigations, it does not determine the outcome in any particular case or set of facts. Where OCR's investigation reveals that one or more individuals has been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the resolution of such a complaint will address the specific compliance concerns or violations identified in the course of the investigation.
This interpretation supersedes and replaces any prior inconsistent statements made by the Department regarding the scope of Title IX's jurisdiction over discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This interpretation does not reinstate any previously rescinded guidance documents.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is correcting an earlier final rule, “Changes to the Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office,” that appeared in the
This rule is effective June 25, 2021.
William R. Covey, Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, at 571-272-4097.
This document corrects an error pertaining to revisions to definitions made in the final rule. Specifically, the Office intended to change the listed definition of “Roster” to “Roster or register.” The Code of Federal Regulations editors informed the Office that the original
In FR Doc. 2021-10528, appearing on page 28442 in the
The revisions and addition read as follows:
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
This final rule makes technical changes to the U.S. Copyright Office's regulations pertaining to its organizational structure in light of the agency's recent reorganization. It reflects recent structural changes, updates certain of the Office's division names, and adds a new section for the Copyright Claims Board established by the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020.
Effective July 22, 2021.
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
The Copyright Office is publishing this final rule pursuant to its May 2021 reorganization. This effort is intended to accomplish two goals: (1) Rename divisions and realign certain reporting structures to improve the Office's effectiveness and efficiency; and (2) reflect the agency structure for the new copyright small-claims tribunal established by the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act of 2020.
The reorganization renames certain organizational elements and senior positions for purposes of greater clarity and consistency. The Office of Public Records and Repositories is renamed the Office of Copyright Records. As noted above, the Office of the Chief of Operations is renamed the Office of the Director of Operations. The following subordinate offices are also renamed: The Copyright Acquisitions Division (“CAD”) is renamed Acquisitions and Deposits (“A&D”); the Administrative Services Office (“ASO”) is renamed the Administrative Services Division (“ASD”); and the Receipt Analysis and Control Division (“RAC”) is renamed the Materials Control and Analysis Division (“MCA”). The Copyright Modernization Office (“CMO”) is renamed the Product Management Division (“PMD”).
Further, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) is renamed the Financial Management Division (“FMD”) and work units under this division are also renamed, including by
This rule is a technical change that constitutes a change to a “rule[ ] of agency organization”
Copyright, General provisions.
Claims, Copyright.
Freedom of information.
Copyright, Recordings.
Copyright, Recordings.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201, 202, 203, 210, and 370 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
5 U.S.C. 552.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(b) The Office of the Director of Operations is headed by the Assistant Register and Director of Operations (“ARDO”), who advises the Register on core business functions and coordinates and directs the day-to-day operations of the Copyright Office. This Office supervises human capital, finances, the administration of certain statutory licenses, mandatory acquisitions and deposits, product management, and materials control and analysis functions. It interacts with other senior management offices that report to the Register and frequently coordinates and assesses institutional projects. This Office has five divisions: Acquisitions and Deposits; Administrative Services; Financial Management; Materials Control and Analysis; and Product Management.
(1) Acquisitions and Deposits (“A&D”) administers the mandatory deposit requirements of the Copyright Act, acting as an intermediary between copyright owners of certain published works and the acquisitions staff in the Library of Congress (17 U.S.C. 407). It creates and updates records for copies received by the Copyright Office, demands particular works or particular formats of works as necessary, and administers deposit agreements between the Library and copyright owners.
(2) The Administrative Services Division (“ASD”) manages human capital and physical space issues for the Copyright Office, and serves as the liaison with other components of the Library for those matters.
(3) The Financial Management Division (“FMD”) oversees fiscal, financial, and budgetary activities for the Copyright Office. It contains the Licensing Section, which administers certain statutory licenses set forth in the Copyright Act. The Licensing Section collects royalty payments and examines statements of account for the cable statutory license (17 U.S.C. 111), the satellite statutory license for retransmission of distant television broadcast stations (17 U.S.C. 119), and the statutory license for digital audio recording technology (17 U.S.C. chapter 10). The Licensing Section also accepts and records certain documents associated with the use of the mechanical statutory license for making and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works (17 U.S.C. 115) and the statutory licenses for publicly performing sound recordings by means of digital audio transmission (17 U.S.C. 112, 114).
(4) The Materials Control and Analysis Division (“MCA”) processes incoming mail, creates initial records, and dispatches electronic and hardcopy materials and deposits to the appropriate service areas. It operates the Copyright Office's central print room and outgoing mail functions.
(5) The Product Management Division (“PMD”) advises on business process integration and improvements in connection with technology initiatives affecting the Copyright Office. It coordinates business activities, including resource planning, stakeholder engagement activities, and project management. The PMD oversees the Office's data management, performance statistics, and business intelligence capabilities.
(c) * * * The Office of the General Counsel also supervises the Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) as it discharges its statutory mandate.
(1) The CCB is a voluntary, alternative forum to Federal court for parties to seek resolution of copyright disputes that have a low economic value. The CCB is headed by three Copyright Claims Officers who ensure that claims are properly asserted and appropriate for resolution; manage proceedings; render determinations and award monetary relief; provide public information; certify and maintain CCB records, including making proceeding records publicly available; and other related duties.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) * * * This Office is comprised of two sections: The Public Information Office and the Outreach and Education section.
(g) * * * It contains three divisions: Recordation; Records Management; and Records, Research and Certification. * * *
17 U.S.C. 115, 702.
17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4), 114(f)(3)(A).
Approved by:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FMCSA amends its regulations to extend the compliance date from June 22, 2021, to June 23, 2025, for several provisions of its April 23, 2015, Medical Examiner's Certification Integration final rule. FMCSA issued an interim final rule (IFR) on June 21, 2018, extending the compliance date for these provisions until June 22, 2021. FMCSA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on April 22, 2021, that proposed further extending the compliance date to June 23, 2025. This final rule will provide FMCSA time to complete certain information technology (IT) system development tasks for its National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) and to provide the State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) sufficient time to make the necessary IT programming changes when the new National Registry system is completed and available.
This final rule is effective June 22, 2021.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA adjusts the compliance date from June 22, 2021, to June 23, 2025, for several provisions in the Medical Examiner's Certification Integration final rule (80 FR 22790, Apr. 23, 2015). Specifically, the Agency postpones to June 23, 2025, the provisions for: (1) FMCSA to electronically transmit, from the National Registry to the SDLAs, driver identification information, examination results, and restriction information from examinations performed for holders of commercial learner's permits (CLPs) or commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) (interstate and intrastate); (2) FMCSA to electronically transmit to the SDLAs medical variance information for all commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers; (3) SDLAs to post on the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record the driver identification, examination results, and restriction information received electronically from FMCSA; and (4) motor carriers to no longer be required to verify that CLP/CDL drivers were certified by a certified medical examiner (ME) listed on the National Registry.
The compliance date for these provisions was postponed previously from June 22, 2018, to June 22, 2021, by an interim final rule (83 FR 28774). This final rule specifies that FMCSA now amends again the regulations adopted in the 2015 final rule and amended in the IFR to include a compliance date, generally, of June 23, 2025.
The legal basis of the 2015 final rule, set out at 80 FR 22791-22792, serves as the legal basis for this rule. Brief summaries of the relevant legal bases for the actions taken in this rulemaking are set out below.
FMCSA is required by statute to establish standards for the physical qualifications of drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce for non-excepted industries (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and 31502(b)). Subject to certain limited exceptions,
The authority for FMCSA to require an operator of a CMV to obtain a CDL is based on 49 U.S.C. 31302, and the authority to set minimum standards for the testing and fitness of such operators rests on 49 U.S.C. 31305.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31311 and 31314, FMCSA has authority to prescribe procedures and requirements the States must follow when issuing CDLs (see, generally, 49 CFR parts 383 and 384). In particular, under section 31314, in order to avoid loss of certain Federal-aid highway funds otherwise apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104(b), each State must comply with the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(1) to adopt and carry out a program for testing and ensuring the fitness of individuals to operate CMVs consistent with the minimum standards prescribed by FMCSA under 49 U.S.C. 31305(a) (see also 49 CFR 384.201).
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and 31149(c)(1)(E) to require MEs on the National Registry to obtain information from CMV drivers regarding their physical health, to record and retain the results of the physical examinations of CMV drivers, and to require frequent reporting of the information contained on the MECs they issue. Section 31133(a)(8) gives the Agency broad administrative powers (specifically “to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements”) to assist in ensuring motor carrier safety and driver health (Sen. Report No. 98-424 at 9 (May 2, 1984)). Section 31149(c)(1)(E) authorizes a requirement for electronic reporting of certain specific information by MEs, including applicant names and numerical identifiers as determined by the FMCSA Administrator. Section 31149(c)(1)(E) sets minimum monthly reporting requirements for MEs and does not preclude the exercise by the Agency of its broad authority under section 31133(a)(8) to require more frequent and more inclusive reports.
Authority to implement these various statutory provisions has been delegated to the Administrator of FMCSA (49 CFR 1.87(f)).
This final rule follows an SNPRM published on April 22, 2021 (86 FR 21259). The SNPRM relied upon the history of the regulations that FMCSA adopted in 2015 and the developments leading to the 2018 interim final rule (83 FR at 28776). The Agency also stated that it might further amend the provisions amended by the interim final rule (83 FR at 28777). Since issuing the 2015 final rule, there have been ongoing challenges associated with launching a new National Registry system. Among those challenges was an unsuccessful attempt by an intruder to compromise the National Registry in December 2017. Although no personal information was exposed, FMCSA took the National Registry system offline until mid-2018 to ensure it was secure. This action and other related actions affected the schedule for implementing the provisions of the 2015 final rule, resulting in the postponement of the compliance date by the 2018 IFR.
Since the 2018 IFR's publication, additional setbacks in FMCSA's efforts to launch a National Registry replacement system require an additional delay. The Agency attempted to launch the first stage of a replacement system in May 2019 but the system's performance capabilities fell short of those needed to implement the 2015 final rule. After a detailed analysis of the functional requirements, the Agency issued a request for proposals to obtain the services of a new contractor and selected a vendor in December 2020 to develop a replacement system by early 2022. The work includes delivery of technical specifications to the SDLAs for use in implementing changes to their respective systems.
FMCSA anticipates that the SDLAs will need up to 3 years following the completion and release of the new National Registry system and its technical specifications to develop and implement those changes. This was the
The SNPRM proposed delaying the compliance date through June 22, 2025, specifically proposing that:
• Certified MEs continue issuing MECs to qualified CLP/CDL applicants/holders;
• CLP/CDL applicants/holders continue to provide the SDLA a copy of their MEC;
• Motor carriers continue verifying that drivers were certified by an ME listed on the National Registry; and
• SDLAs continue processing paper copies of MECs they receive from CLP/CDL applicants/holders.
In the previous 2018 IFR, FMCSA did not delay the requirement for MEs performing physical examinations of CMV drivers to report results of all CMV drivers' physical examinations to FMCSA by midnight (local time) of the next calendar day following the examination. MEs' submission of reports by midnight of the next calendar day also allows FMCSA to begin electronically transmitting this important safety data to each State when that State is ready to receive the information, thereby providing States additional flexibility to implement the provisions of this rulemaking at their own pace. In the SNPRM, FMCSA stated that it believed some States may be prepared to receive this data ahead of the June 23, 2025, date to take advantage of the efficiencies and added security the new process affords.
When FMCSA is ready to begin electronically transmitting MEC information from the National Registry, and an SDLA is ready to begin receiving this information electronically from the National Registry, FMCSA will work with the SDLA involved on the most appropriate means to use such electronic transmissions. In the SNPRM, FMCSA stated that, under such circumstances, electronic transmission of the MEC information may be an acceptable means for CDL and CLP holders to satisfy the requirement of providing the MEC to the SDLA. In order to avoid any uncertainty, provisions were previously added to the appropriate regulations stating that, in case of a conflict between the medical certification information provided electronically by FMCSA and information on a paper version of the MEC, the electronic record will be controlling. The provisions in the regulations governing the handling of these matters under the current procedures will remain in effect through June 22, 2025, to ensure continued compliance by SDLAs and other affected stakeholders until the electronic transmission of MEC information is operational for all SDLAs.
In the SNPRM, FMCSA stated that if any SDLAs begin receiving MEC information from FMCSA prior to June 23, 2025, FMCSA and the SDLAs will make every effort to advise all stakeholders when such transmission begins. MEs listed on the National Registry, employers, and enforcement personnel (both State and Federal) will need to be made fully aware that some SDLAs may be following procedures different from the remaining States.
In 49 CFR parts 383, 384, and 391, FMCSA proposed changing the compliance dates of the rules as shown in the table below.
FMCSA provided a period of 30 days ending May 24, 2021, for public comment regarding its intentions to finalize the compliance dates for the regulations listed above. FMCSA specifically sought input on whether the 3-year period for SDLA implementation is appropriate, or could even be reduced. In the SNPRM, the Agency stated its intention to publish the necessary final rule with the extended compliance dates as soon as feasible.
FMCSA received six comments on the SNPRM from the following parties: One anonymous individual; Mr. Dave Gray (who self-identified as the Past President of North American Transportation Services Association); the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA); the American Trucking Associations (ATA); the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA).
NTSB acknowledged that some delay was necessary, but said that the Agency should focus resources to implement the full system by “at the latest . . . June 22, 2023.”
AAMVA supported the modified timeline and stated they would need more time to implement, listing activities and contracting concerns that would require at least 12 months “from contract start.” AAMVA also said that “the time needed to make changes to the CDLIS record and history record messages should be considered.”
FMCSA will continue to drive the effort, in consultation with AAMVA, to develop a system that is suitable to process the electronic transfer of certification results to the SDLAs, while focusing on the deadline. FMCSA will work with SDLAs that want to use the information exchange prior to the 2025 date. The Agency will likely utilize consultations with the CDLIS Working Group to identify the SDLAs that have such an interest.
Mr. Gray recommends in his comment that FMCSA establish an “interim step” to implement the transmission of medical certification information to the SDLAs. As explained above in the response to the comments from AAMVA, FMCSA will work with any SDLAs that want to implement the information exchange prior to the 2025 compliance date, if it is feasible to do so.
FMCSA assures AAMVA and its members that the past work will be the basis for the ongoing effort and that communication will be open. FMCSA plans to utilize the specifications previously developed, with input from AAMVA, to the fullest extent possible in the National Registry rebuild effort.
FMCSA agrees with ATA's comment and will ensure that SDLAs are aware that they may begin compliance voluntarily before the deadline with support of the Agency.
The anonymous commenter suggested that “A driver who does not pass a DOT physical . . . should have all remaining time on his/her current medical card be made invalid.” The issue raised by this comment was covered in the final rule adopted in 2015. The regulations in 49 CFR 391.41(g)(3) and 391.45(g) state that, if a driver is found not to be physically qualified upon examination by an ME, that determination is reported to FMCSA and any existing and unexpired certificates held by the driver are no longer valid. Such a determination, for CDL and CLP license holders, would then have to be electronically transmitted to the appropriate SDLA by FMCSA for action to indicate on the driver record that the driver is not certified and begin the license downgrade process under 49 CFR part 383. Because the IT infrastructure was, and is still, unavailable, these two provisions were among the many whose implementation was postponed from 2018 to 2021. These provisions are again postponed by this final rule.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, upon a finding of good cause, the Agency may provide for a final rule to become effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences among nations.
FMCSA moves forward with a final rule as proposed in the SNPRM, with no modifications.
This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.
In parts 383, 384, and 391, FMCSA modifies the compliance dates as stated in Table 1. FMCSA does not make any other changes in this final rule.
FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these Orders.
The Medical Examiner's Certification Integration Final Rule, published April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22790), amended the FMCSRs to establish a streamlined process for SDLAs to receive CMV driver physical examination results from the MEs, via the National Registry. The 2015 final rule estimated that the National Registry would be able to receive and transmit this information on a daily basis by June 22, 2018, and established compliance dates for MEs, motor carriers, FMCSA, and the States accordingly. This final rule delays until June 23, 2025, the compliance date requiring (1) FMCSA to electronically transmit from the National Registry to the SDLAs driver identification information, examination results, and restriction information from examinations performed for holders of CLPs/CDLs (interstate and intrastate); (2) FMCSA to electronically transmit to the SDLAs medical variance information for all CMV drivers; (3) SDLAs to post driver identification, examination results, and restriction information received electronically from FMCSA; and (4) that motor carriers no longer would need to verify that their drivers holding CLPs or CDLs were certified by an ME listed on the National Registry. This action is being taken to ensure that SDLAs have sufficient time to make the necessary IT programming changes. Although this rule would impact the responsibilities of MEs, CMV drivers, motor carriers, SDLAs, and FMCSA, it is not expected to generate any economic costs or benefits.
The 2015 final rule accounted for costs associated with system development and implementation, and benefits associated with streamlined processes and reduced paperwork. These costs and benefits (anticipated under the 2018 IFR to be realized on the compliance date of June 22, 2021) would not be realized on that date. Therefore, the baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of this final rule is that the necessary systems will not be ready on June 22, 2021, and will instead be ready on June 23, 2025. This rule aligns the compliance date with the date when the systems will be ready and thus, when the costs and benefits estimated in the 2015 final rule can be realized.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), OIRA designated this rule as not a “major rule.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
FMCSA considers all of the 76,396 MEs who are certified and listed on the National Registry to be small entities.
CMV drivers are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, CMV drivers are considered neither a small business under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601(3)), nor are they considered a small organization under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601(4)}.
All motor carriers will likely be impacted by this rule; however, the rule would impose no new obligations. FMCSA does not know how many of these motor carriers are considered “small.” The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines the size standards used to classify entities as small. SBA establishes separate standards for each industry, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This rule directly affects the States through their SDLAs. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, the States are not small entities. States are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in the RFA. Specifically, States are not considered small governmental jurisdictions under the RFA 5 U.S.C. 601(5), both because State government is not included among the various levels of government listed in Section 601(5), and because, even if this were the case, no State, including the District of Columbia, has a population of less than 50,000, which is the criterion for a governmental jurisdiction to be considered small under the RFA.
Consequently, I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $168 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2019 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule would not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.”
FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR subtitle B, chapter III, parts 383, 384, and 391 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301
(h) * * *
(1)
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, a new CLP or CDL applicant who certifies that he/she will operate CMVs in non-excepted, interstate commerce must be medically examined and certified in accordance with 49 CFR 391.43 as medically qualified to operate a CMV by a medical examiner, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Upon receiving an electronic copy of the medical examiner's certificate from FMCSA, the State will post a medical qualifications status of “certified” on the CDLIS driver record for the driver;
(3)
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, in order to maintain a medical certification status of “certified,” a CLP or CDL holder who certifies that he/she will operate CMVs in non-excepted, interstate commerce must continue to be medically examined and certified in accordance with 49 CFR 391.43 as physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle by a medical examiner, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. FMCSA will provide the State with an electronic copy of the medical examiner's certificate information for all subsequent medical examinations in which the driver has been deemed qualified.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii)(A) Before June 23, 2025, for drivers who certified their type of driving according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) (non-excepted interstate) and, if the CLP applicant submits a current medical examiner's certificate, date-stamp the medical examiner's certificate, and post all required information from the medical examiner's certificate to the CDLIS driver record in accordance with paragraph (o) of this section.
(B) On or after June 23, 2025, for drivers who certified their type of driving according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) (non-excepted interstate) and, if FMCSA provides current medical examiner's certificate information electronically, post all required information matching the medical examiner's certificate to the CDLIS driver record in accordance with paragraph (o) of this section.
(b) * * *
(5)(i) Before June 23, 2025, for drivers who certified their type of driving according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) (non-excepted interstate) and, if the CDL holder submits a current medical examiner's certificate, date-stamp the medical examiner's certificate and post all required information from the medical examiner's certificate to the CDLIS driver record in accordance with paragraph (o) of this section.
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, for drivers who certified their type of driving according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) (non-excepted interstate) and, if FMCSA provides current medical examiner's certificate information electronically, post all required information matching the medical examiner's certificate to the CDLIS driver record in accordance with paragraph (o) of this section.
(o) * * *
(1)(i)
(ii)
(2)
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, the State must, within 10 calendar days of the driver's medical examiner's certificate or medical variance expiring, the medical examiner's certificate becoming invalid, the medical variance being
(3)
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, within 1 business day of electronically receiving medical variance information from FMCSA regarding the issuance or renewal of a medical variance for a driver, the State must update the CDLIS driver record to include the medical variance information provided by FMCSA.
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)(
(
(ii)(A) Before June 23, 2025, if a driver fails to provide the State with the certification contained in § 383.71(b)(1), or a current medical examiner's certificate if the driver self-certifies according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) that he/she is operating in non-excepted interstate commerce as required by § 383.71(h), the State must mark that CDLIS driver record as “not-certified” and initiate a CLP or CDL downgrade following State procedures in accordance with paragraph (o)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) On or after June 23, 2025, if a driver fails to provide the State with the certification contained in § 383.71(b)(1), or, if the driver self-certifies according to § 383.71(b)(1)(i) that he/she is operating in non-excepted interstate commerce as required by § 383.71(h) and the information required by paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section is not received and posted, the State must mark that CDLIS driver record as “not-certified” and initiate a CLP or CDL downgrade following State procedures in accordance with paragraph (o)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301,
(i) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in effect as of June 22, 2015, as soon as practical, but, unless otherwise specifically provided in this part, not later than June 23, 2025.
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, 31149, and 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; secs. 5403 and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115-105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(m) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)(
(C)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)(
(C) Through June 22, 2025, if the driver provided the motor carrier with a copy of the current medical examiner's certificate that was submitted to the State in accordance with § 383.73(a)(2)(vii) of this chapter, the motor carrier may use a copy of that medical examiner's certificate as proof of the driver's medical certification for up to 15 days after the date it was issued.
(a) * * *
(2)
(i)(A) Beginning on January 30, 2015 and through June 22, 2025, a driver required to have a commercial driver's license under part 383 of this chapter, and who submitted a current medical examiner's certificate to the State in accordance with 49 CFR 383.71(h) documenting that he or she meets the physical qualification requirements of this part, no longer needs to carry on his or her person the medical examiner's certificate specified at § 391.43(h), or a copy, for more than 15 days after the date it was issued as valid proof of medical certification.
(B) On or after June 23, 2025, a driver required to have a commercial driver's license or a commercial learner's permit under 49 CFR part 383, and who has a current medical examiner's certificate documenting that he or she meets the physical qualification requirements of
(ii) Beginning on July 8, 2015, and through June 22, 2025, a driver required to have a commercial learner's permit under part 383 of this chapter, and who submitted a current medical examiner's certificate to the State in accordance with § 383.71(h) of this chapter documenting that he or she meets the physical qualification requirements of this part, no longer needs to carry on his or her person the medical examiner's certificate specified at § 391.43(h), or a copy for more than 15 days after the date it was issued as valid proof of medical certification.
(g) * * *
(2)(i) Before June 23, 2025, if the medical examiner finds that the person examined is physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in accordance with § 391.41(b), he or she must complete a certificate in the form prescribed in paragraph (h) of this section and furnish the original to the person who was examined. The examiner must provide a copy to a prospective or current employing motor carrier who requests it.
(ii) On or after June 23, 2025, if the medical examiner identifies that the person examined will not be operating a commercial motor vehicle that requires a commercial driver's license or a commercial learner's permit and finds that the driver is physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in accordance with § 391.41(b), he or she must complete a certificate in the form prescribed in paragraph (h) of this section and furnish the original to the person who was examined. The examiner must provide a copy to a prospective or current employing motor carrier who requests it.
(3) On or after June 23, 2025, if the medical examiner finds that the person examined is not physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in accordance with § 391.41(b), he or she must inform the person examined that he or she is not physically qualified, and that this information will be reported to FMCSA. All medical examiner's certificates previously issued to the person are not valid and no longer satisfy the requirements of § 391.41(a).
(g) On or after June 23, 2025, any person found by a medical examiner not to be physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of § 391.43.
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) For CDL holders, beginning January 30, 2012, if the CDLIS motor vehicle record contains medical certification status information, the motor carrier employer must meet this requirement by obtaining the CDLIS motor vehicle record defined at § 384.105 of this chapter. That record must be obtained from the current licensing State and placed in the driver qualification file. After January 30, 2015, a non-excepted, interstate CDL holder without medical certification status information on the CDLIS motor vehicle record is designated “not-certified” to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. After January 30, 2015, and through June 22, 2025, a motor carrier may use a copy of the driver's current medical examiner's certificate that was submitted to the State for up to 15 days from the date it was issued as proof of medical certification.
(9) * * *
(ii) Through June 22, 2025, for drivers required to have a CDL, a note relating to verification of medical examiner listing on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners required by § 391.23(m)(2).
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia are transferring a portion of their 2021 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to the State of New Jersey, respectively. This adjustment to the 2021 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2021 commercial quotas for North Carolina, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey.
Effective June 21, 2021 through December 31, 2021.
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9225.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2021 allocations were published on December 21, 2020 (85 FR 82946).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 9,980 lb (4,527 kg) to Massachusetts and Virginia is transferring 9,800 lb (4,445 kg) to New Jersey through mutual agreement of the states. These transfers were requested to repay landings made by out-of-state permitted vessels under safe harbor agreements. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2021 are: North Carolina, 2,974,923 lb (1,349,402 kg); Massachusetts, 1,025,159 lb (465,004 kg); Virginia, 2,389,776 lb (210,922 kg); and, New Jersey, 1,970,862 lb (893,968 kg).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-25-11, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2013-25-11 requires repetitive inspections of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings, upper fittings, and shelves for damage, repetitive inspections of the 80VU rack lower central support for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2013-25-11 also specifies optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Since the FAA issued AD 2013-25-11, new damage was reported on airplanes that had complied with certain actions in that AD. This proposed AD would expand the applicability, remove the optional terminating action, and require new repetitive inspections, 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 August 6, 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 EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; 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 Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
The FAA issued AD 2013-25-11, Amendment 39-17707 (78 FR 78705, December 27, 2013) (AD 2013-25-11), which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
Since the FAA issued AD 2013-25-11, new damage was reported on airplanes that had accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1215 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, which AD 2013-25-11 specified as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Damage was also found on airplanes on which Airbus mod 34804 (which provides the same modifications specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1215 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557) was embodied. Additional airplane models have also been determined to be subject to the unsafe condition. The FAA has therefore determined that new repetitive inspections of the 80VU rack are necessary to address the unsafe condition, and the applicability needs to be revised to include the additional airplane models.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0045, dated February 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0045) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232 airplanes. EASA AD 2021-0045 supersedes EASA AD 2012-0134 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-25-11). Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of damaged lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, and reports of new damage on airplanes on which certain optional service information had been accomplished. The FAA is proposing this AD to address damage or cracking of the 80VU fittings and supports, which could lead to possible disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers, and if occurring during a critical phase of flight, could result in reduced control of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2021-0045 describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings, lower central support, upper fittings, central post, and shelves attachments for discrepancies (including broken fittings, missing bolts, an electronics rack FIN 80VU that is in contact with structure, any bush that has migrated, burred material, and cracks), and corrective action if necessary. Corrective actions include modification, repair, and replacement. EASA AD 2021-0045 also describes procedures for reporting inspection results to Airbus.
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 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 accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0045 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this 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 2021-0045 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0045 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 2021-0045 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2021-0045 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,528 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $129,880, or $85 per product.
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
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 operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
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 August 6, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2013-25-11, Amendment 39-17707 (78 FR 78705, December 27, 2013) (AD 2013-25-11).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of damaged lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, and reports of new damage on airplanes on which certain optional service information had been accomplished. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage or cracking of the 80VU fittings and supports, which could lead to possible disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers, and if occurring during a critical phase of flight, could result in reduced control 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 2021-0045, dated February 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0045).
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0045 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The remarks section of EASA AD 2021-0045 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0045 specifies “any discrepancy,” for this AD “any discrepancy” includes broken fittings, missing bolts, an electronics rack FIN 80VU that is in contact with structure, any bush that has migrated, burred material, and cracks.
(4) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0045 specifies to report inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-25-11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2021-0045 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0045, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on May 14, 2018, May 8, 2019, and May 13, 2020. The revisions are to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (Commission or AQCC) Regulation Number 7 (Reg. 7). The revisions to Reg. 7 address Colorado's SIP obligation to require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by the 2016 oil & natural gas control techniques guidelines (CTG or CTGs) for Moderate nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); update RACT requirements for major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0262, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Abby Fulton, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
As explained below, the EPA is proposing to approve various revisions to the Colorado SIP that were submitted to the EPA on May 14, 2018, May 8, 2019, May 13, 2020, and March 22, 2021. In particular, we propose to approve certain Reg. 7 rules to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS oil and gas CTG RACT requirements for Moderate nonattainment areas that were not acted on in our July 3, 2018
The specific bases for our proposed actions, our analyses, and proposed findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking. Technical information that we are relying on is in the docket, available at
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (based on the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years), to provide increased protection of public health and the environment.
Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data.
On May 4, 2016, the EPA published its determination that the Denver Area, among other areas, had failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline, and that it was accordingly reclassified to Moderate ozone nonattainment status.
Areas that were designated as Moderate nonattainment were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2018, based on 2015-2017 monitoring data.
Colorado's Reg. 7, entitled “Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Control of Hydrocarbons via Oil and Gas Emissions,” contains general RACT requirements as well as specific emission limits applicable to various industries. The EPA approved the repeal and re-promulgation of Reg. 7 in 1981,
Most recently, in 2021 the EPA approved Reg. 7 revisions in Sections I (Applicability), IX (Surface Coating Operations), X (Use of Cleaning Solvents), XIII (Graphics Arts and Printing), XVI (Controls of Emissions from Stationary and Portable Engines and Other Combustion Equipment in the 8-Hour Ozone Control Area), and XIX (Control of Emissions from Specific Major Sources of VOC and/or NO
We are proposing to take action on Colorado SIP submittals made on four three different dates:
This submittal contains amendments to Reg. 7 Sections XII (Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations) and XVIII (Natural Gas-Actuated Pneumatic Controllers Associated with Oil and Gas Operations) to meet RACT for oil and gas sources covered by the EPA's 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
This submittal contains typographical, grammatical, and formatting corrections to Reg. 7 Sections XII and XVIII that were not acted on in our February 24, 2021 action.
This submittal includes a full reorganization of Reg. 7 into Parts A-E, and amends oil and gas storage tank requirements to establish a storage tank control threshold, updates storage tank monitoring requirements, and aligns related recordkeeping and reporting. The submittal also updates RACT requirements for major sources of VOC and NO
The CAA requires that states meet certain procedural requirements before submitting SIP revisions to the EPA, including the requirement that states adopt SIP revisions after reasonable notice and public hearing.
For the May 14, 2018 submittal, the AQCC provided notice in the Colorado Register on July 22, 2017 and held public hearings on the revisions on October 19 and 20, 2017. The Commission adopted the SIP revisions on November 17, 2017. The SIP revisions became state-effective on December 30, 2017.
For the May 8, 2019 submittal, the AQCC provided notice in the Colorado Register on August 18, 2018 and held a public hearing on the revisions on November 15, 2018. The Commission adopted the SIP revisions on November 15, 2018. The revisions became state-effective on January 14, 2019.
For the May 13, 2020 submittal, the AQCC provided notice in the Colorado Register on September 25, 2019 and held public hearings on the revisions on December 17-19, 2019. The Commission adopted the SIP revisions on December 19, 2019. The SIP revisions became state-effective on February 14, 2020.
Accordingly, we propose to find that Colorado met the CAA's procedural requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing.
The CAA requires that SIPs for nonattainment areas implement RACT for each category of VOC sources in the area covered by a CTG and all other major stationary sources of VOC.
The EPA provides guidance concerning what types of controls can constitute RACT for a given source
For a Serious nonattainment area, a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 50 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or NO
On October 20, 2016, the EPA issued final CTGs for reducing VOC emissions from existing oil and natural gas equipment and processes.
Industry, 81 FR 74798 (Oct. 27, 2016).
In December 2019, the Commission adopted new SIP requirements to include provisions that implement RACT for some major sources of VOC and NO
As part of its May 14, 2018 and May 13, 2020 submittals, the Division conducted RACT analyses to demonstrate that the RACT requirements for the oil and gas CTG and certain major sources in the DMNFR 2008 8-hour ozone NAA have been fulfilled. The Division conducted these RACT analyses for VOC and NO
In our July
Table 2 contains the CTG source category, the EPA reference document, and the corresponding sections of Reg. 7 that fulfill the applicable RACT requirements for the EPA-issued CTGs.
We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the above source category and compared them against the EPA's CTG document and available technical information in CTG dockets. The EPA has also evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they are consistent with the CAA, the EPA's regulations, and the EPA's policies. For more information, see the EPA TSD prepared in conjunction with this action. Based on the information in the record, we propose to find that the corresponding sections in Reg. 7 provide for the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. Therefore, we propose to find that the control requirements for the oil and gas source category are RACT for all affected sources in the DMNFR Area under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
In Colorado's Technical Support Document for Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources,
We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the source categories in Table 3 and compared them to the EPA's regulations, ACT documents, available technical information, and guidelines. The EPA has also evaluated the submitted rules
We evaluated Colorado's May 14, 2018, May 8, 2019, and May 13, 2020 submittals regarding revisions to the State's Reg. 7 to meet RACT requirements for various source categories. Revisions to Reg. 7 include expansion of categorical combustion equipment requirements; incorporation by reference of certain NSPS and NESHAP requirements for engines and landfill gas flares; RACT analysis requirements for specified facilities and/or emission points; emission control requirements for general solvent use; and updated requirements for gasoline transport truck testing and vapor control systems. The revisions establish RACT requirements for the oil and gas CTG category and emission points at major sources of VOC and NO
As noted above, Colorado designated various parts of Reg. 7 State Only, and in Section I.A.1.c indicated that sections designated State Only are not federally enforceable. The EPA concludes that provisions designated State Only have not been submitted for the EPA's approval, but for informational purposes. Hence, the EPA is not proposing to act on the portions of Reg. 7 designated State Only, and this proposed rule does not discuss them further except as relevant to discussion of the portions of the regulation that Colorado intended to be federally enforceable.
The State's May 14, 2018 SIP submittal contains amendments to Reg. 7, Sections II.B., XII and XVIII to meet RACT for oil and gas sources covered by the EPA's 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The submittal also includes clarifying revisions and typographical, grammatical, and formatting corrections throughout Reg. 7. We propose to approve the revisions to Sections XII and XVIII included in Colorado's May 14, 2018 submittal as identified in Table 5. All remaining Sections of the May 14, 2018 submittal were approved with our February 24, 2021 action.
Section II includes general provisions for Reg. 7. The revisions to Section II.B. clarify that the Section XII.L. hydrocarbon threshold and Section XVIII natural gas emission standards serve as VOC indicators and that the SIP does not regulate hydrocarbon emissions.
We propose to find that the revisions clarify Sections XII.L., XVIII.C.1. and XVIII.C.2. and are consistent with CAA requirements and CTGs. We therefore propose to approve the changes in Section II.B.
Section XII regulates VOC emissions from, and establishes RACT for, oil and gas operations. Section XII applies to operations that involve the collection, storage, or handling of condensate in the DMNFR Area. Changes to Sections XII.A. through XII.D. and XII.F. through XII.F.L. include addition of definitions for terms used in oil and gas operations; clarifications to Colorado's ozone season; updates to the leak detection and repair program; new provisions for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors, natural gas driven diaphragm pumps, and fugitive emissions at well production facilities and natural gas compressor stations; and minor clerical
Section XII.B. contains definitions specific to oil and gas operations in Section XII. New definitions were added for “approved instrument monitoring method,” “centrifugal compressor,” “component,” “connector,” “custody transfer,” “infra-red camera,” “natural gas compressor station,” “natural gas-driven diaphragm pump,” “natural gas processing plant,” “reciprocating compressor,” and “well production facility.” The definitions are clear, straightforward, and accurate.
Section XII.C.1. includes provisions that are generally applicable to Section XII. Section XII.C.1.e.(iv) adds a new requirement for combustion devices installed on or after January 1, 2018 and used to comply with Sections XII.J. or XII.K. to be equipped with an operational auto-igniter upon installation. We propose to find that the revisions to Section XII.C.1. meet CAA and RACT requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP.
Section XII.G. includes requirements for natural gas-processing plants in the 8-hour Ozone Control Area. Section XII.G.1. updates the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program applicable to equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants in the DMNFR Area by requiring owners or operators to comply with 40 CFR part 60 (NSPS), Subparts OOOO or OOOOa, instead of complying with NSPS Subpart KKK, which is an earlier NSPS and less stringent. Subpart KKK requires sources to implement a NSPS Subpart VV level LDAR program, while Subpart OOOO requires sources to implement a NSPS Subpart VVa level LDAR program. The oil and gas CTG recommends a Subpart VVa level LDAR program for equipment at natural gas processing plants. Section XII.G.3. updates compliance dates for owners and operators of existing natural gas processing plants subject to Section XII.G. requirements. We propose to find that the revisions to Section XII.G. meet CAA and RACT requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP.
Section XII.H. sets forth emission reduction requirements for glycol natural gas dehydrators. Section XII.H.6. establishes reporting requirements for sources subject to Section XII.H. The Commission revised references to “ozone season” in Section and XII.H.6. to reflect that the requirements now apply year-round, including during the
Section XII.J. contains new provisions for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. Section XII.J.1.a. requires that by January 2, 2018, VOC emissions from wet seal fluid degassing systems on wet seal centrifugal compressors located between the wellhead and the point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment must be reduced by at least 95%. Section XII.J.1.b. requires wet seal fluid degassing systems to be equipped with continuous, impermeable covers that are connected through a closed vent system that routes emissions from the wet seal fluid degassing system to the process or control device. Section XII.J.1.c. requires annual visual inspections of the cover and closed vent systems for defects that could result in air emissions.
Under Section XII.J.1.d., owners or operators must conduct annual EPA Method 21 inspections of covers and closed vent systems to determine whether they operate with VOC emissions less than 500 ppm. Section XII.J.1.e. requires first attempts at repair to occur no later than five days after detecting defects or leaks, and repairs to be completed no later than 30 days after detection. Section XII.J.1.f. sets forth criteria for delaying inspection or repair due to unsafe conditions and accessibility issues. Owners or operators are required to maintain records of each cover or closed vent system that is unsafe or difficult to inspect and schedule for inspection when circumstances allow.
Section XII.J.1.h. includes recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate compliance with Section XII.J.1. Owners and operators must maintain records for a minimum of five years. As an alternative to the inspection, repair, and recordkeeping provisions, owners and operators may inspect, repair, and document cover and closed vent systems in accordance with the LDAR program in Section XII.L. Section XII.J.1.j. allows owners and operators to comply with emissions, inspections, repair, and recordkeeping provisions of an NSPS including Subparts OOOO and OOOOa in lieu of Sections XII.J.1.a. through i.
Section XII.J.2. contains provisions for reciprocating compressors. Section XII.J.2.a. requires that the rod packing on reciprocating compressors located between the wellhead and the point of custody transfer to the natural gas transmission and storage segment be replaced every 26,000 hours of operation or every 36 months. Under Section XII.J.2.a., owners or operators of existing reciprocating compressors at natural gas processing plants were required to begin monitoring the reciprocating compressor hours of operation on January 1, 2018 and conduct the first rod packing replacement before January 1, 2021, or route emissions to a process beginning May 1, 2018.
Section XII.J.2.b. allows owners or operators the option to reduce VOC emissions by routing reciprocating compressor emissions using a rod packing emissions collection system that operates under negative pressure and routes the rod packing emissions through a closed vent system to a process. Owners and operators must conduct annual visual inspections of the cover and closed vent systems for defects that could result in air emissions. Section XII.J.2.b.(ii) requires owners and operators to conduct annual EPA Method 21 inspections of the cover and closed vent system to determine whether they operate with VOC emissions less than 500 ppm. Section XII.2.e. allows owners and operators to comply with emissions, inspections, repair, and recordkeeping provisions of an NSPS in lieu of Sections XII.J.2.a. through d.
First attempts at repair must be made within five days of discovery, and repairs must be completed within 30 days unless one of the justifications for delay of repair in Section XII.J.2.b.(iv) applies. Owners or operators may delay subsequent repair attempts of equipment where, during a scheduled shutdown, the owner or operator unsuccessfully repaired the leak requiring repair if repair is completed within two years of discovery. Delayed inspection or repairs of the closed vent system may occur under certain safety, accessibility, and feasibility circumstances described in Sections XII.J.2.b.(iv)(A) through (D).
Section XII.J.2.c. includes recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate compliance with Section XII.J.2. Owners and operators must maintain records for a minimum of five years. As an alternative to the inspection, repair, and recordkeeping provisions, Section XII.J.2.d. allows owners and operators to inspect, repair, and document cover and closed vent systems in accordance with the LDAR program in Section XII.L. Section XII.J.2.e. allows owners and operators to comply with emissions, inspections, repair, and recordkeeping provisions of an NSPS, including Subparts OOOO and OOOOa.
We propose to find that the provisions in the new Section XII.J. strengthen the SIP and meet CAA and RACT requirements.
Section XII.K adds requirements for pneumatic pumps. Section XII.K.1 requires that natural gas-driven diaphragm pneumatic pumps at natural gas processing plants have a VOC compound emissions rate of zero. Section XII.K.2. establishes a May 1, 2018 effective date for owners or operators to reduce emissions from natural gas-driven diaphragm pneumatic pumps at well production facilities by 95% within 30 days of startup of the control device or route emissions to a process at the well production facility. Pneumatic pump emissions must be routed to the existing control device even if is unable to achieve a 95% emission reduction if it is technically infeasible to route emissions to a process. Section XII.K.2.b. requires a 95% reduction from pneumatic pumps within 30 days of startup upon installation of a control device or once routing emissions to a process becomes technically feasible. Pneumatic pump emissions are exempt from controls if an engineering assessment by a qualified professional engineer determines that routing a pneumatic pump to a control device or process is technically infeasible. Pneumatic pumps routing emissions to the process or control device must connect through a closed vent system.
Sections XII.K.2.e. through h. require annual visual and EPA Method 21 inspections of the closed vent system. First attempts at repairs must be made within five days of discovery, and repairs must be completed within 30 days unless one of the justifications for delay of repair in Sections XII.K.2.h. applies. Delayed inspection or repairs of the closed vent system may occur under certain safety, accessibility, and feasibility circumstances described in Sections XII.K.2.h.(i) through (iv).
Section XII.K.3. includes recordkeeping requirements to demonstrate compliance with Section XII.K. Owners and operators must
We propose to find that the provisions in the new Section XII.K. strengthen the SIP and meet CAA and RACT requirements.
Section XII.L. establishes a new leak detection and repair (LDAR) program for well production facilities and natural gas compressor stations in the DMNFR Area.
This program, which we are now reviewing for approval into the SIP, took effect under state law beginning June 30, 2018. Under the LDAR program, owners or operators of natural gas compressor stations must inspect components for leaks using an approved instrument monitoring method (AIMM) at least quarterly.
Owners or operators at well production facilities with uncontrolled actual VOC emissions greater than or equal to one ton per year and less than or equal to six tons per year must inspect components for leaks using an AIMM at least annually. Well production facilities with uncontrolled VOC emissions greater than six tons per year must be inspected at least semi-annually. Sections XII.L.2.c. and Section XII.L.2.d. set forth the criteria for determining inspection frequency and the timing of initial inspections. Initial inspections for well production facilities constructed on or after June 30, 2018 must be conducted no sooner than 15 days and no later than 30 days after the facility commences operation. Monitoring components is not required under certain safety, accessibility, and feasibility circumstances described in Sections XII.L3.a. through c.
Section XII.L.4. establishes thresholds for leaks requiring repair under Section XII.L.5. The first attempt to repair an identified leak must be made within five working days of discovery and completed within 30 days unless one of the justifications for delay of repair in Sections XII.L.5.a(i) through (iii) applies. Leaks must be re-monitored within 15 working days of the repair.
Section XII.L.6. requires owners or operators to keep records to demonstrate compliance with the LDAR program and to maintain those records for a minimum of five years. Records include documentation of the initial approved AIMM inspection; facility identification information; leaks requiring repair and monitoring method used to determine presence of the leak; dates of first attempt to repair; dates and types of repairs; delayed repair lists; re-monitoring dates and results; and lists of components designated as unsafe, difficult, or inaccessible to monitor.
Section XII.L.7. requires that each facility's owner or operator submit an annual LDAR report to ensure that the data submitted to the Division accurately represents and summarizes the activities and effectiveness of the LDAR program. Reports should include the number of inspections, leaks requiring repair, leaking component type, and monitoring method by which the leaks were found.
Section XII.L.8. describes the process for review and approval of alternative AIMM for use as a part of the LDAR program. The provisions allow the use of an alternative AIMM in lieu of or in combination with the EPA-approved AIMM (
Because the alternative AIMM regulation allows the authorization, outside of the SIP approval process, of a leak detection method not specified in the submitted regulatory language or elsewhere in the SIP, we must consider whether it impermissibly allows the state agency to revise the SIP at its own discretion. Concerns with such rules, often known as “director's discretion” provisions, are discussed in detail in EPA's 2015 final rule responding to a petition for rulemaking concerning how SIPs treat excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM), often referred to as the “SSM SIP Call” rulemaking.
Here, the EPA's view is that the State rule provides sufficient specific, substantive criteria to allow the EPA to evaluate the use of discretion in advance. Most significantly, under the provisions of Section XII.L.8, alternative AIMM must be “capable of achieving emission reductions that are at least as effective as the emissions reductions achieved using an IR camera or Method 21.” This requirement ensures that the State may not use its discretion to approve a method that is less effective than the SIP baseline.
It is important in reaching this conclusion that we are able to understand the State's process for determining whether an alternative AIMM is “at least as effective” as the two methods specified in the SIP. First, under the submitted rules at Section XII.L.8.a.(ii)(C), an alternative AIMM applicant must provide information on whether the proposed alternative is approved by other regulatory authorities, and for what application. This information will allow the State to assess the reliability and viability of the alternative. In addition, under Section XII.L.8.a.(ii)(D), the applicant must provide information, with supporting data, on the leak detection capabilities and limitations of the proposed alternative method. This data requirement is important to ensuring that the potential exercise of discretion in the alternative AIMM program is adequately bounded.
The State has further explained this process in a guidance document provided to the EPA.
Additional safeguards and constraints in the alternative AIMM process include:
• The Alternative AIMM approval has to be made based on a record.
• The State must provide public notice of the proposed alternative.
• Approved alternative AIMM is made available to the public on a state website:
One final feature of the State's alternative AIMM rule bears mentioning. It includes a requirement that the State agency submit the proposed alternative AIMM to the EPA for review. The alternative AIMM must receive the EPA's approval, but this approval may occur by default if the EPA does not disapprove the rule within six months. While this six-month EPA review period gives an additional opportunity for regulatory scrutiny of alternative AIMM proposals before approval, it is not equivalent to the SIP process, and is not the basis for our proposed approval of this action. Rather, it is because the alternative AIMM rules provide substantive criteria that constrain the State's exercise of discretion and allow the EPA to anticipate the impacts of the use of alternatives. For that reason, and as explained further above, we propose to approve the submitted new section XII.L.
A detailed evaluation of Section XII as a whole is in the TSD for this action. We propose to find that the submitted revisions to Section XII meet CAA and RACT requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP.
Section XVIII regulates emissions from natural gas-actuated pneumatic controllers located at or upstream of natural gas processing plants, and establishes RACT requirements for oil and gas operations. Section XVIII.C.1. requires that all pneumatic controllers installed on or before February 1, 2009 upstream of natural gas processing plants in the DMNFR Area must emit natural gas emissions in an amount equal to or less than a low-bleed pneumatic controller, unless a high-bleed pneumatic controller is required for safety or process purposes. Section XVIII.C.2. requires that all pneumatic controllers at natural gas processing plants have a bleed rate of zero unless a pneumatic controller with a bleed rate greater than zero is necessary due to safety and process. Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are set forth in Sections XVIII.D. and XVIII.E. and include inspection, maintenance, and records demonstrating compliance with emission reduction requirements in Section XVIII.C. Section XVIII.D.2. establishes additional monitoring and maintenance for pneumatic controllers with a natural gas bleed rate greater than zero.
A detailed evaluation of Section XVIII is in the TSD for this action. We propose to find that the revisions to Section XVIII strengthen the SIP and meet CAA and RACT requirements. We therefore propose to approve the changes in Section XVIII.
The State's May 8, 2019 submittal contains typographical, grammatical, and formatting corrections to Reg. 7 Sections XII and XVIII that were not acted on in our February 24, 2021 action.
The State's May 13, 2020 SIP submittal contains amendments to Reg. 7, including a full reorganization of the regulation into Parts A-E. Table 4 show the current Reg. 7 numbering as related to the proposed Reg. 7 renumbering.
The State's May 13, 2020 SIP submittal also updates requirements for gasoline transport trucks, bulk terminals, and service stations; establishes a storage tank control threshold in lieu of the current system-wide control strategy; strengthens storage tank monitoring requirements; aligns related recordkeeping and reporting; and adds RACT requirements for major sources of VOC and/or NOx in the 8- hour Ozone Control Area. The submittal also includes clarifying revisions and typographical, grammatical and formatting corrections throughout Reg. 7. We propose to approve the revisions to Reg. 7 included in Colorado's May 13, 2020 submittal as identified in Table 5. Below, we describe in detail Colorado's proposed revisions and the basis for our proposed approval of them. Additional analysis on how revisions meet RACT requirements can be found in the TSD for this action.
The revisions add a new Part A heading, encompassing Sections I and II. Part A contains applicability and general provisions for Reg. 7. The revisions also include renumbering and updates to Parts and Sections referenced throughout Part A. The revisions do not change the substance of SIP approved rules. We therefore propose approval of the changes to Part A.
The revisions add a new Part B heading for Sections I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII (previously Reg. 7, Sections III through XV). and appendixes B and C. Part B regulates the storage, transfer, and disposal of VOC and petroleum liquids and petroleum processing and refining. The revisions to Reg. 7, Part B, Sections IV and VII update the gasoline transport truck testing and associated recordkeeping requirements and update and clarify the vapor system requirements. Revisions also include renumbering and updates to Parts and Sections referenced throughout Part B.
Section IV (previously Section VI) regulates the storage and transfer of petroleum liquid, and Section VII (previously Section XV) regulates VOC leaks from vapor collection systems located at gasoline terminals, gasoline bulk plans, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Revisions to Sections IV and VII and the removal of the former Appendix E update requirements for gasoline transport trucks, bulk terminals, and service stations to align with current federal requirements for gasoline transport truck testing and vapor control systems. Section IV.A.2.j. adds a new definition for “vapor collection system.” The definition is clear, straightforward, accurate, and
Section IV.D. regulates VOC leaks from gasoline transport trucks. Revision to Sections IV.D.2 and IV.D.3. replace the outdated vacuum-pressure test in the CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that interferes with any requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. We propose to find that the revisions to Section IV.D. comply with section 110(l) because the revisions are limited to updating the pressure vacuum test and values to be consistent with more recent EPA regulations for gasoline tank trucks and vapor collection systems, and the changes do not weaken the SIP.
We propose to find that the revisions in Part B are consistent with gasoline transport truck, terminal, and service station control and testing requirements of current NSPS and NESHAP standards and that approval of the submittal would comply with CAA Sections 110(l) and 193. We therefore propose to approve the revisions in Part B.
The revisions add a new Part C heading encompassing Sections I, II, III, IV, V (previously Reg. 7, Sections IX-XI, XIII, XIV) and appendixes D and E (formerly appendixes D and F). Part C regulates surface coating, solvents, asphalt, graphic arts and printing, and pharmaceuticals. The revisions also include renumbering and updates to Parts and Sections referenced throughout Part C, and adds a new categorical rule regulating VOC emissions from and establishing RACT for general solvent use in Section II.F.
Section II.F. addresses VOC emissions from sources with a potential to emit 50 tons per year of VOC and with solvent use emissions greater than or equal to two tons per year in the DMNFR Area. Section II.F.3. sets forth work practice requirements including covering containers, proper disposal of solvent waste, and the use of good air pollution practices such as the use of low/no VOC solvent if possible, using only amounts needed, submerged fill pipes, closed loop systems, and maintaining operations to be leak free. Section II.F.4. requires operations that use solvents with uncontrolled actual VOC emissions greater than or equal to 25 tons per year to reduce emissions by 90%. Sections II.F.5. and 6. set forth monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Records must be maintained for a minimum of two years. Sources subject to Section II.F.4. requirements are also subject to additional control requirements, monitoring, performance testing, and recordkeeping requirements for general solvent use operations.
We propose to find that the provisions meet CAA and RACT requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP. We therefore propose to approve the changes in Part C.
The revisions add a new Part D. heading for Sections I, II, and III (previously Reg. 7, Sections XII, XVII, and XVIII), and new Sections IV and V.
Section I.A. contains applicability provisions for Part D. The revisions to Section I.A. streamline and clarify sources subject to Part D and remove the exemption associated with the system-wide control program for owners or operators of condensate tanks with total actual uncontrolled VOC emissions less than 30 tpy (previously Section XII.A.7.).
Section I.B. contains definitions applicable to Part D. A new definition for “commencement of operation” was added for consistency with Regulation Number 3 and for clarity as to the applicability of other control requirements. New definitions for “intermediate hydrocarbon liquid,” “produced water,” “storage tank,” and “storage vessel” were also added. The definitions are clear, straightforward, accurate.
Section I.C. contains general provisions for Part D. Section I.C.2. specifies how operators must calculate emissions and emission reductions to demonstrate compliance with control requirements. The revisions in Section I.C.2.a.(iv) expand current provisions to tanks storing produced water or hydrocarbon liquids other than condensate.
Section I.D. contains provisions for storage tank emissions controls. In 2004 the Commission adopted the initial system-wide control strategy, which required operators to reduce emissions from their system of condensate tanks. The “system” was composed of condensate tanks with uncontrolled actual VOC emissions equal to or greater than two tpy, and allowed operators to decide which tanks to control if emissions from the “system” were reduced by specified percentages. The revisions in Section I.D. replace the system-wide control strategy with an individual storage tank control strategy in Section I.D.3. Operators in the DMNFR Area were required to install controls on storage tanks with uncontrolled actual VOC emissions equal to or greater than four tpy by May 1, 2020. The control requirements in Section I.D. were expanded to include crude oil and produced water tanks. According to the Division, this will
Colorado also submitted a provision for inclusion in the SIP that was previously state-only. Section I.D.2.a. requires that that operators of newly constructed tanks employ controls during the first 90 days after the date of first production. The provision is proposed for inclusion in the SIP to avoid confusion as to whether compliance with the requirement can be considered a limitation upon a source's potential to emit for purposes of permitting.
Section I.E. contains provisions for monitoring of storage tanks and air pollution control equipment. Section I.E. was revised to apply the monitoring requirements for all storage tanks controlled pursuant to Section I.D., which will ensure monitoring of condensate tanks, crude oil, and produced water tanks on a weekly basis per Section I.E.2.c. The required inspections have also been updated to include elements that can impact the performance of well production facility equipment and reduce emissions including checking that burner trays are not visibly clogged, that pressure relief valves are properly sealed, and that vent lines are closed. Inspection documentation requirements in former Section XII.E.3. were removed and moved to Section I.F.2.c.(iii) in order to condense all recordkeeping requirements in Section I.F.
Section I.F. contains provisions for storage tank recordkeeping and reporting. As a result of replacing the system-wide control strategy with the fixed control threshold in Section I.D., recordkeeping and reporting requirements for demonstrating compliance with Section I.D. were revised in Section I.F. Operators subject to the system-wide control strategy were given until August 31, 2020, to submit the report for the time period in 2020 during which the system-wide control strategy remained effective (
Section I.L. contains provisions for the DMNFR Area leak detection and repair program. Sections I.L.2.a. and I.L.2.b. revised language clarifies that applicability for leak inspections at well production facilities are based on rolling twelve-month emission totals and not a calendar year basis.
Section II contains statewide controls for oil and gas operations. The majority of Section II consists of State Only requirements. However, the Commission submitted previous State Only revisions for inclusion in the SIP to Section II.C.1.b.(ii), which requires that operators of newly constructed tanks employ controls within 90 days of commencement of operation. Previous State Only requirements in Section II.G. were also submitted for inclusion in Colorado's SIP. The provisions require control of emissions coming off a separator after a well is newly constructed, hydraulically fractured, or recompleted. These emissions must be routed to a gas gathering line or controlled by air pollution control equipment. The provisions were submitted for inclusion in the SIP to clarify permitting compliance requirements in Reg. 3.
We propose to find that the revisions to Part D meet CAA and RACT requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP. We therefore propose to approve the changes in Part C.
The revisions add a new Part E heading for Sections I, II, III, and IV (previously Reg 7, Sections XVI, XIX, and XX). Part E regulates emissions from combustion equipment at major sources of RACT. The revisions also include renumbering and updates to Parts and Sections referenced throughout Part E, add RACT requirements in Colorado's ozone SIP for 50 tpy major sources of VOC and/or NO
Section II provisions control emissions from stationary and portable combustion equipment in the DMNFR area. Section II.A.1.b. expands the applicability of Section II requirements to stationary combustion equipment at major sources of NO
Owners or operators of combustion equipment specified in Section II.A.1.b. must comply with emission limits in Section II.A.4. by July 20, 2021. This date is consistent with the EPA's implementation deadline for RACT measures not tied to attainment.
We propose to find that the revisions to Section II are consistent with CAA requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP.
Section III provisions control emissions from specific major sources of VOC and/or NO
We propose to find that the revisions to Part E are consistent with CAA requirements, and that they strengthen the SIP. We therefore propose to approve the changes in Part E.
For the reasons expressed above, the EPA proposes to approve revisions to Sections II, XII, and XVIII of Reg. 7 from the State's May 14, 2018 and May 8, 2019 submittals and Parts A through E from the State's May 13, 2020 submission as shown in Table 5, except for those revisions we are not acting on as represented in Table 6. We are proposing to approve Colorado's determination that the above rules constitute RACT for the specific categories addressed in Tables 2 and 3.
A comprehensive summary of the revisions in Colorado's Reg. 7 organized by the EPA's proposed rule action, reason for proposed “no action” and submittal date are provided in Tables 5 and 6.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA
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);
• 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); and
• 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.
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. 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. We are proposing to approve state rules as meeting the CAA standard for RACT, which EPA has defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. Accordingly, we propose to determine that this rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
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
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule, extension of reply comment period.
In this document, the Commission grants the request by SpaceX Holdings, LLC, WorldVu Satellites Limited, Kepler Communications, Intelsat License LLC, and SES S.A., for an extension of the reply comment deadline for the proposed rule published in the
The reply comment period for the proposed rule published April 16, 2021, at 86 FR 20111, is extended. Reply comments should be received either on or before July 7, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
• During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
Madelaine Maior of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1466 or
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a
2. On May 24, 2021, the 12 GHz Alliance filed the instant request for a 30-day extension of the Reply Comment deadline of June 7, 2021.
3. The Commission grants the Reply Extension Request filed by the 12 GHz Alliance. As set forth in Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules,
4. Accordingly,
5.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Republic of Korea (Korea), Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, net countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable June 22, 2021.
Amaris Wade, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874.
On July 13, 2015, Commerce published the AD orders on steel nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam
On June 3, 2021, the ITC published its determinations, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the orders is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel. Certain steel nails may consist of a one piece construction or be constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material.
Excluded from the scope of these orders are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.
Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are steel nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision).
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of the orders are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to the orders are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings: 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00, 7318.29.0000, and 7806.00.8000. Certain steel nails subject to the orders also may be classified under HTSUS subheading 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and (d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application from Blue Planet Strategies contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notice to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2021.
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9122,
Blue Planet Strategies submitted a complete application for an EFP on May 15, 2021 for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct fishing activities that Federal regulations would otherwise restrict. The purpose of this study is to test technologies for sub-surface gear marking and gear tracking technologies and prototypes for acoustic release of bottom stowed lift bags or vertical lines for retrieving fishing gear used in the New England groundfish, monkfish, and American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries for the purpose of reducing buoy line interactions with marine
1. Gear marking requirements at 50 CFR 697.21(b)(2) to allow for the use of a single buoy marker on a trawl of more than three traps; and
2. Gear marking requirements at § 648.84(b) to allow for the use of a single buoy marker on a gillnet.
The participating gillnet fishermen typically fish 21 nets not longer than 300 ft (91.44 m). One end of the gillnet will be marked according to regulations, the other end will test a lift bag system. The participating lobster harvesters fish between 2 and 45 traps per trawl in depths ranging from 50 to 300 ft (15.24 to 91.44 m). One end of approximately 4 trawls per vessel will be marked according to regulations, the other end will use either a lift bag system, a buoy and stowed rope system, or a spooled rope system. Both gillnet and lobster gear will test either acoustic or modem gear marking technology. A maximum of 100 gillnet deployments are anticipated in 2021 and 140 deployments are expected in 2022, with a soak time of 96 hours. A maximum of 200 lobster trap trawl deployments are anticipated in 2021 and 800 are expected in 2022, with a maximum soak time of 4-8 days. Sampling would largely occur from June to October in both 2021 and 2022, though the permit has been requested through December 2022. Initial deployments would be overseen by an engineering team.
We published a proposed rule (85 FR 86878) on December 31, 2020 that would modify the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan regulations at § 229. The proposed rule included a new seasonal restricted area that falls within Area 1 that would be closed to buoy lines from October through January but would allow ropeless fishing. A final rule is expected to be published later in 2021. Should the closure be implemented and should investigators wish to access this area, additional EFP terms and conditions may be required.
If approved, Blue Planet Strategies may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new system of records.
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) is establishing OMD-33, Ensuring Workplace Health and Safety in Response to a Public Health Emergency, a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. This system of records maintains information collected in response to a public health emergency, such as a pandemic or epidemic, from FCC staff (including political appointees, employees, detailees, contractors, consultants, interns, and volunteers) and visitors to FCC facilities that is necessary to ensure a safe and healthy work environment.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(4) and (11), this notice will go into effect without further notice on June 22, 2021 unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. New routine uses will go into effect on July 22, 2021. Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2021.
You may submit comments identified as pertaining to “Ensuring Workplace Health and Safety in Response to a Public Health Emergency” to Margaret Drake at
Margaret Drake at 202-418-1707 or
The FCC is establishing OMD-33, Ensuring Workplace Health and Safety in Response to a Public Health Emergency, a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. The FCC is committed to providing all FCC staff with a safe and healthy work environment and to that end it may develop and institute additional safety measures in response to a public health emergency. These measures may include instituting activities such as requiring FCC staff and visitors to provide information before being allowed access to an FCC facility, medical screening, and contact tracing. Contact tracing conducted by FCC staff may involve collecting information about FCC staff and visitors who are exhibiting symptoms or who have tested positive for an infectious disease in order to identify and notify other FCC staff and visitors with whom they may have come into contact and who may have been exposed. Moreover, the FCC will use contact tracing data to submit required reports to local public health officials, in accordance with local public health mandates.
Information will be collected and maintained in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and regulations and guidance published by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a “system of records” is defined as a group of any records under the control of a Federal government agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act establishes the means by which government agencies must collect, maintain, and use information about an individual in a government system of records.
Each government agency is required to publish a notice in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the FCC has provided a report of this new system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
OMD-33, Ensuring Workplace Health and Safety in Response to a Public Health Emergency.
Unclassified.
This system is maintained by the Office of the Managing Director in the Commission's Headquarters at 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
The system manager is the Managing Director located in the Commission's Headquarters at 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
The authority to collect this information derives from General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654), Executive Order 12196,
The information in the system is collected to assist the FCC with maintaining a safe and healthy workplace and to protect FCC staff and visitors working on-site from risks associated with a public health emergency (as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and declared by its Secretary), such as a pandemic or epidemic. To that end, the FCC may develop and institute additional safety measures in response to a public health emergency. These measures may include instituting activities such as requiring FCC staff and visitors to provide information before being allowed access to an FCC facility, medical screening, and contact tracing. Contact tracing conducted by FCC staff may involve collecting information about FCC staff and visitors who are exhibiting symptoms or who have tested positive for an infectious disease in order to identify and notify other FCC staff and visitors with whom they may have come into contact and who may have been exposed within an FCC facility. Moreover, the FCC will use contact tracing data to submit required reports to local public health officials, in accordance with local public health mandates.
Individuals covered by this system include FCC staff (
This system maintains information collected about FCC staff and visitors accessing or requesting access to FCC facilities during a public health emergency, including a pandemic or epidemic. It maintains biographical information collected about FCC staff and visitors such as their name, contact information, whether they are in a high-risk category or provide dependent care for individuals in a high-risk category, and recent travel. It maintains health information collected about FCC staff and visitors to a FCC facility, that may include temperature checks, expected or confirmed test results, dates, symptoms, potential or actual exposure to a pathogen, immunizations and vaccination information, or other medical history related to the treatment of a pathogen or communicable disease that is identified as part of a public health emergency. It maintains information collected about FCC staff and visitors to FCC facilities necessary to conduct contact tracing that may include the dates and which facility they visited, the locations that they visited within the facility (
The information in this system is collected in part directly from the individual or from FCC management officials requesting access to an FCC facility on a person's behalf. Information is also collected from security systems monitoring access to FCC facilities, such as video surveillance and turnstiles, human resources systems, emergency notification systems, and federal, state, and local agencies assisting with the response to a public health emergency. Information may also be collected from property management companies responsible for managing office buildings, including parking garages, that house FCC facilities.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows.
(a) To Federal, State, or local public health agencies to the extent necessary to comply with laws and regulations governing reporting of infectious disease;
(b) To the FCC staff member's emergency contact for purposes of locating a staff member during a public health emergency or to communicate that the FCC staff member may have potentially been exposed to an infectious disease as the result of a pandemic or epidemic while visiting a FCC facility;
(c) To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) The Commission or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the Commission in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the Commission in his or her individual capacity where the Commission has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation;
(d) To the appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of a statute, regulation, rule, or order either for purposes of obtaining additional information relevant to a FCC decision or for referring the record for investigation, enforcement, or prosecution by another agency;
(e) To a Congressional office when in response to an inquiry by an individual made to the Congressional office for the individual's own records;
(f) To provide information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act; or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
(g) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or
(h) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to Individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(i) To disclose information to third parties, including contractors, performing or working on a contract in connection with providing services for the Federal Government, who may require access to this system of records.
Records in this system of records are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities. Electronic records are stored on the Commission's secure network.
Information covered by this system of records notice may be retrieved by the name of the individual.
FCC will work with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to draft and secure approval of a records disposition schedule to cover the records described in this SORN. Until this records disposition schedule is approved by NARA, FCC will maintain, and not destroy, these records.
Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures. Technical security safeguards within FCC include restrictions on computer access to authorized individuals who have a legitimate need to know the information; required use of strong passwords that are frequently changed; multi-factor authentication for remote access and access to many FCC network components; use of encryption for certain data types and transfers; firewalls and intrusion detection applications; and regular review of security procedures and best practices to enhance security. Physical safeguards include restrictions on building access to authorized individuals, 24-hour security guard service, and maintenance of records in lockable offices and filing cabinets.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address inquiries to Margaret Drake at
None.
None.
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 July 22, 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 created WEA (previously known as the Commercial Mobile Service Alert System) as required by Congress in the Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act and to satisfy the Commission's mandate to promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.
All these information collections involve the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, a mechanism under which CMS providers may elect to transmit emergency alerts to the public. OMB last granted these collection requests on August 1, 2018 (ICR Ref. No. 201804-3060-013).
On August 7, 2008, the Commission released the Third Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07- 287 (CMS Third Report and Order), FCC 08-184. The CMS Third Report and Order implemented provisions of the WARN Act, including a requirement that within 30 days of release of the CMS Third Report and Order, each CMS provider must file an election with the Commission indicating whether or not it intends to transmit emergency alerts as part of WEA. The Commission began accepting WEA election filings on or before September 8, 2008.
The Bureau has sought several extensions of this information collection. On January 30, 2018, the Commission adopted a WEA Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration in PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, FCC 18-4 (WEA Second R&O). In this order, the Commission defines “in whole” or “in part” WEA participation, specifies the difference between these elections, and requires CMS providers to update their election status accordingly.
Section 10.240 of the Commission's rules already requires that CMS Providers participating in WEA “in part” provide notice to consumers that WEA may not be available on all devices or within the entire service area, as well as details about the availability of WEA service. As part of the WEA Second R&O, the Commission adopted enhanced disclosure requirements, requiring CMS Providers participating in WEA “in part” to disclose the extent to which enhanced geo-targeting is available on their network and devices at the point of sale and the benefits of enhanced geo-targeting at the point of sale. We believe these disclosures will allow consumers to make more informed choices about their ability to receive WEA Alert Messages that are relevant to them.
A CMS provider that elects not to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole, shall provide clear and conspicuous notice, which takes into account the needs of persons with disabilities, to existing subscribers of its non-election or partial election to provide Alert messages by means of an announcement amending the existing subscriber's service agreement.
A CMS provider that elects not to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole, shall use the notification language set forth in § 10.240 (c) or (d) respectively, except that the last line of the notice shall reference FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.250, rather than FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240.
In the case of prepaid customers, if a mailing address is available, the CMS provider shall provide the required notification via U.S. mail. If no mailing address is available, the CMS provider shall use any reasonable method at its disposal to alert the customer to a change in the terms and conditions of service and directing the subscriber to a voice-based notification or to a website providing the required notification.
The Commission also seeks to extend OMB approval in connection with the Commission's creation of a WEA database to improve information transparency for emergency managers and the public regarding the extent to which WEA is available in their area.
Since ensuring consumer notice and collecting information on the extent of CMS providers' participation is statutorily mandated, the Commission requests to extend approval of this collection by OMB so that the Commission may continue to meet its statutory obligation under the WARN Act.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2021.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Patricia M. McDermott (202-326-2569), Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC website at this web address:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 22, 2021. Write “Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board; File No. 161 0068, Docket No. 9374” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Due to protective actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board; File No. 161 0068, Docket No. 9374” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval by the Commission, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) with the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board (“the Board”). The Consent Agreement resolves allegations against the Board in the administrative complaint issued by the Commission on May 31, 2017.
The Commission has placed the Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or issue the proposed Order. The proposed Order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the Board that it violated the law, or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.
This matter involves allegations that the Board unreasonably restrained price competition for appraisal services in Louisiana. The Board is a state regulatory agency controlled by Louisiana-licensed appraisers. The Commission's complaint challenges the Board's promulgation and enforcement of subparts A, B, and C of Rule 31101 of Title 46 Part LXVII of the Professional and Occupational Standards of the Louisiana Administrative Code (“Rule 31101”).
The complaint alleges that the Board's promulgation and enforcement of Rule 31101 displaced competition and introduced a regime of rate regulation. The Board's actions had the effect of requiring appraisal management companies (“AMCs”) to pay rates for appraisal services consistent with median fees identified in fee surveys commissioned and published by the Board. Specifically, the Board investigated and issued complaints against AMCs that paid fees below the rates specified in the surveys, and entered into settlement agreements with AMCs that required those companies to pay fees at or above the median fee survey levels.
The complaint alleges that the Board's actions exceeded the scope of its obligations under the appraisal independence provisions in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The complaint further alleges that the Board's conduct resulted in anticompetitive harm in the form of higher appraisal fees paid by AMCs in Louisiana, and that this harm is not outweighed by any procompetitive benefits.
The factual allegations in the complaint support a finding that the Board violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, by promulgating and enforcing Rule 31101. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair methods of competition, including unlawful agreements in restraint of trade prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
A state regulatory board that consists of market participants with distinct and potentially competing economic interests engages in concerted action when it adopts or enforces rules that govern the conduct of its members' separate businesses.
Price regulation practiced by market participants is a form of price fixing and is per se unlawful.
The state action defense is not applicable here. On a motion for partial summary decision, the Commission concluded: (1) The Board is controlled by active market participants; (2) therefore, in order to constitute state action, the Board's conduct must be actively supervised by the State; and (3) the Board's promulgation and enforcement of Rule 31101 were not actively supervised by the State of Louisiana.
The Dodd-Frank Act also does not give rise to a defense to antitrust liability. Exemptions from the antitrust laws are to be narrowly construed,
With regard to the Board's conduct at issue here, there is no conflict or inconsistency between the Board's obligations under the Dodd-Frank Act and its obligations under the antitrust laws; the Board may readily comply with both laws. The Dodd-Frank Act invites States (and not private actors such as the Board) to cooperate with federal authorities in regulating the real estate appraisal industry. The antitrust laws constrain the actions of private actors (such as the Board), but do not apply to states acting in their sovereign capacity.
The proposed Order remedies the Board's anticompetitive conduct by requiring rescission of Rule 31101 and prohibiting the Board from regulating or fixing appraisal fees in Louisiana.
Sections II and III of the proposed Order address the core of the Board's anticompetitive conduct. Paragraph II.A prohibits the Board from enforcing Rule 31101, or adopting or enforcing any other rule that sets, determines, or fixes compensation levels for appraisal services. Paragraph II.B prohibits the Board from raising, fixing, maintaining, or stabilizing compensation levels for appraisal services; requiring or encouraging an AMC to pay any specific fee or range of fees for appraisal services; or requiring or encouraging appraisers to request any specific fee or range of fees for appraisal services. Prohibited conduct includes adopting a fee schedule for appraisal services or requiring AMCs to pay fees consistent with a fee survey or schedule of appraisal fees. Paragraph II.C prohibits the Board from discriminating against any AMC based on the fees that the company pays for appraisal services except in the limited circumstance described below. Prohibited discrimination includes requesting information, conducting audits or investigations, or holding enforcement hearings based on the AMC's fees. The non-discrimination provision includes a proviso that permits the Board to take actions necessary to comply with specific written instructions it receives in conjunction with a compliance review by the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, which monitors States' implementation of minimum requirements for registration and supervision of AMCs under the Dodd-Frank Act. A copy of these instructions must be provided to Commission staff no later than 15 days after receipt, together with a description of how the Board will comply with them. The proviso does not apply to or limit the broad prohibitions on interfering with price competition set forth in Paragraphs II.A and II.B of the proposed Order. Paragraph III.A requires the Board to rescind Rule 31101, and any enforcement order based on an alleged violation of Rule 31101, within 30 days of the issuance of the Order. Paragraph III.B requires the Board to notify the Commission within 60 days any time the Board adopts a new rule or amends an existing rule relating to compensation levels for appraisal services.
Section IV requires the Board to provide notice of the Order to the Board's members and employees, as well as each AMC licensed by the Board. Section V requires the Board to file with the Commission verified written compliance reports. Section VI requires the Board to notify the Commission in advance of changes in the Board's structure that would affect its compliance obligations. Section VII requires that the Board provide the Commission with access to certain information for the purpose of determining or securing compliance with the Order. Section VIII provides that the Order will terminate 20 years from the date it is issued.
The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment concerning the proposed Order. It does not constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or in any way modify its terms.
By direction of the Commission.
United States Agency for Global Media.
Request for comment.
The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) requests public input to inform development of USAGM's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2022-2026.
Submit comments by July 9, 2021.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Laurie Moy, Acting Director of Public Affairs, at
The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is an independent establishment that supervises U.S. international broadcasting under the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (as amended), and other authorities. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, USAGM is required to submit its Strategic Plan to Congress the year following the start of a presidential term.
USAGM is in the process of developing its Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2022-2026 and is consulting a wide range of stakeholders. USAGM welcomes public input into this process on the following questions:
• What are the biggest challenges facing USAGM and other publicly-funded international media over the next five years?
• What are the biggest opportunities for USAGM and other publicly-funded international media over the next five years?
• Do you have any advice for agency leaders on how to position USAGM to best fulfill its mission “to inform, engage, and connect audiences around the world in support of freedom and democracy”?
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
On April 10, 2018, HUD allocated nearly $28 billion in Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds appropriated by the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018. HUD allocated $10.03 billion for the purpose of addressing unmet needs from disasters that occurred in 2017; $2 billion for enhanced or improved electrical power systems in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and $15.9 billion for mitigation activities. This notice governs the use of the $2 billion CDBG-DR allocation for enhanced or improved electrical power systems in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Jessie Handforth Kome, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Ms. Kome at 202-708-0033. (Except for the ”800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free). Email inquiries may be sent to
The Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 (Division B, Subdivision 1 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018), (Pub. L. 115-123 approved February 9, 2018) (the “Appropriations Act”), made available nearly $28 billion in Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds. Of this amount, the Appropriations Act directed HUD to allocate not less than $2 billion for electrical power system enhancements and improvements for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). This notice establishes requirements for necessary expenses of electrical power system enhancements and improvements (“electrical power system improvements”) in the most impacted and distressed area as defined by HUD in section II of this notice and as previously identified in the allocation methodology published by HUD in the August 14, 2018
In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria damaged significant elements of the electricity systems in Puerto Rico and the USVI. Following the hurricanes, five months of repairs were required in order to restore power to the USVI, and approximately eleven months of repairs were needed to restore power to Puerto Rico. CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements provide a unique and significant opportunity for these grantees to carry out strategic and high-impact activities to address necessary expenses and mitigate disaster risks to their electrical power systems, improve system reliability, resiliency, efficiency, sustainability and address each system's long-term financial viability (electrical power system and electrical power system improvements are defined in section V.A.8.a. in this notice). The Department seeks to maximize the impact of these CDBG-DR funds by encouraging the formation of public-private partnerships, partnerships with local, community and neighborhood organizations, and through enhanced coordination with other Federal programs. In the action plan governing the use of these funds, grantees are also required to describe how the funds will be used to address the needs of vulnerable populations, protected classes, and underserved communities, how the funded activities primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, and how the planned improvements will be designed and implemented to address the impacts of climate change.
The use of CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements requires careful planning, robust oversight, and coordination with other Federal disaster recovery, mitigation, and sustainability efforts to enhance the resiliency of grantee's electrical power systems, as an integral component of the grantee's energy infrastructure. The Department places great focus on and will give increased attention to the financial and operational capacity of each grantee's subrecipients and the departments and divisions of the grantee that may receive funds, including public utilities that currently operate and maintain each grantee's electrical power system. As described in section V.A.1.b.(2), grantees must identify any management and operational reforms that have been or will be implemented to improve the outcomes associated with the use of CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements. The Administration also seeks to encourage private, community, and philanthropic sector investments in electrical power system improvements, and to maximize the long-term benefits of this CDBG-DR funding to each grantee's jurisdiction.
The Appropriations Act provides that grants shall be awarded directly to a State, local government, or Indian tribe at the discretion of the Secretary. To comply with statutory direction that funds be used for disaster-related expenses in the most impacted and distressed areas, HUD has identified the most impacted and distressed areas based on the best available data for all eligible affected areas. A detailed explanation of HUD's allocation methodology was previously published in HUD's August 14, 2018
As required by the Appropriations Act, prior to HUD's obligation of the funds to the grantee, a grantee shall submit a plan to HUD for approval detailing the proposed use of all funds. The action plan submitted in response to this notice must describe uses that (1) are electrical power system improvements and satisfy all requirements for electrical power system improvement activities as described in V.A.8.; and (2) meet the criteria for a national objective, as established by this notice.
Section V.A.8. of this notice establishes a waiver and alternative requirement that creates electrical power system improvements as a CDBG-DR eligible activity. As described in section V.A.2.a.(1) of this notice, in the action plan, a grantee must assess the unmet needs for the enhancement or improvement of their respective electrical power system. The unmet needs assessment must inform the action plan and guide the development and prioritization of planned activities to improve each grantee's electrical power system. The action plan must include the criteria to be used by the grantee to prioritize the expenditure of CDBG-DR funds identified in this notice for the specific components of its electrical power system and describe how the use of these CDBG-DR funds will improve the cost-effectiveness, reliability, resilience, efficiency, sustainability, and long-term financial viability of its electrical power systems.
Puerto Rico is subject to the requirements of the State CDBG program, as modified by applicable waivers and alternative requirements. Section 102(a)(2) of the HCDA defines “state” to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(2)). HUD waives the provisions of 24 CFR part 570, subpart F to authorize the USVI to administer its CDBG-DR allocation in accordance with the regulatory and statutory provisions governing the State CDBG program, as modified by this notice. This includes the requirement that the aggregate total for administrative and technical assistance expenditures by the USVI must not exceed 5 percent of any CDBG-DR grant made pursuant to the Appropriations Act, plus 5 percent of program income generated by the grant.
Funds allocated pursuant to this notice shall not be subject to previous notices that govern CDBG-DR or CDBG Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funds awarded to Puerto Rico or the USVI. The use of other CDBG-DR funds or CDBG-MIT funds, allocated pursuant to other notices for electrical power system improvements, shall be subject to the requirements of the notices governing the use of those funds and to the requirements established in section V.B.4 of this notice.
All references in this notice pertaining to timelines and/or deadlines are in terms of calendar days unless otherwise noted.
The grant process outlined below aligns with the typical process for awarding CDBG-DR grants. To begin expending CDBG-DR funds pursuant to this notice, the following steps are required:
• Grantee develops or amends its citizen participation plan for disaster recovery to include the grant for electrical power system improvements in accordance with the requirements in section V.A.3 of this notice.
• Grantee consults with stakeholders, including the required consultation with the Federal members of the Energy Technical Coordination Team (TCT) described in section V.A.2.e.(1) of this notice, affected local government public utilities, rural electrical cooperatives, regulators, commercial and industrial users of the system, residential customers and public interest groups representing residential customers of the system and others pursuant to section V.A.6 of this notice.
• Grantees under this notice have previously submitted materials in support of the Department's certification of the proficiency of its financial controls and procurements processes and the adequacy of its procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits as defined by section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5155, to ensure timely expenditure of funds, maintain a comprehensive website regarding all assisted mitigation activities, and detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds for purposes of its CDBG-MIT grant. Accordingly, as described in section V.A.1.a., for CDBG-DR grants governed by this notice, HUD will rely on the grantees' submissions and certifications in support of the CDBG-MIT certifications, provided, however, that each grantee shall be required to submit updates to reflect any material changes in its certification submissions, as necessary. Grantees must submit the required information within 60 days of the applicability date of this notice.
• Grantee publishes its action plan for electrical power system improvements on the grantee's required disaster recovery website for no less than 45 calendar days to solicit public comment and convenes not less than two public hearings on the proposed plan. The grantee may convene virtual hearings in lieu of in-person hearings, pursuant to section V.A.3.b. of this notice.
• Grantee responds to public comments and submits its action plan within 120 days of the applicability date of this notice (which includes Standard Form 424 (SF-424) and certifications), its implementation plan and capacity assessment in accordance with the requirements in section V.A.1.b, and projection of expenditures and outcomes to HUD in accordance with V.A.2.g.
• Grantee may begin to enter activities into the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system before or after submission of the action plan to HUD. Any activities that are changed as a result of HUD's review must be updated once HUD approves the action plan.
• HUD reviews (within 60 days from the date of receipt) the action plan according to criteria identified in this notice, and either approves or disapproves the plan.
• HUD will send an action plan approval letter, grant conditions, and an unsigned grant agreement to the grantee. If the action plan is not approved, HUD will notify the grantee of the deficiencies. The grantee must then
• Grantee must sign and return the grant agreement to HUD.
• HUD will sign the grant agreement and establish the grantee's CDBG-DR line of credit amount to reflect the total amount of available funds. Grantee posts the final HUD-approved action plan on its official website.
• Grantee enters the activities from its approved action plan into the DRGR system if it has not previously done so and submits its DRGR action plan to HUD (funds can be drawn from the line of credit only for activities that are established in the DRGR system).
• Grantee may draw down CDBG-DR funds from its line of credit after the Responsible Entity completes applicable environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 or adopts another Federal agency's environmental review as authorized under the Appropriations Act, and, as applicable, receives from HUD the Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF) form.
• Substantial amendments are subject to requirements in V.A.2.d., including a 30-day public comment period and posting the substantial amendment to the grantee's website followed by a 60-day review period for HUD.
This section of the notice describes requirements established by the Appropriations Act, as well as waivers and alternative requirements that apply to the CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements. These waivers and alternative requirements provide flexibility in program design and implementation to support the grantees' prudent implementation of activities to address necessary expenses and mitigate disaster risks to their electrical power systems, improve system reliability, resiliency, efficiency, sustainability and address each system's long-term financial viability, while ensuring that statutory requirements are met. For each waiver and alternative requirement, the Secretary has determined that good cause exists and that the waivers and alternative requirements are not inconsistent with the overall purpose of title I of the HCDA.
The Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by the Secretary, or use by the recipient, of these funds, except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment. HUD also has regulatory waiver authority under 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5.
Grantees may request additional waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their electrical power system improvement activities. Grantee requests for waivers and alternative requirements must be accompanied by relevant data to support the request and must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that there is good cause for the waiver or alternative requirement. Grantees must work with their assigned HUD CPD representative to request additional waivers or alternative requirements and such waivers and alternative requirements shall be subject to approval by HUD headquarters. Except when noted, the waivers and alternative requirements described below apply only to CDBG-DR funds subject to the requirements of this notice. Waivers and alternative requirements must be published in the
Except as described for CDBG-DR funds, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the State CDBG program shall apply to both Puerto Rico and the USVI including but not limited to, the principle of maximum feasible deference as provided at 24 CFR 570.480. Statutory provisions for the State CDBG program (title I of the HCDA) can be found at 42 U.S.C. 5301
V.A.1.
Consistent with 2 CFR part 200, HUD will use grant conditions to reduce risk, to contribute to improved outcomes in the use of this CDBG-DR funding, and to help strengthen grantee management practices and improve the grantee's capacity to respond to future disasters. Among the conditions which may be established are requirements for notifying HUD of the planned disposition of components of the electrical power system acquired or improved with CDBG-DR funds and for the management of any program income resulting from such disposition and standards for the procurement of electrical power system improvements, including those established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service.
As electrical power system improvements necessarily rely on the grantee's public utility, and for grantees that are considered by HUD to have “unmitigated high risks,” that impact their ability to carry out large-scale projects, HUD, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Treasury, may consider possible grant conditions. These grant conditions may include but are not limited to requiring the grantee to provide periodic reports on how the expenditure of CDBG-DR funds is contributing to the financial stability of the public utility including steps the utility is taking (
The Department may, based on its assessment of risk, restrict the availability of funds until such time as various grant conditions are met by a grantee. Grantees are reminded that HUD may, at any time, establish new grant conditions based on the risk arising from the performance of a grantee or its subrecipients or may
V.A.1.a.
If this CDBG-DR grant is to be administered by an agency that does not administer a grantee's CDBG-MIT grant, the administering agency for this CDBG-DR grant must submit the documentation for the certification of financial controls and procurement processes, and adequate procedures for proper grant management as described in Sections V.A.1.a. of the August 30, 2019 CDBG-MIT
Grantees must submit the required information within 60 days of the applicability date of this notice.
V.A.1.b.
Evidence of grantee management capacity must be provided through the grantee's implementation plan and capacity assessment submitted with the grantee's action plan. These submissions must meet the criteria in (1) and (2) below. A grantee has sufficient management capacity if it submits documentation showing that each of the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) Timely information on applications. A grantee has adequate procedures to enable applicants to determine the status of their applications for CDBG-DR assistance, at all phases, if its procedures indicate methods for communication (
(2) Implementation plan. To enable HUD to assess risk as described in 2 CFR 200.206, the grantee must submit an implementation plan to the Department. The plan must describe the grantee's capacity to carry out electrical power system improvement activities, how it will address any capacity gaps, and how agency staff of the grantee that administers other CDBG-DR funds and CDBG-MIT funds will work with other agencies of the grantee that administer the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funded mitigation and public assistance funds and other Federally funded activities that support electrical power system improvements. Additionally, grantees must identify any management and operational reforms that have been or will be implemented by the grantee or its planned subrecipients, subgrantees, and any other agencies of the grantee that will carry out a portion of the grant, in order to improve operational efficiency, accountability, and the outcomes associated with the use of CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements. HUD will determine a plan is adequate to reduce risk if, at a minimum, it adequately addresses (a) through (f) below:
(a) Capacity assessment. The grantee has assessed its capacity to carry out electrical power system improvement activities and has developed a timeline with milestones describing when and how the grantee will address all capacity gaps that are identified. The assessment must include a list of any open CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT findings by HUD or its Office of the Inspector General and an update on the corrective actions undertaken to address each finding. HUD may include additional requirements in the grantee's grant conditions to prevent similar findings for this grant.
(b) Staffing. The plan shows that the grantee has accurately assessed staff capacity and identified adequate personnel who have documented experience in the timely development and implementation of electrical power system improvements, including in particular, the distribution, substation, and communication components of the system; staff that are responsible for procurement and contract management, including compliance with the regulations implementing Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (24 CFR part 75) (Section 3); staff with experience and capacity in compliance with fair housing and environmental requirements; and personnel responsible for monitoring, quality assurance, and proper financial management. The grantee's staffing plan may include the procurement of external consulting services with expertise in the development and implementation of electrical power system improvements. An adequate plan must also describe the grantee's internal audit function and the extent to which the internal audit function has been enhanced to account for the technical and specialized nature of the electrical power system improvements to be funded, including responsible audit staff reporting independently to the chief elected official or executive officer or governing board of the designated administering entity. To help complete this staffing exercise, grantees may choose to use the “Staffing Analysis Worksheet” available on the HUD Exchange at
(c) Internal and interagency coordination. The plan describes how the grantee will ensure effective communication and coordination between different departments and divisions within the grantee's organizational structure and other grantee agencies and governmental entities involved in the design and implementation of electrical power system improvement planning and projects; agencies or divisions
(d) Subrecipients, public utilities, and other entities. The implementation plan must describe the criteria to be used by the grantee to evaluate the capacity of all potential subrecipients or other agencies of the grantee that will receive a subaward or otherwise carry out activities funded with this grant, including criteria specific to the designation of any public utility that is anticipated to receive funding to implement electrical power system improvements. These criteria shall include an evaluation of the capacity of subrecipient or other entities to coordinate electrical power system improvements with other infrastructure activities of the grantee.
The plan must also indicate how the grantee will monitor other agencies of the grantee that will administer the funds, how the grantee will enhance its monitoring of subrecipients, other agencies of the grantee, contractors, and other program participants, how and why monitoring is to be conducted, and which items are to be monitored.
(e) Technical assistance. The grantee's implementation plan describes how it will procure and provide technical assistance for any personnel that the grantee does not employ at the time of action plan submission, and to fill their gaps in knowledge or technical expertise required for successful and timely implementation where identified in the capacity assessment.
(f) Accountability. The grantee's plan identifies the lead agency responsible for implementation of the CDBG-DR grant and indicates that the head of that agency will report directly to the chief executive officer of the grantee.
HUD will monitor the grantee's use of funds for consistency with the action plan, implementation plan and capacity assessment, and whether a grantee meets the performance and timeliness objectives established therein. A material failure to comply with the grantee's approved action plan or implementation plan and capacity assessment will prompt HUD to exercise any of the corrective or remedial actions described in section V.A.20.
V.A.2.
V.A.2.a.
The use of funds shall be consistent with the electrical power system unmet needs identified by the grantee in its action plan. Funds dedicated for uses not described in accordance with this section will not be obligated until the grantee submits, and HUD approves, an action plan amendment programming the use of those funds, at the necessary level of detail to allow the public and HUD to identify and understand the use of all funds for specific activities. In the unmet needs assessment and in its description of the connection of electrical power system improvements to unmet needs, grantees shall reference any long-term infrastructure plan of the grantee's public utility developed in consultation with the FEMA, for the use of FEMA funds for electrical power system improvements; or with any utility integrated resource plan or other strategic plan adopted by the grantee for the development of its energy infrastructure, as such plans may be amended from time to time. The action plan must consider and incorporate, as appropriate, electrical power system industry standards established by relevant Federal agencies and related bodies, including, but not limited to, requirements set by the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS), National Institute of Standards and Technology, and North American Electrical Reliability Corporation. In drafting the action plan, grantees shall consult with the Federal members of the TCT as provided in section V.A.2.e. of this notice. HUD will review and consider the comments from the Federal members of the TCT, obtained by the grantee, on the action plan.
HUD is establishing an additional alternative requirement that grantees shall implement CDBG-DR electrical power system improvement activities in accordance with their action plans and pursuant to the descriptions provided by the grantee in the action plan in response to elements (1) through (12) below. To the extent that the terms of any concessionary agreement or receivership governing a public utility of the grantee are not consistent with the requirements of this notice, the terms of this notice shall continue to govern the CDBG-DR funds subject to this notice and their use for electrical power system improvements.
(1) Electrical Power System Unmet Needs Assessment. Each grantee must develop an unmet needs assessment to inform the use of CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements. The action plan must include an estimate of unmet needs based on planned electrical power system improvements, including mitigation and resilience measures, that are not likely to be addressed by other sources of funds. Grantees must account for the various forms of assistance available to, or likely to be available for such improvements, using the most recent available data to estimate the portion of need unlikely to be addressed by insurance proceeds, other Federal assistance, or any other funding sources (thus producing an estimate of unmet need). Grantees must cite data sources for the assessment. At a minimum, the unmet needs assessment must: (i) Evaluate all aspects of the electrical power system that were damaged by the disaster and that are at greatest risk from future disasters; (ii) estimate unmet needs to ensure that CDBG-DR funds are planned for uses that meet electrical power system needs that are not likely to be addressed by FEMA or other sources of funds by accounting for the various forms of assistance available to,
CDBG-DR funds may be used to reimburse planning and administrative costs for developing the action plan, including the needs assessment, environmental review, and citizen participation requirements. Although the needs assessment for these CDBG-DR funds necessarily differs somewhat from what is conducted by grantees for CDBG-DR allocations provided for housing, infrastructure, and economic revitalization needs, HUD has developed a Disaster Impact and Unmet Needs Assessment Kit that may be helpful to grantees as a guide through a process for identifying and prioritizing critical unmet needs for electrical power system improvements. The Kit is available on the HUD Exchange website at:
Electrical power system improvement needs evolve over time, and grantees must amend the needs assessment and action plan as additional resources become available, including through any additional needs that may be identified through an infrastructure plan developed for the use of FEMA Public Assistance funds for electrical power system improvements, through any utility integrated resource plan for Puerto Rico, and through any equivalent strategy or development plan adopted by the USVI for its energy sector, as such strategy or plans may be amended from time to time.
(2) Connection of Electrical Power System Improvements to Unmet Needs and Expenditures. The grantee must address how the proposed expenditures for each distinct functional component of its planned electrical power system improvements, as identified in the definition in section V.A.8.a.(ii) of this notice, addresses an estimated unmet need identified in its electrical power system unmet needs assessment. For each functional component, the grantee shall also identify the amount of funds to be used as non-federal match for that component.
The grantee's action plan (and subsequent amendments) must include a single chart or table that illustrates, at the most practical level, how all funds are budgeted (
(3) Long-term Planning Considerations. The grantee must describe how it plans to promote local and regional long-term planning and development as informed by its electrical power system needs assessment.
(4) Coordination of Electrical Power System Improvements and Planned Leverage. Each grantee must describe how it will align its electrical power system improvements with other planned improvements to its other energy systems and its other infrastructure development efforts and foster the potential for additional electrical power system funding from multiple sources, such as leveraging other existing capital improvement projects and the potential for private investment. Grantees must describe how it plans to foster the potential to leverage these CDBG-DR funds with other funding provided through public-private partnerships and by other Federal, State, local, public utility, private, and nonprofit sources to generate more effective and comprehensive mitigation and electrical power system improvement outcomes.
Examples of other Federal sources include funding provided by HUD, FEMA (specifically the Public Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program), the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture. The grantee must describe how it will seek to maximize the outcomes of electrical power system improvements and the degree to which CDBG-DR funds are effectively leveraged, for example through public-private partnerships or partnerships with local, community and neighborhood organizations and a commitment of funding by the grantee. The grantee shall identify any leveraged funds for each electrical power system improvement activity in the DRGR system.
(5) Plans to Minimize Displacement and Ensure Accessibility. The grantee must describe how it plans to minimize displacement of persons or entities, and assist any persons or entities displaced through its electrical power system improvement activities. This description shall focus on proposed activities that may directly or indirectly result in displacement and the assistance that shall be required for those displaced. The grantee is reminded that it must take into consideration the functional needs of persons with disabilities in the relocation process. Guidance on relocation considerations for persons with disabilities may be found in Chapter 3 of HUD's Relocation Handbook 1378.0 available on the HUD Exchange website at:
(6) Construction and Resiliency Standards. Each grantee must describe how it plans to: (a) Emphasize quality, durability, resiliency, energy efficiency and sustainability in its electrical power system improvements; (b) promote sound, sustainable long-term recovery planning informed by a post-disaster evaluation of hazard risk, especially construction standards and land-use decisions that reflect responsible floodplain and wetland management and take into account continued sea level rise—this information should be based on the history of FEMA flood mitigation efforts and take into account projected increase in sea level (if applicable) and the frequency and intensity of precipitation events; and (c) adhere to the elevation requirements established in section V.B.1. of this notice, if applicable. For grantees addressing flood risks, the grantee must describe how it will document its decision to elevate structures associated with its electrical power system improvements and how it evaluated and
(7) Operation and Maintenance Plans. Each grantee must describe its plan for ensuring the long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the electrical power system improvements funded with CDBG-DR funds. The grantee shall specify the non-CDBG sources of funding to be used for the O&M of the electrical power system improvements, and the grantee's plan and plans of its intended subrecipients to contribute to the proposed electrical power system improvements with non-CDBG sources of funding. The grantee shall describe how it will use reserve funds, borrowing authority or retargeting of existing financial resources to support the O&M plan, and how it plans to ensure that public utility resources and other source of funding, as applicable, are committed to the O&M of improvements assisted with CDBG-DR funds, over the useful life of the improvements. The grantee must also describe in its action plan how it plans to ensure and monitor funding of long-term O&M for CDBG-DR electrical power system improvements. Funding options might include grantee funds, local and public utility resources, borrowing authority, or retargeting of other existing financial resources.
Grantees must describe any proposed changes to existing taxation policies or collection practices, or changes to public utility revenue billing and collection and other financing policies that are to be used to support the O&M plan. If operations and maintenance plans are reliant on any proposed changes to existing taxation policies, tax collection practices, or changes to public utility revenue billing and collection, those changes and relevant milestones should be expressly included in the action plan. Additionally, the grantee must describe any State, local, or other resources (
With respect to this element of the action plan, HUD advises grantee and subrecipients that HUD may impose a grant condition based on risk that requires the grantee to establish or adopt standards for O&M of the functional components of the electrical power system, including recognized standards for vegetation management.
(8) Cost Verification. Each grantee must describe its controls for assuring that electrical power system improvement costs, including acquisition and construction costs, are reasonable and consistent with market costs at the time and place of the acquisition or construction.
Grantees are encouraged to consider the use of an independent, qualified third-party engineer, construction manager, or other professional (
(9) Intergovernmental Coordination. Grantees must describe how it will coordinate with other relevant governmental agencies of Puerto Rico or the USVI, as applicable, units of local government, public utilities and rural electrical cooperatives, and other entities, to assure the consistency of all CDBG-DR funded electrical power system improvements with other disaster recovery and mitigation planning and development activities.
(10) Integration with Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Funds. Grantees must describe how they will integrate the electrical power system improvements into on-going and planned rebuilding, recovery, and mitigation activities, and the extent to which the proposed electrical power system improvement activities are consistent with the objectives outlined in other CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT action plans, and in regionally or locally established plans and policies that are designed to reduce future risks to the jurisdiction.
(11) Vulnerable Populations, Underserved Communities, and Low- and Moderate-Income Persons. The grantee must assess how the use of the CDBG-DR funds and its planning decisions will impact vulnerable populations, protected classes under fair housing and civil rights laws, and underserved communities that were economically distressed prior to the disaster. Based on this assessment, grantees must describe in the action plan whether their programs and projects will provide electrical power system improvements to communities with concentrations of vulnerable populations, including low-income rural areas, racially and ethnically concentrated areas as well as concentrated areas of poverty, and specify the activities that the grantees plans to undertake to assist in providing lower electricity rates or increasing reliability, quality, and durability of electrical infrastructure for these populations or areas.
HUD generally defines vulnerable populations as a group or community whose circumstances present barriers to obtaining or understanding information or accessing resources, and grantees must identify those populations in the action plan through their assessment. The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.
The grantee shall also describe how the planned electrical power system improvements will meet the overall benefit requirement for low- and moderate-income benefit as provided in section V.A.8.c. of this notice.
(12) Climate Considerations. Grantees must describe how the electrical power system improvements will be designed and implemented to address the impacts of climate change, including any nature-based solutions and other improvements that will enhance the ability of the grantee to implement renewable and clean energy sources and strategies, and align with long-term goals for decarbonizing the electricity sector. Nature-based solutions and improvements shall mean natural processes or systems, or engineered systems that mimic natural systems and processes, that are integrated into investments in electrical power system improvements to enhance the resilience of the electrical power system to future disasters.
V.A.2.b.
V.A.2.c.
V.A.2.d.
(1) Substantial amendment. The grantee must provide a 30-day public comment period and reasonable method(s) (including electronic submission) for receiving comments on such amendments. In its action plan, each grantee must specify criteria for determining what changes in the grantee's plan constitute a substantial amendment to the plan. At a minimum, the following modifications will constitute a substantial amendment: A change in program benefit or eligibility criteria; the addition or deletion of an activity or of a component of the electrical power system improvements; or the allocation or reallocation of a monetary threshold specified by the grantee in its action plan. The grantee may substantially amend the action plan if it follows the same procedures required for CDBG-DR funds for the preparation and submission of an action plan in this notice, provided, however, that a substantial action plan amendment shall require a 30-day public comment period and does not require public hearings.
(2) Non-substantial amendment. The grantee must notify HUD, but is not required to seek public comment, when it makes any plan amendment that is not substantial. HUD must be notified at least 5 business days before the amendment becomes effective. The Department will acknowledge receipt of the notification of non-substantial amendments via email within 5 business days. Non-substantial amendments shall be numbered in sequence with other non-substantial and substantial amendments and incorporated into the action plan.
V.A.2.e.
A grantee's consultation with the TCT must include soliciting and considering input from the TCT's Federal members on one or more of the areas defined below:
(1) The action plan required by this notice prior to the grantee's publication of the plan and on any subsequent substantial amendments to the action plan, including the grantee's proposed budget for electrical power system improvements to be funded with CDBG-DR funds as described in section V.A.2.a.(2) of this notice;
(2) The evaluation of the capacity of any public utility that will receive a subaward or otherwise carry out a portion of the grant and the mitigation of risk associated with the public utility's use of CDBG-DR funds. Consultation with the TCT Federal members shall occur before entering a subaward or other agreement with the public utility, and shall include: (a) Providing the TCT Federal members with the grantee's assessment of the public utility's financial and operational capacity; (b) a request for recommendations
(3) The identification of opportunities to sequence and coordinate permits and approvals necessary to carry out CDBG-DR funded electrical power system improvement activities, including environmental reviews;
(4) The technical evaluation of proposed electrical power system improvements using models and other sources of expert assistance available through TCT Federal members; and
(5) The implementation of applicable electrical power system industry standards and the commercial availability of system components that the grantee proposes to fund.
HUD may engage with the individual federal agencies in the TCT to provide additional technical support for grantee electrical power system improvements, as needed. Notwithstanding the consultation and advisory roles that may be provided by FEMA and DOE as co-agency TCT leads, the Department of the Treasury as financial lead, and other federal partner agencies, each federal agency shall retain the authorities and responsibilities provided to that agency pursuant to federal laws and regulations.
V.A.2.f.
V.A.2.g.
V.A.3.
V.A.3.a.
Before the grantee submits the action plan for this grant to HUD or any substantial amendment to the action plan as provided in section V.A.2.d. of this notice, the grantee will publish the proposed action plan or amendment. The manner of publication must include prominent posting on the grantee's official website and must afford citizens, affected local governments, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine the plan or amendment's contents. The topic of electrical power system improvements, as part of the grantee's broader disaster recovery efforts, must be navigable by citizens from the grantee's (or relevant agency's) homepage.
Grantees are also encouraged to notify affected citizens through electronic mailings, press releases, statements by public officials, media advertisements, public service announcements, and/or contacts with neighborhood organizations. Grantees should also consider recording public hearings and making them available online for live viewing and creating archival video of the public meetings on the grantee's website. Plan publication efforts and public hearings must comply with civil rights requirements, including meeting the effective communications requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (see, 24 CFR 8.6) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (see 28 CFR 35.160); and must provide meaningful access for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) (see HUD's LEP Guidance, 72 FR 2732 (2007)).
Grantees are responsible for ensuring that all citizens have equal access to information about the CDBG-DR programs, including persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Each grantee must ensure that electrical power system improvement funding and program information is available in the appropriate languages for the geographic areas to be served (see HUD's LEP Guidance, March 16, 2007, 72 FR 2732) and take appropriate steps to ensure effective communications with persons with disabilities under Section 504 (see, 24 CFR 8.6) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (see 28 CFR 35.106).
Since grantees receiving CDBG-DR funds may make grants throughout the state, including to Entitlement communities, grantees should carefully evaluate the needs of persons with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. In assessing its language needs for translation of notices and other vital documents for non-English speaking residents, the grantee should consult the Final Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI, Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, published on January 22, 2007, in the
V.A.3.b.
For each virtual hearing, the grantee shall provide reasonable notification and access for citizens in accordance with the grantee's certifications, timely responses to all citizen questions and issues, and public access to all questions and responses.
The grantee must consider all comments, received orally or in writing, on the action plan or any substantial amendment. A summary of these comments or views, and the grantee's response to each must be submitted to HUD with the action plan or substantial amendment. Grantee responses shall address the substance of the comment rather than merely acknowledge that the comment was received.
V.A.3.c.
V.A.3.d.
When applications are solicited for programs carried out directly by the grantee, all criteria used to select applications for funding, including the relative importance of each criterion and the time frame for consideration of applications must be included in the action plan. When funds are subgranted to local governments or Indian tribes, grantees must include all criteria used to distribute funds to local governments or Indian tribes including the relative importance of each criterion. The grantee shall maintain documentation to demonstrate that each funded and unfunded application or response was reviewed and acted upon by the grantee in accordance with the published eligibility requirements and funding criteria in its action plan.
V.A.3.e.
V.A.4.
V.A.4.a.
This notice waives the requirements for submission of a performance report pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12708(a), and 24 CFR 91.520. Alternatively, HUD is requiring that grantees enter information in the DRGR system in sufficient detail to permit the Department's review of grantee performance on a quarterly basis through the QPR and to enable remote review of grantee data to allow HUD to assess compliance and risk. HUD-issued general and appropriation-specific guidance for DRGR reporting requirements can be found on the HUD Exchange at:
V.A.4.b.
A grantee will gain access to its line of credit upon review and approval of the initial DRGR action plan. Each activity entered into the DRGR system must also be categorized under a “project.” Typically, projects are based on groups of activities that accomplish a similar, broad purpose (
V.A.4.c.
V.A.4.d.
V.A.4.e.
Each QPR will include information about the uses of funds in activities identified in the DRGR action plan during the applicable quarter. This includes, but is not limited to, the project name, activity, location, and national objective; funds budgeted, obligated, drawn down, and expended; the funding source and total amount of any non-CDBG-DR funds to be expended on each activity; beginning and actual completion dates of completed activities; achieved performance outcomes, such as the number of low- and moderate-income persons served; and the race and ethnicity of persons assisted under direct-benefit activities. For electrical power system improvements installed or applied on private lands, the address of each CDBG-DR assisted property must be recorded in the QPR. Grantees must not include such addresses in its public QPR; when entering addresses in the QPR, the grantee must select “Not Visible on PDF” to exclude them from the report required to be posted on its website. The DRGR system will automatically display the amount of program income receipted, the amount of program income reported as disbursed, and the amount of grant funds disbursed in the QPR. In the section titled “Overall Progress Narrative” in the DRGR system, the grantee must report on its activities and progress in that quarter to implement steps necessary to meet the low- and moderate-income national objective for electrical power system improvements as provided in section V.A.8. of this notice. Each grantee must also include a description of active steps it has taken to affirmatively further fair housing, within the “Overall Progress Narrative” section.
V.A.5.
V.A.5.a.
Grantees are reminded that all costs incurred for administration must still qualify as an eligible administration expense. HUD will issue additional guidance on this provision that grantees will be required to follow to ensure compliance and maintain proper financial controls.
V.A.6.
V.A.7.
V.A.7.a.
V.A.7.b.
(1) Combined technical assistance and administrative expenditures cap. The provisions of 42 U.S.C. 5306(d), 24 CFR 570.489(a)(1)(i) and (iii), and 24 CFR 570.489(a)(2) will not apply to the extent that they cap administration and technical assistance expenditures, limit the ability of each grantee to charge a nominal application fee for grant applications for activities it carries out directly, and require a dollar-for-dollar match of grantee funds for administrative costs exceeding $100,000. 42 U.S.C. 5306(d)(5) and (6) are waived and replaced with the alternative requirement that the aggregate total for administrative and
V.A.8.
V.A.8.a.
For purposes of this notice:
(i) An electrical power system shall be defined as an interconnected or autonomous set of transmission lines, distribution lines, substations, central power generation stations, other sources of power, distributed energy resources, or enabling technologies and services, such as industry standard billing, accounting information technology, cybersecurity enhancements, microgrids and fuel transfer delivery systems, that are necessary for the provision of reliable, resilient, stable, and cost-effective electrical service; and
(ii) electrical power system improvements shall be defined as the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of facilities, improvements, or other components (including interim assistance, and financing public or private acquisition for reconstruction or rehabilitation, and reconstruction or rehabilitation, of privately owned property) that are undertaken to extend, upgrade, and otherwise enhance and improve the cost-effectiveness, reliability, efficiency, sustainability, or long-term financial viability of the grantee's electrical power system including activities to increase the resilience of the electrical power system to future disasters and to address the impacts of climate change.
The refinancing or paying down of debt shall be an electrical power system improvement only for the purpose of acquiring a facility and subject to the requirements of section V.B.3 of this notice.
To align with long term decarbonization goals, the term electrical power system improvements, as applied to central power generating stations, shall only include an improvement or replacement of a central power generating station operating on the applicability date of this notice if HUD, in consultation with DOE and EPA, determines that such improvement or replacement will result in a net decrease in carbon emissions from that generating power station at comparable levels of operation. A central power generating station is defined as a large-scale centralized facility for the generation of electricity that qualifies as a “major stationary source of air pollutants” per the requirements of 40 CFR part 70.
V.A.8.b.
HUD is granting the following waiver and alternative requirement to establish a new eligible activity, the electrical power systems improvements activity. The Department has determined that the aggregate of electrical power system improvements to be completed with CDBG-DR funds subject to this notice are together, critical components of the region's long-term recovery from Hurricane Maria and to the resilience of the region to future weather events. HUD recognizes that the broad scope of these activities may limit the ability of grantees to categorize these CDBG-DR funds into discrete categories of CDBG eligibility and to appropriately assign a CDBG national objective to each component of the planned improvements. For grants under other appropriations acts, HUD has established similar waivers to create an eligible activity for large complex projects that are composed of multiple activities that, in and of themselves, may not all be CDBG-eligible, but which nonetheless contribute to the mitigation of disaster risk and to long-term disaster recovery. This waiver will similarly ease administration and facilitate the use of grant funds for their intended purpose.
Accordingly, HUD is waiving section 105(a) (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) of the HCDA and establishing an alternative requirement only to the extent necessary to create a new eligible activity, electrical power system improvements, which shall be applicable only for the grant funded pursuant to this notice. Under this activity, all uses of funds that meet the definition of electrical power system improvements above and comply with the alternative requirements below are both eligible under this waiver and alternative requirement and meet the statutory purpose of the funds. This activity includes the use of funds for payment of the non-Federal share required in connection with a Federal grant-in-aid program undertaken as part of an activity that meets the definition of electrical power system improvements and otherwise complies with grant requirements. This activity also includes relocation payments and assistance for displaced individuals, families, businesses, organizations, and farm operations, when determined by the grantee to be appropriate.
Electrical power system improvements that can be demonstrated to have a public benefit may be installed or applied on private lands. The definition of an electrical power system and the use of funds for electrical power system improvements shall not include ineligible activities as provided at 24 CFR 570.207, including costs for the operation and maintenance of the system. This definition and the use of funds for electrical power system improvements shall also not include the use of CDBG-DR funds for the operation and maintenance costs of a public utility or the costs of fuel or energy purchase contracts in effect prior to the applicability date of this notice. HUD encourages grantees to use CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements in a manner that leverages other sources of federal and public utility funds to increase the long-term impact of Federal investments on the electrical power system.
V.A.8.c.
CDBG-DR electrical power system improvements will be considered to meet the criteria for activities benefitting low- and moderate-income persons—area benefit activities at 24 CFR 570.483(b)(1) if, at grant closeout, they meet the following criteria unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In assessing any such evidence, the full range of direct effects of the assisted activity will be considered. (The recipient shall appropriately ensure that activities that meet these criteria do not benefit moderate income persons to the exclusion of low-income persons.) The criteria are that at least 70 percent of the grant funds allocated by this notice, not including planning and administrative costs, have been used to:
(i) Provide at least fifty-one percent of the grantee's low- and moderate-income residents with either a subsidized rate for electricity below that charged to other residential ratepayers or a lower rate for electricity than was charged prior to complete implementation of the CDBG-DR funding electrical power system improvements; or
(ii) measurably improve the reliability of the electrical power system in low- and moderate-income areas that are primarily residential. For purposes of this paragraph, measurably improved reliability shall mean a documented decrease in power supply interruptions, excluding planned interruptions and interruptions caused by major events. To document compliance with this national objective criterion, a grantee's policies and procedures shall provide for the measurement of improved reliability in low- and moderate income areas that are primarily residential, using relevant legal and regulatory standards, as amended from time to time, including those identified by Puerto Rico Act 17-2019 (for Puerto Rico only), FEMA Section 1235(b) Consensus-Based Codes and Standards, RUS Bulletins for Electric Power, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards and guidance, EPA environmental protections, and, as appropriate, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards and guidance.
HUD will monitor the grantee and its subrecipients for the duration of the grant to substantiate that the grantee is demonstrating adequate progress in documenting CDBG-DR expenditures that will result in subsidized or lower electricity costs of low- and moderate-income residents, or improved reliability for low- and moderate-income areas, as applicable.
Grantees may also use CDBG-DR funds allocated pursuant to this notice to meet the urgent need national objective, pursuant to the waiver and alternative requirement provided below. Unless a grantee has received prior approval from HUD, CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements cannot meet the CDBG national objective for the elimination of slum and blight as provided at 24 CFR 570.208(b) and 24 CFR 570.483(c). Grantees shall not rely on the national objective criteria for elimination of slum and blighting conditions without approval from HUD because this national objective generally is not appropriate in the context of electrical power system improvements.
The CDBG certification requirements for documentation of urgent need, located at 24 CFR 570.483(d), are waived for the grants under this notice and replaced with the following alternative requirement. In the context of disaster recovery, the standard urgent need certification requirements may impede recovery. Since the Department only provides CDBG-DR awards to grantees with documented disaster-related impacts and each grantee is limited to spending funds only for the benefit of areas that received a presidential disaster declaration as identified in Table 1 of this notice, the following streamlined alternative requirement recognizes the urgency in addressing serious threats to community welfare following a major disaster. A grantee need not issue formal certification statements to qualify an activity as meeting the urgent need national objective. Instead, it must document how each program and/or activity funded under the urgent need national objective responds to a disaster-related impact. For each activity that will meet an urgent need national objective, the grantee must reference in its action plan needs assessment the type, scale, and location of the disaster-related impacts that each program and/or activity is addressing over the course of the applicable deadline for the expenditure of obligated grant funds.
To meet the 70 percent overall benefit requirement, grantees may also use the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective criteria at 24 CFR 570.483(b) to the extent that an eligible activity authorized by this notice qualifies under the criteria for that national objective. At least 70 percent of the entire CDBG-DR grant must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
V.A.9.
V.A.10.
V.A.11.
Each CDBG-DR grantee shall attend and require subrecipients to attend fraud-related training provided by HUD OIG to assist in the proper management of CDBG-DR grant funds. The prior participation of the grantee or a subrecipient in this training for purposes of the grantee's CDBG-MIT grant or CDBG-DR grants provided pursuant to Public Laws 115-56 and 115-123 shall satisfy this requirement.
V.A.12.
V.A.12.a.
V.A.12.b.
V.A.12.c.
V.A.12.d.
Section 414 of the Stafford Act (including its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 24.403(d)(1)), is waived to the extent that it would apply to real property acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for a CDBG-DR funded project, undertaken by the grantee or subrecipient, commencing more than one year after the Presidentially declared disaster, provided that the project was not planned, approved, or otherwise underway prior to the disaster. For purposes of this paragraph, a CDBG-DR funded project shall be determined to have commenced on the earliest of: (1) The date of an approved Request for Release of Funds and certification, (RROF/C), or (2) the date of completion of the site-specific review when a program utilizes tiered environmental reviews, or (3) the date of sign-off by the Responsible Entity Agency Official when a project converts to exempt under 24 CFR 58.34(a)(12). The Secretary has the authority to waive provisions of the Stafford Act and its implementing regulations that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation of CDBG-DR funds covered under this waiver and alternative requirement, or the grantee's use of these funds. The Department has determined that good cause exists for a waiver and that such waiver is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA.
The waiver will simplify the administration of the disaster recovery process and reduce the administrative burden associated with the implementation of Stafford Act Section 414 requirements for projects commencing more than one year after the date of the Presidentially declared disaster, considering the majority of such persons displaced by the disaster will have returned to their dwellings or found another place of permanent residence. This waiver does not apply with respect to persons that meet the
V.A.13.
V.A.13.a.
V.A.13.b.
The grant recipient must notify HUD in writing of its decision to adopt another agency's environmental review. The notification must be stated on an RROF/C Form 7015.15 and indicate that another Federal agency's review is being adopted and include the name of the Federal agency, the name of the project, and the date of the project's review. In accordance with the Appropriations Act, and notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 5304(g)(2), the Secretary may, upon receipt of a RROF/C, immediately approve the release of funds for an activity or project assisted with CDBG-DR funds if the recipient has adopted an environmental review, approval, or permit, or the activity or project is categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
V.A.13.c.
V.A.13.d.
As appropriate, grantees may use provisions in existing Section 106 Programmatic Agreements (PAs),
V.A.13.e.
A tiered review consists of two stages: A broad-level review and subsequent site-specific reviews. The broad-level review will identify and evaluate the issues that can be fully addressed and resolved, notwithstanding possible limited knowledge of the project. In addition, it must establish the standards, constraints, and processes to be followed in the site-specific reviews. As individual sites are selected for review, the site-specific reviews evaluate the remaining issues based on the policies established in the broad-level review. Together, the broad-level review and all site-specific reviews will collectively comprise a complete environmental review addressing all required elements. Public notice and the Request for Release of Funds (HUD-Form 7015.15) are processed at the broad level. However, funds cannot be spent or committed on a specific site or activity until the site-specific review has been completed for the site.
V.A.14.
The 2019 DOB Notice also implements requirements regarding the treatment of loans resulting from recent amendments to section 312 of the Stafford Act that apply to CDBG-DR grants for electrical power system improvements under the Appropriations Act until those provisions sunset in 2023 as described in the 2019 DOB notice. FEMA, the agency that administers the Stafford Act, has advised that pursuant to recent amendments to Section 312 of the Stafford Act in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (Pub. L. 115-254, Division D), for disasters occurring between 2016 and 2021, a loan is not a duplication of other forms of financial assistance, provided that all Federal assistance is used toward a loss suffered as a result of a major disaster or emergency.
V.A.15.
Grantees may only use CDBG-DR funds allocated pursuant to this notice to meet the match requirement of an activity that meets the definition of an electrical power system improvement and other requirements of this notice. In considering the use of CDBG-DR funds as match, grantees are further advised that the Appropriations Act prohibits the use of CDBG-DR funds for any activity that is reimbursable by, or for which funds are also made available by FEMA or the USACE. The Department notes the substantial amount of FEMA Public Assistance funding that has also been committed to electrical power system improvements. Accordingly, grantees are advised that when CDBG-DR funds for electrical power system improvements are used in combination with FEMA or USACE funds, the grantee must document that such CDBG-DR funds were not used to pay for costs that could be charged to the FEMA or USACE award (although CDBG-DR funds may be used for CDBG-DR eligible costs of the other Federal agency-funded award up to the amount required for the non-Federal match and for costs that cannot be charged to the FEMA or USACE award). Statutory order of assistance provisions also prohibit the use of CDBG-DR funds to “front” costs that will later be reimbursed with FEMA or USACE funds. CDBG-DR funds may be used for the costs of compliance with CDBG-DR requirements that cannot be charged to the FEMA or USACE grant. The grantee shall be required to record in DRGR the expenditure of funds for the activity for which the match is provided and to indicate that the funds were used to meet a non-Federal match share requirement.
V.A.16.
Additionally, if the agency of the grantee that is designated as the administering agency chooses to provide funding to another agency of the grantee, the administering agency must specify in its procurement policies and procedures whether the agency implementing the program must follow the procurement policies and procedures that the administering agency is subject to, or whether the agency must follow the same policies and procedures to which other subrecipients are subject.
V.A.17.
V.A.18.
V.A.18.a.
(i) Proceeds from the disposition by sale or long-term lease of real property purchased or improved with CDBG-DR funds.
(ii) Proceeds from the disposition of equipment purchased with CDBG-DR funds.
(iii) Gross income from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired by a State, local government, or subrecipient thereof with CDBG-DR funds, less costs incidental to generation of the income (
(iv) Net income from the use or rental of real property owned by a State, local government, or subrecipient thereof, that was constructed or improved with CDBG-DR funds.
(v) Payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG-DR funds.
(vi) Proceeds from the sale of loans made with CDBG-DR funds.
(vii) Proceeds from the sale of obligations secured by loans made with CDBG-DR funds.
(viii) Interest earned on program income pending disposition of the income, including interest earned on funds held in a revolving fund account.
(ix) Funds collected through special assessments made against nonresidential properties and properties owned and occupied by households not low- and moderate-income, where the special assessments are used to recover all or part of the CDBG-DR portion of a public improvement.
(x) Gross income paid to a state, local government, or a subrecipient thereof, from the ownership interest in a for-profit entity in which the income is in return for the provision of CDBG-DR assistance.
V.A.18.b.
(i) The total amount of funds that is less than $35,000 received in a single year and retained by a state, local government, or a subrecipient thereof.
V.A.18.c.
V.A.18.d.
(i) Program income received (and retained, if applicable) before or after close out of the grant that generated the program income, and used to continue disaster recovery activities, is treated as additional CDBG-DR funds subject to the requirements of this notice and must be used in accordance with the grantee's action plan for disaster recovery. To the maximum extent feasible, program income shall be used or distributed before additional withdrawals from the U.S. Treasury are made, except as provided V.A.18.e. below.
(ii) In addition to the regulations dealing with program income found at 24 CFR 570.489(e) and 570.504(c) (for subrecipients), as modified by the waivers and alternative requirements in this paragraph V.A.18., the following rule applies:
(1) All program income received from CDBG-DR-funded electrical power system improvements under this notice, including proceeds from the disposition by sale or long-term lease of any component of the electrical power system, remain subject to the requirements of this notice and shall be used only for electrical power system improvements. Program income, however, received after grant closeout pursuant to this notice, may be held in trust by the grantee for the exclusive benefit of low-income residents for the purpose of reducing electricity costs to those residents through a subsidized electricity rate that is below that provided to other residents, or through electricity rates that are lower than was previously charged prior to completion of the electrical power system improvements.
V.A.18.e.
V.A.19.
V.A.20.
V.A.21.
The Department may also establish special grant conditions for individual CDBG-DR grants to mitigate the risks posed by the grantee, including risks related to the grantee's capacity to carry out the specific programs and projects proposed in its action plan. These conditions will be designed to provide additional assurances that electrical power system improvements are implemented in a manner to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and that the funded electrical power system improvements are effectively operated and maintained.
V.A.22.
V.A.23.
V.B.1.
Grantee may, in the alternative, use a FEMA-approved flood standard when each of the following conditions is in place: (i) CDBG-DR funds are used as the non-federal match for FEMA assistance; (ii) the FEMA-assisted activity, for which CDBG-DR funds will be used as match, commenced prior to HUD's obligation of CDBG-DR funds to the grantee; and (iii) the grantee has determined and demonstrated with records in the activity file that implementation costs of the required CDBG-DR elevation or flood proofing up to two feet (or three feet for critical actions) is not reasonable as that term is defined in the applicable cost principles at 2 CFR 200.404. Under this provision and criterion (ii) above, HUD considers the FEMA-assisted activity to have “commenced” on the date on which the HUD grantee has incurred a project cost that has been or will be charged to an approved FEMA PW. This may include pre-award costs if FEMA determines that the costs are eligible.
Non-structural infrastructure must be resilient to flooding. The vertical flood elevation establishes the level to which a facility must be resilient. This may include using structural or nonstructural methods to reduce or prevent damage; or, designing it to withstand and rapidly recover from a flood event. In selecting the appropriate resilience approach, grantees should consider several factors such as flood depth, velocity, rate of rise of floodwater, duration of floodwater, erosion, subsidence, the function or use and type of facility, and other factors.
Applicable state and local codes and standards for floodplain management that exceed these requirements, including elevation, setbacks, and cumulative substantial damage requirements, will be followed. Grantees are reminded that the elevation of structures must comply with all applicable Federal accessibility standards outlined in section V.A.22.
Grantees, recipients, and subrecipients must implement procedures and mechanisms to ensure that assisted property owners comply with all flood insurance requirements, prior to providing assistance. For additional information, please consult with the field environmental officer in the local HUD field office or review the guidance on flood insurance requirements on HUD's website.
V.B.2.
V.B.3.
V.B.4.
V.B.5.
V.C.1.
a. The grantee certifies that it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG program.
b. The grantee certifies its compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by part 87.
c. The grantee certifies that the action plan for disaster recovery is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and that the grantee, and any entity or entities designated by the grantee, and any contractor, subrecipient, or designated public agency carrying out an activity with CDBG-DR funds, possess(es) the legal authority to carry out the program for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and this notice. The grantee certifies that activities to be undertaken with funds under this notice are consistent with its action plan.
d. The grantee certifies that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the URA, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except where waivers or alternative requirements are provided for in this notice.
e. The grantee certifies that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u) and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135.
f. The grantee certifies that it is following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.115 (except as provided for in notices providing waivers and alternative requirements for this grant). Also, each local government receiving assistance from a State grantee must follow a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 570.486 (except as provided for in notices providing waivers and alternative requirements for this grant).
g. State grantee certifies that it has consulted with affected local governments in counties designated in covered major disaster declarations in the non-entitlement, entitlement, and tribal areas of the State in determining the uses of funds, including the method of distribution of funding, or activities carried out directly by the State.
h. The grantee certifies that it is complying with each of the following criteria:
(1) Funds will be used solely for necessary expenses of electrical power system enhancements and improvements in the most impacted and distressed areas as defined by HUD in section II of this notice.
(2) With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG-DR funds, the action plan has been developed so as to give the maximum feasible priority to activities that will benefit low- and moderate-income families.
(3) The aggregate use of CDBG-DR funds shall principally benefit low- and moderate-income families in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent (or another percentage permitted by HUD in a waiver published in an applicable
(4) The grantee will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG-DR grant funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate-income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements, unless: (a) Disaster recovery grant funds are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other than under this title; or (b) for purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of moderate income, the grantee certifies to the Secretary that it lacks sufficient CDBG funds (in any form) to comply with the requirements of clause (a).
i. The grantee certifies that the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), and implementing regulations, and that it will affirmatively further fair housing. An Indian tribe grantee certifies that the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Indian Civil Rights Act.
j. The grantee certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing the following policies, and, in addition, must certify that they will require local governments that receive grant funds to certify that they have adopted and are enforcing:
(1) A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and
(2) A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
k. The grantee certifies that it (and any subrecipient or administering entity) currently has or will develop and maintain the capacity to carry out disaster recovery activities in a timely manner and that the grantee has reviewed the requirements of this notice. The grantee certifies to the accuracy of its previously submitted CDBG-MIT Financial Management and Grant Compliance certification checklist and addendums, or other recent certification submission, if approved by HUD, and related supporting documentation referenced at V.A.1.a. in this notice and Implementation Plan and Capacity Assessment and related submissions to HUD referenced at V.A.1.b. of this notice.
l. The grantee certifies that it will not use CDBG-DR funds for any activity in an area identified as flood prone for land use or hazard mitigation planning purposes by the State, local, or tribal government or delineated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (or 100-year floodplain) in FEMA's most current flood advisory maps, unless it also ensures that the action is designed or modified to minimize harm to or within the floodplain, in accordance with Executive Order 11988 and 24 CFR part 55. The relevant data source for this provision is the State, local, and tribal
m. The grantee certifies that its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R.
n. The grantee certifies that it will comply with environmental requirements at 24 CFR part 58.
o. The grantee certifies that it will comply with applicable laws.
The Appropriations Act makes the funds available for obligation by HUD until expended. This notice requires each grantee to expend 100 percent of its CDBG-DR grant on eligible activities within 6 years of HUD's obligation of funds under Public Law 115-123 for electrical power system improvements. HUD may extend the period of performance administratively, if good cause for such an extension exists at that time, as requested by the grantee, and approved by HUD. When the period of performance has ended, HUD will close out the grant and any remaining funds not expended by the grantee on appropriate programmatic purposes will be recaptured by HUD.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the grants under this notice are as follows: 14.218 and 14.228.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for inspection on HUD's website and in-person for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on August 5, 2021, from 9:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m. MST.
The meeting will be open to the public and held via the Zoom Webinar Platform. To participate, individuals must register virtually at:
Glen Garnand, Pecos District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201; 575-627-0209;
The 12-member Southern New Mexico RAC provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the RAC's area of jurisdiction.
Planned agenda items include updates on new Secretary's Orders; Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for each field office; grazing allotment permit renewal regulations; and the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument.
This meeting is open to the public, and the BLM welcomes comments from all interested parties. There will be a half-hour public comment period starting at 2:30 p.m. MST for any interested members of the public who wish to address the RAC. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Individuals may also submit written comments. Written comments filed in advance of the meeting will be presented to RAC members for consideration prior to the meeting. Please include “RAC Comment” in your submission.
43 CFR 1784.4-2
The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) Board Finance Committee will meet remotely on Wednesday, June 30, 2021. The meeting will commence at 1:00 p.m. EDT, continuing until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
LSC will conduct the June 30, 2021 meeting virtually via ZOOM.
• To join the Zoom meeting by computer, please click this link.
• To join the Zoom meeting with one tap from your mobile phone, please click dial:
• To join the Zoom meeting by telephone, please dial one of the following numbers:
• Once connected to the Zoom meeting, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone/computer microphone.
• Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Jessica Wechter, Board Relations Coordinator, (202) 295-1626. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) will hold twenty-one meetings, by videoconference, of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during July 2021. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965.
See
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Museums, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of History and Culture, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Digital Media and Arts Access, for the Preservation Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Collections Care, for the Preservation Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Museums, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of History and Culture, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on Fellowships for Advanced Social Science Research on Japan, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Higher Education, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Higher Education, for the Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants program, submitted to the Division of Challenge Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Social Sciences and History, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of U.S. History and Politics, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Global History and Studies, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of History, Philosophy, and Religion, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Comparative European and Latin American Literatures, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of American Literature, Studies, Media, and Communications, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of British and European Literature, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topic of Arts, for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of African and Asian Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of European History and Political Theory, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Latin American Studies and American Studies, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
This video meeting will discuss applications on the topics of Social Sciences and History of Science, for the Fellowships grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with respect to policies, programs and procedures for carrying out his functions; to review applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman; and to consider gifts offered to NEH and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 8, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., and Friday, July 9, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. until adjourned.
The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
The National Council on the Humanities is meeting pursuant to the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951-960, as amended). The following Committees of the National Council on the Humanities will convene by videoconference on July 8, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., to discuss specific grant applications and programs before the Council:
Digital Humanities;
Education Programs;
Federal/State Partnership;
Preservation and Access;
Public Programs; and
Research Programs.
The plenary session of the National Council on the Humanities will convene by videoconference on July 9, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The agenda for the plenary session will be as follows:
This meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), 552b(c)(6), and 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, because it will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, and discussion of certain information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made
On February 11, 2021, ICE Trade Vault, LLC (“ICE Trade Vault”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an application on Form SDR to register as a security-based swap data repository (“SDR”) pursuant to Section 13(n)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and 17 CFR 240.13n-1 (“Rule 13n-1”) thereunder,
The Commission published notice of the ITV Application in the
Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person, unless registered with the Commission, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to perform the functions of an SDR.
The Commission also has adopted 17 CFR 242.900 to 909 under the Exchange Act (collectively, “Regulation SBSR”), which governs regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transactions.
In 2019, the Commission stated that implementation of the SBS Reporting Rules can and should be done in a manner that carries out the fundamental policy goals of the SBS Reporting Rules while minimizing burdens as much as practicable.
As noted above, to be registered with the Commission as an SDR and maintain such registration, an SDR is required to comply with the requirements and core principles described in Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act, as well as with any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation.
In determining whether an applicant meets the criteria set forth in Rule 13n-1(c), the Commission will consider the information reflected by the applicant on its Form SDR, as well as any additional information obtained from the applicant. For example, Form SDR requires an applicant to provide a list of the asset classes for which the applicant is collecting and maintaining data or for which it proposes to collect and maintain data, a description of the functions that it performs or proposes to perform, general information regarding its business organization, and contact information.
Consistent with the Commission's no-action statement in the ANE Adopting Release,
As noted above, ICE Trade Vault intends to operate as a registered SDR for the credit derivatives asset class.
ICE Trade Vault is a Delaware limited liability company, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc., which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”), a publicly traded company.
The ITV Board oversees all risks relating to ICE Trade Vault.
ICE Trade Vault's Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) is appointed by the ITV Board and reports directly to the President of ICE Trade Vault.
ICE Trade Vault directors, officers and employees must comply with the ICE Global Code of Business Conduct, which describes policies for, among other things, handling conflicts of interest, prohibiting insider trading, complying with the law and document management and retention requirements.
Section 13(n)(7)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13n-4(c)(2) thereunder require an SDR to establish governance arrangements that are transparent to fulfill public interest requirements and to support the objectives of the Federal Government, owners, and participants.
Furthermore, Rule 13n-4(b)(11) requires an SDR to designate an individual to serve as CCO, and Rule 13n-11(a) requires the SDR to identify on Form SDR the person so designated.
Additionally, Section 13(n)(7)(C) of the Exchange Act requires an SDR to establish and enforce rules to minimize conflicts of interest in the decision-making process of the SDR and establish a process for resolving any such conflicts of interest.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. As described above, the ITV Application includes provisions for the representation of market participants in the governance arrangements, as well as procedures providing an opportunity to participate in the process for nominating directors and the right to petition for alternative candidates. In addition, the ITV Application includes policies and procedures that set standards for the skills and expertise possessed by the ITV Board.
More generally, the ITV Application sets forth an organizational structure that is clear and includes provisions for internal controls. The ITV Application includes provisions for a CCO that has been designated by the ITV Board and whose compensation, appointment, and removal is set by the majority of the ITV Board. In addition, the ITV Application includes policies and procedures that require the CCO to report to the ITV Board and be responsible for maintaining compliance with applicable Commission rules, investigating any suspected violations thereof, and overseeing any necessary remediation. The ITV Application includes policies and procedures that identify and mitigate conflicts of interest, require the recusal from decision-making of members of the ITV Board when involved in a conflict, and delineate the commercial and non-commercial use of SBS transaction information received.
ICE Trade Vault represents that it provides access to its SDR service on a fair, open and not unreasonably discriminatory basis.
According to ICE Trade Vault, access to its system is provided to parties that have a duly executed User Agreement in effect with ICE Trade Vault.
ICE Trade Vault may decline the request of an applicant to become a user of its system if such denial is required in order to comply with applicable law (
ICE Trade Vault states that it recognizes its responsibility to ensure data confidentiality and dedicates significant resources to information security to prevent the misappropriation or misuse of confidential information and any other SDR information not subject to public dissemination (
ICE Trade Vault states that tactical controls are regularly examined and tested by multiple tiers of internal and external test groups, auditors and independently contracted third-party security testing firms.
ICE Trade Vault maintains and will continue to maintain a robust emergency and business-continuity and disaster recovery plan (“Business Continuity Plan”) that allows for timely resumption of key business processes and operations following unplanned interruptions, unavailability of staff, inaccessibility of facilities, and disruption or disastrous loss to one or more of ICE Trade Vault's facilities or services.
Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires an SDR to permit market participants to access specific services offered by the SDR separately.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. As described above, the ITV Application includes procedures for onboarding and maintaining ongoing access to users that are fair, open, reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. These procedures include user agreements that reflect
ICE Trade Vault states that it will accept data in respect of all SBS trades in the credit derivatives asset class and promptly records such data upon receipt.
ICE Trade Vault states that, in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(5), it maintains internal policies and procedures in place to ensure its recording process and operation does not invalidate or modify the terms of trade information, and that it regularly audits these controls to ensure the prevention of unauthorized and unsolicited changes to SDR information maintained in the ICE Trade Vault system through protections related to the processing of SBS.
Additionally, ICE Trade Vault states that it reasonably relies on the accuracy of trade data submitted by users and that all users must complete a conformance test to validate data submission integrity prior to ICE Trade Vault's acceptance of actual SBS data and must immediately inform ICE Trade Vault of any system or technical issues that may affect the accuracy of SBS data transmissions.
Rule 13n-5(b)(1)(i) under the Exchange Act requires an SDR to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed for the reporting of complete and accurate transaction data to the SDR and to accept all transaction data that is reported in accordance with such policies and procedures.
Furthermore, Section 13(n)(5)(F) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13n-4(b)(8) thereunder each require an SDR to maintain the privacy of any and all SBS transaction information that the SDR receives.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. As described above, the ITV Application includes policies and procedures designed to protect transaction data and its systems by restricting access to users, who are obligated to comport with ICE Trade Vault's rules in a manner that facilitates ICE Trade Vault's compliance with its obligations under Commission rules. The Commission views this approach as reasonable. Access to ICE Trade Vault's systems to view trade data or verify information should be conditioned such that ICE Trade Vault retains the ability to protect the data, its systems, and its users. The Commission notes that ICE Trade Vault retains the responsibility, among other things, to ensure that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to: (i) Ensure trade data reported to it is complete and accurate, as required under Rule 13n-5(b)(1); (ii) ensure that its systems provide adequate levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability and security, as required under Rule 13n-6; and (iii) ensure that it protects the privacy and confidentiality of transaction information, as required under Rule 13n-9(b). Additionally, the ITV Application includes procedures designed to ensure that any valid provisions of trade information are not modified or invalidated, and these procedures include controls that are regularly audited and processing systems designed to prevent unauthorized changes to SBS information. The Commission also believes that ICE Trade Vault provides procedures and facilities reasonably designed to effectively resolve disputes over the accuracy of the transaction data and positions that are recorded in the SDR.
Furthermore, the ITV Application contains policies and procedures regarding both data security and the privacy of SBS data, the latter of which includes in each case procedures limiting access to SBS data to employees with either direct or support responsibilities related to systems that maintain the data, and that limit the use of such data in all cases to the performance of job responsibilities. The Commission believes that such policies and procedures also establish a standard for the trading practices of personnel that prevents the use of the data for personal benefit or the benefit of others. In addition, ICE Trade Vault has policies and procedures that, when taken together with policies and procedures regarding the duties of the CCO,
According to ICE Trade Vault, all fees imposed by ICE Trade Vault in connection with the reporting of swap data shall be equitable and established in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner as determined from time-to-time by ICE Trade Vault.
The most current pricing schedule is made available via the ICE Trade Vault website. ICE Trade Vault applies fees according to the type of SDR user accessing ICE Trade Vault: Counterparty, clearing agency, execution agent and third party reporter.
ICE Trade Vault will assess a Repository Fee upon its acceptance of any trade message for an SBS transaction.
For transactions submitted directly by a clearing agency user, clearing agency users will have a minimum monthly invoice per user of $10,000, and the invoice will be the greater of (i) the total of all Repository Fees incurred by user or (ii) $10,000.
For transactions submitted directly by a counterparty user, the minimum monthly invoice per user will be $375.
When an execution agent submits an SBS transaction on behalf of the counterparty and is listed as the execution agent, the execution agent will be charged the Repository Fee (not the underlying funds, accounts or other principals).
For transactions submitted by third party reporters, third party reporters will only be charged a Repository Fee for those transactions they report on behalf of non-users of ICE Trade Vault.
Section 13(n)(7)(A) of the Exchange Act prohibits an SDR (unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Exchange Act) from: (i) Adopting any rule or taking any action that results in any unreasonable restraint of trade; or (ii) imposing any material anti-competitive burden on the trading, clearing, or reporting of transactions.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. ICE Trade Vault states that all of the fees it charges, including the Repository Fee, are cost based to ensure ICE Trade Vault may operate with a minimum margin while allowing for a reasonable cost to its customers, given the expected volume of trades ICE Trade Vault expects to receive as an SDR. The fees include a fixed component and a variable component that increases with the usage of SDR services. Such a fee structure is generally in line with the economics of recordkeeping services for security-based swaps, which involve a fixed cost investment and marginal costs of operation.
With respect to the specific elements of ICE Trade Vault's fee structure, the Commission notes the following. First, the fixed component of ICE Trade Vault's fees would be consistent with the applicant recovering the fixed costs investment associated with setting up and maintaining a user account, while the variable component would be consistent with the applicant recovering marginal costs of operation,
Third, the Commission believes the differentiation in fees between third party reporters and execution agents is consistent with ICE Trade Vault's approach of attributing fees to entities that are directly involved in trade execution and is fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
Fourth, the Commission believes that the fees that ICE Trade Vault charges a clearing agency, while different than those imposed on other types of users, are fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. Because of their central role in many security-based swap transactions and their provision of netting and compression services to members clearing agency users are directly involved in, and report a significant number of security-based swaps.
Taking into account the above, the Commission believes that the ITV Application sets fees at levels that are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.
According to ICE Trade Vault, users access ICE Trade Vault through a web-based front-end that requires user systems to (a) satisfy the minimum computing system and web browser requirements specified in the ICE Trade Vault Technical Guides; (b) support HTTP 1.1 and 128-bit or stronger SSL data encryption; and (c) the most recent version of Chrome.
Rule 13n-5(b)(4) of the Exchange Act requires an SDR to maintain transaction data and related identifying information for not less than five years after the SBS expires and historical positions for not less than five years in a place and format that is readily accessible and usable to the Commission and other persons with authority to access or view such information and in an electronic format that is non-rewriteable and non-erasable.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. As described above, the ITV Application provides for the recordkeeping of SBS transaction data for at least five years following the termination of the transaction,
ICE Trade Vault publishes a disclosure document to provide a summary of information regarding its service offerings and the SBS data it maintains.
Rule 13n-10 under the Exchange Act requires that, before accepting any SBS data from a market participant or upon a market participant's request, an SDR shall furnish to the market participant a disclosure document that contains certain written information, which must reasonably enable the market participant to identify and evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated with using the SDR's services.
The Commission received no comments applicable to these requirements. As described throughout this order, the ITV Application includes extensive discussion of ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures with respect to access,
As a registered SDR, ICE Trade Vault would carry out an important role in the regulatory reporting and public dissemination of SBS transactions. As noted above, ICE Trade Vault has stated that it intends to rely on the no-action statement included in the ANE Adopting Release for the period set forth in the ANE Adopting Release with respect to the credit derivatives asset class.
In the no-action statement, the Commission stated that an applicant “will not need to include materials in its application explaining how it would comply with the provisions [specifically noted as not providing a basis for a Commission enforcement action during
ISDA Letter II raised several issues with respect to the ITV Application. First, ISDA stated that there are challenges associated with ICE TV's requirements for reporting a counterparty identity when the counterparty does not have a legal entity identifier (“LEI”) and suggested that ICE Trade Vault instead follow the approach set out in the DDR Rulebook.
In addition, ISDA stated that the ITV Rulebook should “discuss `Counterparty 2' identifiers that will be permitted under the new [CFTC] swap data reporting rules.”
ISDA also recommended that unique identification codes generated by ICE Trade Vault be 52 rather than 54 characters in length, to align with the global standard for unique transaction identifiers (“UTIs”), which are 52 characters in length.
Furthermore, ISDA recommended that, until the global standard for unique product identifiers (“UPIs”) comes into effect, ICE Trade Vault utilize the ISDA Taxonomy for product identifiers rather than ICE Trade Vault's own product taxonomy.
ISDA also contested the requirement in ITV Rulebook to report “Not Applicable” where a data field is not applicable for a historical security-based swap transaction or “an exotic SBS submission.”
Finally, ISDA noted that, although the specifications in the ITV Rulebook “technically align” with the SEC requirement that an SDR publicly disseminate immediately upon receipt, SDRs are also built to delay public dissemination under CFTC requirements. ISDA suggested that complying with the SEC requirement would require SDRs to incur the cost of adding functionality to disseminate immediately under Regulation SBSR, and ISDA therefore requests that the SEC align its requirement with the CFTC requirement.
Consistent with the standard for registration previously described in Part II.B,
To evaluate ICE Trade Vault's application to register as a SIP, and consistent with the standard for registration previously described in Part II.B,
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that ICE Trade Vault meets the applicable requirements for registration as an SDR, including those standards set forth in Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act and Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and the applicable requirements for registration as a SIP under Section 11A(b) of the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On June 9, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. ORTEGA MURILLO, Camila Antonia, Nicaragua; DOB 04 Nov 1987; POB Managua, Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Female; Passport A00000114 (Nicaragua) issued 28 Jun 2012 expires 28 Jun 2022; National ID No. 0010411870001B (Nicaragua) (individual) [NICARAGUA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of Executive Order 13851 of November 27, 2018, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua” (“E.O. 13851”), for being an official of the Government of Nicaragua or having served as an official of the Government of Nicaragua at any time on or after January 10, 2007.
2. REYES RAMIREZ, Leonardo Ovidio, Villa Fontana, Club Terraza 2 C, Oeste, 1 C, Sur 25 VRS, Oeste Casa 137, Managua, Nicaragua; DOB 03 Apr 1965; POB Chinandega, Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male; Passport A00000794 (Nicaragua) issued 28 Mar 2014 expires 28 Mar 2024; National ID No. 0810304650001P (Nicaragua) (individual) [NICARAGUA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13851 for being an official of the Government of Nicaragua or having served as an official of the Government of Nicaragua at any time on or after January 10, 2007.
3. RODRIGUEZ BALLADARES, Julio Modesto, Nicaragua; DOB 22 Jan 1963; POB Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male; Passport C01659683 (Nicaragua) issued 14 Apr 2014 expires 14 Apr 2024; National ID No. 0012201630050J (Nicaragua) (individual) [NICARAGUA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13851 for being an official of the Government of Nicaragua or having served as an official of the Government of Nicaragua at any time on or after January 10, 2007.
4. CASTRO RIVERA, Edwin Ramon, Nicaragua; DOB 05 Jan 1957; POB Leon, Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male; Passport A0008826 (Nicaragua) issued 02 Feb 2012 expires 02 Feb 2022; National ID No. 2810501570012H (Nicaragua) (individual) [NICARAGUA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13851 for being an official of the Government of Nicaragua or having served as an official of the Government of Nicaragua at any time on or after January 10, 2007.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing an update to the identifying information of persons currently included in OFAC's Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List. Any purchase or sale of any publicly traded securities, or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of such securities or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any of these persons, by any United States person in violation of Executive Order 13959 (“E.O. 13959”), as amended by Executive Order 14032 (“E.O. 14032”), is prohibited.
See
The Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
OFAC is updating the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List entries for the following persons, who continue to be subject to the prohibitions in E.O. 13959, as amended by E.O. 14032.
1. CNOOC LIMITED (a.k.a. CNOOC LTD), Bank of China Tower, 65th Floor, 1, Garden Road, Hong Kong, China; Equity Ticker 00883 HK; alt. Equity Ticker CNU CA; alt. Equity Ticker NC2B DE; alt. Equity Ticker CEO US; Issuer Name CNOOC Limited; alt. Issuer Name CNOOC Ltd; ISIN HK0883013259; alt. ISIN US1261321095; alt. ISIN HK2998013240; alt. ISIN BRC1EODR004; alt. ISIN HK0883013259; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Company Number 0685974 (Hong Kong); Legal Entity Number 549300XIVJCBIGMRUD48 [CMIC-EO13959] (Linked To: CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION).
2. AVIATION INDUSTRY CORPORATION OF CHINA, LTD. (a.k.a. AVIATION INDUSTRY CORP OF CHINA; a.k.a. AVIATION INDUSTRY OF CHINA; a.k.a. “AVIC”), Building 19 Compound A5 Shuguang Xili Chaoyang District, Beijing 100028, China; Issuer Name Aviation Industry Corporation of China, Ltd; ISIN CND10001WSL0; alt. ISIN CND10002HNP1; alt. ISIN CND10002DPC3; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710935732K (China) [CMIC-EO13959].