Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes the Financial Assistance Interior Regulation (FAIR). The FAIR supplements the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Effective October 29, 2019. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 29, 2019.
Mr. Kerry Neal, Director, Office of Grants Management, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4262 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208–3100; or email
On December 26, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published its
The Uniform Guidance required Federal agencies to promulgate regulations implementing the policies and procedures applicable to Federal awards by December 26, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Department published a final rule to adopt the OMB Uniform Guidance in full as 2 CFR part 1402, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (79 FR 75867). Three days later, on December 22, 2014, DOI issued memoranda to supplement the following provisions of the OMB Uniform Guidance: (1) Indirect Cost Rates for Federal Financial Assistance Awards and Agreements; (2) Conflict of Interest and Mandatory Disclosures for Financial Assistance; (3) Financial Assistance Application and Merit review Processes; and (4) Financial Assistance Awards for For-Profit Entities, Foreign Public Entities, and Foreign Organizations. On February 8, 2016, the Department published a proposed rule to establish the FAIR and to consolidate all of the policy memoranda into a regulation to be codified at 2 CFR part 1402 (81 FR 6462). Two comments were received addressing, first, details of the conflicts of interest provision and, second, the application of 2 CFR part 200, subparts E (Cost Principles) and F (Audit Requirements), to tribal awards. These two comments were addressed by expanding the conflict of interest provision to be consistent with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR part 2635, and by clarifying the applicability of 2 CFR part 200, subparts E and F, to tribal awards in this final rulemaking, respectively.
Because the RIN for the 2016 proposed rule expired and Departmental leadership wanted to strengthen the conflict of interest provisions and incorporate open science and land acquisition provisions, the Department proposed the current version of its FAIR regulations as a revision to 2 CFR part 1402 for public comment on March 21, 2019. The Department received 55 public comments (84 FR 10439). The final rule reflects the totality of comments considered from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage of the process.
The FAIR regulations final rule: First, revises 2 CFR part 1402 to more accurately reflect exceptions to this part; and second, adds supplemental regulations for DOI's financial assistance program that is codified at 2 CFR part 1402. The rule represents an administrative simplification and does not make any substantive changes to 2 CFR part 200 policies and procedures. Thus, this rulemaking does not revisit substantive issues resolved during the development and finalization of the OMB Uniform Guidance which was adopted by the Department on December 19, 2014. This rule helps ensure that financial assistance provided by the DOI is administered in full compliance with applicable law, regulation, policy and best practices to ensure the American people get the most value from the money the DOI spends on financial assistance. The sections in this final rule represent areas of the financial assistance program where questions have been raised by stakeholders, including auditors. As a result, DOI clarified specific areas.
After reviewing and considering the comments received on the NPRM, we made several clarifications and changes in this final rule. The final rule:
• Clarifies the definition for real property.
• Simplifies and clarifies language for the conflict of interest requirements.
• Clarifies mandatory disclosure limitations on unresolved items.
• Simplifies language for the merit review requirements; removes the term “maximum” associated with discretionary awards.
• Clarifies that § 1402.207(b) conditions applies to both nonprofit and for-profit recipients.
• Deletes duplicative language for the lobbying disclosure and certification requirements.
• Removes the definition of data and revises § 1402.315 to clarify the distinction between data and other related types of information.
The DOI reviewed many comments from a variety of entities, but received the majority of the detailed comments focused on real property, appraisals, and scientific data. These key issues are addressed more fully in section III of this preamble, but include:
• Real Property Program Impacts—Includes such things as costs, time to complete appraisals, scarcity of Yellow Book appraisers, and grandfathering of appraisals already in progress.
• Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA or Yellow Book) Technical Issues/Requirements—Includes such things as the applicability of UASFLA, specific technical requirements, and assertions of inconsistent requirements for UASFLA compliance within the DOI and externally across other government agencies.
• Qualifications and Training of Appraisers—Includes such things as uncertainty regarding qualifications of appraisers for conducting UASFLA appraisals, qualifications for review appraisers, appraisal review conducted by non-appraisers, and terminology used when referring to the appraisal credentials issued by States.
• Promoting Open Science—Includes the expanded definition of data and the requirement to make data relied upon in research available to the public and the format to provide the data.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the final rule and highlights certain aspects of the rule that may benefit from additional explanation.
Subpart A of the final rule sets forth definitions for terms used in this part. Terms defined in this rulemaking are “employment,” “financial assistance officer,” “foreign entity,” “non-Federal entity,” and “real property.” As explained in the proposed rule, non-Federal entity is expanded to include for-profit organizations. Several of these terms help clarify regulatory changes designed to avoid conflicts of interest which might place a non-Federal entity, its employees, and/or its subrecipients in a position of conflict, real or apparent. The final rule adopts the proposed term “real property” to address DOI's specific focus on interests in land. The “data” definition was removed based on comments received stating that the definition was beyond the scope of typical definitions in the industry.
Subpart B sets forth general provisions including: The purpose of the part, application, exceptions, policies and procedures that apply to non-Federal entities, conflict of interest policies, and mandatory disclosure requirements. DOI adopted as proposed § 1402.100, which includes establishment of financial assistance regulations designed to ensure that financial assistance is administered in full compliance with applicable law, regulation, policy and best practices; and to help ensure that the American people get the most value from the money that DOI spends on financial assistance. The adopted § 1402.101 provides that the regulation is applicable to all DOI grant-making activities and to any non-Federal entity that applies for, receives, operates, or expends funds from a DOI financial assistance award after the effective date of this final rule, unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute. Section 1402.103 adopted as proposed explains that non-Federal entities must also follow bureau or office policies and procedures as communicated in notices of funding opportunities and award terms and conditions. This section also reflects the order of precedence, where policies or procedures may conflict with existing regulations at 2 CFR part 200; or this part. In such cases, then the regulations at 2 CFR part 200 or this part, when final, will supersede, unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute.
Section 1402.112 sets forth requirements related to conflicts of interest that apply to recipients of financial assistance awards. The final rule, adopted as proposed, applies to all non-Federal entities and requires the full text of language proposed in paragraphs (a) through (e) in all notice of funding opportunities and financial assistance awards. The proposed rule was amended in order to make clear to non-Federal entities that they must appropriately address prohibited conflicts of interest preventing them from providing impartial, technically sound, and objective performance under or with respect to a Federal financial assistance agreement. Paragraph (b) Requirements was removed to avoid any confusion that the rule was not in compliance with statutory and regulatory law. Paragraphs (a) through (e) set forth directions on applicability, appropriate action that must be taken to avoid a conflict of interest, required notification, and enforcement.
Section 1402.113 provides as proposed that, in addition to the disclosures required under 2 CFR 200.112 and 200.113, non-Federal entities and applicants must disclose in writing any potential or actual conflict of interest; and must also disclose any outstanding unresolved matters with the Government Accountability Office or the Office of Inspector General of any Federal agency when submitting a proposal and throughout the life of the award. “Unresolved” matters are now more clearly defined.
Under subpart C, the rule addresses: Merit review requirements for competitive awards, requirements for domestic for-profit entities, specific financial assistance award terms and conditions that apply to domestic for-profit entities, and lobbying disclosure and certification requirements.
Section 1402.204 sets forth merit review requirements for competitive grants and cooperative agreements unless otherwise prohibited by Federal statute. After reviewing the comments, DOI removed the requirements for bureaus and offices to create review systems that consider statutory or regulatory provisions, business evaluation, risk assessment, and other applicable government-wide pre-award considerations for discretionary programs that are noncompetitive. While DOI believes review systems are important, it did not believe the specific requirements needed to be in the regulation.
This section also adopts as proposed, required pre-award considerations for both discretionary competitive and noncompetitive awards to take into account the alignment of the award's purpose, goals, and measurement with the current DOI Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan. Section 1402.204 also adopts as amended an expectation of competition in awarding discretionary funds, unless
Sections 1402.206 and 1402.207 are designed to be read together as proposed. Section 1402.206 provides that § 1402.207(a) contains standard award terms and conditions that always apply to for-profit entities and that terms in § 1402.207(b) contain terms for recipients including non-profits and for-profits to apply to all subawards and contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold. The section further lists additional administrative guidelines in existing regulations and in proposed § 1402.414 that may be applied to domestic for-profit entities. Provision is made for particular program offices and bureaus to develop specific administrative guidelines for domestic for-profits. Finally, § 1402.206 adopts that bureau and office award terms and conditions must be managed in accordance with the requirements in the existing 2 CFR 200.210.
Section 1402.207 lists specific conditions that always apply to domestic for-profit entities and subawards. In addition to all other applicable terms and conditions, specific financial assistance award terms and conditions adopted in § 1402.207(d) apply to foreign entities. DOI also clarified that the provisions in § 1402.207(b) applies to both non-profit and domestic for-profit entities.
Section 1402.208 was removed after DOI's review of the comments, as DOI agreed it was redundant with § 1402.112(d) restrictions on lobbying.
Subpart D includes regulations that set forth post Federal award requirements.
Section 1402.315 amends requirements for availability of data that implement Secretary's Order 3369, “Promoting Open Science,” dated October 18, 2018. The requirements in this section rely on existing regulatory provisions found at 2 CFR 200.315(d) to achieve the goals set forth in section 4b(3) of the Secretary's Order to provide the American people with enough information to thoughtfully and substantively evaluate the data, methodology, and analysis used by the Department. To accomplish these goals, the section provides that DOI bureaus and offices shall specifically require under the terms of any award, the ability to publicly release associated data, methodology, factual inputs, models, analyses, technical information, reports, conclusions, or other scientific assessments in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual, subject to applicable laws. This provision applies to all grants, cooperative agreements, or other similar agreements between any Bureau, Office, or other organization of the Department and any third party; and would not be limited to rulemaking. This section recognizes the Department's responsibility to ensure that the benefits derived from Federal financial assistance are generally available to the public, subject to applicable law. DOI clarified in the final rule that methodologies, factual inputs, models, analyses, technical information, reports, conclusions, or other scientific assessments in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual resulting from a financial assistance agreement should be available to DOI for sufficient independent verification. It further clarified the Federal Government rights to such items. It also adopts, as proposed, the requirement that Bureaus and offices must include these requirements in all notice of funding opportunities.
Section 1402.329 adopts the requirements for land acquired under an award. The regulation provides that prior to land purchases, bureaus and offices must ensure compliance with the prior written approval requirements for land acquisition in the existing 2 CFR 200.439. Whenever a recipient is seeking DOI approval to use award funds to purchase an interest in real property, OMB-approved government-wide data elements must be submitted to the responsible bureau or office. For this provision, the Financial Assistance Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance. Furthermore, all aspects of the purchase must be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations relating to purchases of land or interests in land. This section also requires that unless a waiver valuation applies in accordance with 49 CFR 24.102(c), land or interests in land that will be acquired under the award must be: (a) Appraised in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA or the “Yellow Book”), which is incorporated by reference; (b) appraised by a real property appraiser licensed or certified by the State or States in which the property is located; and (c) that the appraisal report shall be reviewed by a qualified review appraiser that meets qualifications established by the DOI Appraisal and Valuation Services Office (AVSO). Requirements are also set forth in this section for foreign land acquisition. In § 1402.329, DOI sets forth direction that recipients must submit reports on the status of the real property for all financial assistance actions where real property, as defined in this final rule, is acquired under the Federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.329. If the interest in real property will be held for less than 15 years, reports must be submitted annually; otherwise the recipient must submit the first report within one year of the period of performance end date of the award and then, at a minimum every five years thereafter. The rule also sets forth who should receive the reports, the required format, the content, and timing for such reports.
Section 1402.414 establishes DOI policy, procedures, and general decision-making criteria for deviations from negotiated indirect cost rates applicable to all Federal financial assistance programs awarded and administered within DOI. The regulatory text sets forth procedures and criteria for using an indirect cost rate other than the non-Federal entity's negotiated rate. The goal of this section is to provide consistent direction within the Department on negotiated indirect cost rate deviations to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Existing provisions of 2 CFR 200.414(c) require Federal agencies to accept federally negotiated indirect cost rates. Federal agencies may use a rate different from the negotiated rate for a class of awards or a single Federal award only when required by Federal statute or regulation, or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head or delegatee based upon documented justification described within 2 CFR 200.414(c)(3).
For all deviations to the Federal negotiated indirect cost rate, including statutory, regulatory, programmatic, and voluntary, the rule provides that the basis of direct costs against which the indirect cost rate is applied must be: The same base identified in the recipient's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, if the recipient has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement; or, the modified total direct
Section 1402.414(d), adopted as proposed, provides that in cases where the recipient does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, the Department will not use a modified rate based upon total direct cost or other base not identified in the federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or defined within 2 CFR 200.68.
Section 1402.414(d) goes on to provide direction on indirect cost rate deviation required by statute or regulation, indirect cost rate reductions used as cost-share, programmatic indirect cost rate deviation approval process, voluntary indirect cost rate reduction, and unrecovered indirect costs.
The Department sought public comment on the proposed rule, receiving 55 comments from over 200 individuals, non-profits, State and local governments, and Federal entities. All public comments received on the NPRM are available in a combined docket at docket number: DOI–2018–0013. The Department decided to proceed to the final-rule stage after consideration of all the comments. The Department's responses to comments are detailed below.
Comparable sales involving government entities or nonprofit organizations also must be considered with extra care and analysis because they can reflect non-market motivation or other influences such as tax benefits to the seller. The UASFLA does not prohibit the use of these sales, but these sales do require an additional level of scrutiny to ensure that they are arm's length transactions and accurately reflect open market situations.
For appraisal review qualifications, there are specific review designations for appraisers offered by at least two professional appraisal organizations—the Appraisal Institute (AI–GRS) and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (RPRA) that conform to the Departmental Manual, Part 602, Chapter 1, requirements requiring education and experience in appraisal review, a comprehensive exam, and a demonstration appraisal review report.
DOI reviewed and considered the comments received, and determined to adopt this final rule with the changes described and minor editorial changes.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public, where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives.
This final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The Department of the Interior generally does not award grants to small businesses.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule establishes regulations for DOI financial assistance. DOI financial assistance is typically offered to States, local governments and not-for-profit institutions. It does not affect business relationships, employment, investment, productivity, innovations, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete internationally.
This rule:
(a) Does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year.
(b) Does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
(c) This regulation clarifies the applicability of two existing regulations—the regulatory requirement for reporting under 2 CFR 200.329—Reporting on Real Property, and the regulatory language establishing use of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA or “Yellow Book”) standard under 49 CFR 24.103—to financial assistance actions at the Department of the Interior. This regulation establishes a permitted standard for appraisals under 49 CFR 24.103 and specifies the required timing increments of reports under 2 CFR 200.329.
A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in section 2 of E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. It does not impose any obligations on the public that would result in a taking. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This is because it will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. Accordingly, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) of this E.O. requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) of this E.O. requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. DOI has evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This regulation will require the use of the SF 429 to fulfill the requirement in 2 CFR 200.329. Each Bureau will submit a request for common form usage to the Office of Management and Budget for use of SF 429—Real Property Status Report—Cover Page, SF 429A—Real Property Status Report—Attachment A—General Reporting, and SF 429B—Real Property Status Report—Attachment B—Request to Acquire, Improve, or Furnish.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required. Pursuant to Department Manual 516 DM 2.3A(2), section 1.10 of 516 DM 2, Appendix 1 excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement “policies, directives, regulations and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature; or the environmental effects of which are too broad, speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.”
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211; therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
DOI is required by section 1(b)(12) of E.O. 12866 and Section 3(b)(1)(B) of E.O. 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that this rule:
(a) Is logically organized;
(b) Uses the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Uses common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Is divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Uses lists and tables wherever possible.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Aged, Agriculture, American Samoa, Bilingual education, Blind, Business and industry, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Communications, Community development, Community facilities, Copyright, Credit, Cultural exchange programs, Educational facilities, Educational research, Education, Education of disadvantaged, Education of individuals with disabilities, Educational study programs, Electric power, Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Elementary and secondary education, Energy conservation, Equal educational opportunity, Federally affected areas, Government contracts, Grant programs, Grant programs—agriculture, Grant programs—business, Grant programs—communications, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—energy, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Grants administration, Guam, Home improvement, Homeless, Hospitals, Housing, Human research subjects, Incorporation by reference, Indians, Indians—education, Infants and children, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, International organizations, Inventions and patents, Loan programs, Loan programs social programs, Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—business and industry, Loan programs—communications, Loan programs—energy, Loan programs—health, Loan programs—housing and community development, Manpower training programs, Migrant labor, Mortgage insurance, Nonprofit organizations, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territories, Privacy, Renewable energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Scholarships and fellowships, School construction, Schools, Science and technology, Securities, Small businesses, State and local governments, Student aid, Teachers, Telecommunications, Telephone, Urban areas, Veterans, Virgin Islands, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water resources, Water supply, Watersheds, Women.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Interior revises 2 CFR part 1402 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 2 CFR part 200.
The definitions in this subpart are for terms used in this part. For terms used in this part that are not defined, the definitions in 2 CFR part 200 apply. Different definitions may be found in Federal statutes or regulations that apply more specifically to particular programs or activities.
(a) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards set forth in 2 CFR part 200 apply to the Department of the Interior. This part adopts, as the Department of the Interior (DOI) policies and procedures, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200. The Uniform Guidance applies in full except as stated in this part.
(b) This part establishes DOI financial assistance regulations that implement or supplement the OMB's Uniform Guidance. It is designed to ensure that financial assistance is administered in full compliance with applicable law, regulation, policy, and best practices to ensure the American people get the most value from the funds DOI awards on financial assistance. For supplemental guidance, DOI has adopted section numbering that corresponds to related OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 200.
(c) This part extends 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through E, policies and procedures to foreign public entities and foreign organizations as allowed by 2 CFR 200.101, except as indicated throughout this part.
(a) This part applies to all DOI grant-making activities and to any non-Federal entity that applies for, receives, operates, or expends funds from a DOI Federal award after October 29, 2019, unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute.
(b) This part applies to foreign entity applicants and recipients, except where the DOI office or bureau determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the statutes or regulations of a foreign government (see § 1402.102).
(1) Foreign entities are subject to the definitions and requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through E, and as supplemented by this part. In addition to the general requirements in 2 CFR part 200, foreign entities must follow the special considerations and requirements for different classes of recipients in subparts A through E as follows, unless otherwise instructed in this part:
(i) Foreign public entities are to follow those for States, with the exception of the State payment procedures in 2 CFR 200.305(a). Foreign public entities must follow the payment procedures for non-Federal entities other than States;
(ii) Foreign nonprofit organizations are to follow those for nonprofits; and
(iii) Foreign higher education institutions are to follow those for Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs).
(2) [Reserved]
(a) Awards made in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638, 88 Stat. 2204), as amended, are governed by 25 CFR parts 900 and 1000, and by 2 CFR part 200, subparts E and F.
(b) Exceptions for individual foreign entities to the requirements in this part may be authorized by the Director, Office of Grants Management. Such exceptions must be made in accordance with written bureau or office policy and procedures.
(1) Foreign entities must request any exception to a requirement established in this part in writing. Such requests must be submitted to the funding bureau or office by an authorized
(i) Identification of the requirement under this part that is inconsistent with an in-country statute or regulation to which the foreign entity is subject;
(ii) A complete description of the in-country statute or regulation, including a description of how it prohibits or otherwise limits the foreign entity's ability to comply with the identified requirement under this part; and
(iii) Identification of the entity's name, DOI award(s) affected, and point of contact for the request.
(2) The Director, Office of Grants Management may approve exceptions for individual foreign entities to the requirements of this part only when it has been determined that the requirement to be waived is inconsistent with either the international obligations of the United States or the statutes or regulations of a foreign government. Bureaus and offices will communicate exception request decisions to the requesting entity in writing.
(3) Submissions by public international organization submissions of any assurances, certifications or representations required for and related to a Federal award do not constitute a waiver of immunities provided under the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288–288f).
(4) Foreign entities are not subject to the following requirements in 2 CFR part 200:
(i) Foreign entities may be subject to other applicable international or in-country alternatives to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), such as the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). See 2 CFR 200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs;
(ii) 2 CFR 200.321, Contracting with small and minority businesses, women's business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms; and
(iii) Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. See 2 CFR 200.322, Procurement of recovered materials.
Non-Federal entities must follow bureau or office policies and procedures as communicated in notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs) and award terms and conditions. In the event such policies or procedures conflict with 2 CFR part 200 or this part, 2 CFR part 200 or this part will supersede, unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute.
This section shall apply to all non-Federal entities. NOFOs and financial assistance awards must include the full text of the conflict of interest provisions in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a)
(2) In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by recipients and by subrecipients, the conflict of interest provisions in 2 CFR 200.318 apply.
(b)
(2) Recipients must establish internal controls that include, at a minimum, procedures to identify, disclose, and mitigate or eliminate identified conflicts of interest. The recipient is responsible for notifying the Financial Assistance Officer in writing of any conflicts of interest that may arise during the life of the award, including those that have been reported by subrecipients.
(c)
(d)
(e)
In addition to the disclosures required under 2 CFR 200.112 and 200.113, non-Federal entities, including applicants for all Federal awards, must disclose in writing any potential or actual conflict of interest to the DOI awarding agency or pass-through entity. Non-Federal entities and applicants must also disclose any outstanding unresolved matters with the Government Accountability Office or an Office of Inspector General when submitting a proposal and through the life of the award as needed. Unresolved items are those items that do not have an approved (by the awarding agency) corrective action plan in place and remain open.
The requirements in this section apply to competitive grants and cooperative agreements unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute. Merit review procedures must be described or incorporated by reference in NOFOs (see 2 CFR part 200, appendix I, and 2 CFR 200.203). Pre-award considerations for both discretionary competitive and noncompetitive awards shall take into account the alignment of the award's purpose, goals, and measurement with the current DOI Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan including, the mission statement, vision, values, goals, objectives, strategies, and performance metrics therein, unless otherwise prohibited by statute.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Merit review factors and sub-factors;
(2) A rating system (
(3) Evaluation standards or descriptions that explain the basis for assignment of the various rating system grades/scores;
(4) Program policy factors; and
(5) The basis for selection.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a)
(2) Bureaus and offices may apply the administrative guidelines in subparts A through D of 2 CFR part 200, the cost principles at 48 CFR part 31, subpart 31.2, and the procedures for negotiating indirect costs (detailed in § 1402.414) to domestic for-profit entities.
(3) Depending on the nature of a particular program, offices and bureaus may additionally develop program-specific administrative guidelines for domestic for-profits based on the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through D, but may not apply more restrictive requirements than the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through D, unless approved by OMB through a request to the Director, Office of Grants Management.
(b)
(a) The following financial assistance award terms and conditions always apply to domestic for-profit entities:
(1) 2 CFR part 25, Universal Identifier and System for Award Management.
(2) 2 CFR part 170, Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Information.
(3) 2 CFR part 175, Award Term for Trafficking in Persons.
(4) 2 CFR part 1400, government-wide debarment and suspension (non-procurement).
(5) 2 CFR part 1401, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).
(6) 43 CFR part 18, New Restrictions on Lobbying. Submission of an application also represents the applicant's certification of the statements in 43 CFR part 18, appendix A, Certification Regarding Lobbying.
(7) 41 U.S.C. 4712, Whistleblower Protection for Contractor and Grantee Employees. The requirement in this paragraph (a)(7) applies to all awards issued after July 1, 2013.
(8) 41 U.S.C. 6306, Prohibition on Members of Congress Making Contracts with the Federal Government. No member of or delegate to the United States Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this award, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; this paragraph (a)(8) shall not be construed to extend to an award made to a corporation for the public's general benefit.
(9) Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving. Recipients are encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving, including conducting initiatives of the type described in section 3(a) of the Executive Order.
(b) The following financial assistance award terms and conditions always apply to non-profit and domestic for-profit entities. The recipient shall insert the following clause in all subawards and contracts related to the prime award that are over the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation:
All awards and related subawards and contracts over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, and all employees working on applicable awards and related subawards and contracts, are subject to the whistleblower rights and remedies in accordance with the pilot program on award recipient employee whistleblower protections established at 41 U.S.C. 4712 by section 828 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239).
Recipients, their subrecipients and contractors that are awarded contracts over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold related to an applicable award, shall inform their employees, in writing, in the predominant language of the workforce, of the employee whistleblower rights and protections under 41 U.S.C. 4712.
(c) The following award terms and conditions apply to for-profit recipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.101:
(1) Administrative requirements: 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through D.
(2) Cost principles: 48 CFR part 31, subpart 31.2, Contracts with Commercial Organizations.
(3) Indirect cost rate negotiations. For information on indirect cost rate negotiations, contact the Interior Business Center (IBC) Indirect Cost Services Division by telephone at (916) 566–7111 or by email at
(a) DOI bureaus and offices will communicate to the non-Federal entity all relevant public policy requirements, including those in general appropriations provisions, and incorporate them either directly or by reference in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
(b) The non-Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. For all Federal awards, this includes the provisions of Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which includes requirements on executive compensation, and also requirements implementing the FFATA for the non-Federal entity at 2 CFR part 25, financial assistance use of universal identifier and system for award management, and 2 CFR part 170, Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information. See also statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.C. 2409, 41 U.S.C. 4712, and 10 U.S.C. 2324, 41 U.S.C. 4304 and 4310.
(c) Recipients conducting work outside the United States are responsible for coordinating with appropriate United States and foreign government authorities as necessary to make sure all required licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained before undertaking project activities. DOI does not assume responsibility for recipient compliance with the laws, regulations, policies, or procedures of the foreign country in which the work is conducted.
(d) As required in 54 U.S.C. 307101, World Heritage Convention, prior to the approval of any undertaking outside the United States that may directly and adversely affect a property that is on the World Heritage List or on the applicable country's equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places, the DOI bureau or office having direct or indirect jurisdiction over the undertaking shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on the property for purposes of avoiding or mitigating any adverse effect.
(e) Foreign entities are responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. For awards to foreign entities, this includes:
(1) 2 CFR part 25, Universal Identifier and System for Award Management, unless the entity meets one or more qualifying conditions and is exempted by the awarding bureau or office as provided for in 2 CFR part 25;
(2) 2 CFR part 170, Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information;
(3) 2 CFR part 175, Award Term for Trafficking in Persons. This term is required in awards to foreign private entities. The term is also required in awards to foreign public entities, if funding could be provided under the award to a foreign private entity as a subrecipient;
(4) 2 CFR part 1400, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension. Awards to foreign organizations are covered transactions under the DOI nonprocurement debarment and suspension program. Awards to foreign public entities are not covered transactions;
(5) 43 CFR part 18, New Restrictions on Lobbying. Foreign entities shall file the 43 CFR part 18, appendix A, certification, and a disclosure form, if required, with each application for Federal assistance. See also 31 U.S.C. 1352, Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions; and
(6) Public Law 113–235 (128 Stat. 2391, Dec. 16, 2014). Federal award recipients are prohibited from requiring employees or contractors seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.
(a) All data, methodology, factual inputs, models, analyses, technical information, reports, conclusions, valuation products or other scientific assessments in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual, resulting from a financial assistance agreement is available for use by the Department of the Interior, including being available in a manner that is sufficient for independent verification.
(b) The Federal Government has the right to:
(1) Obtain, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the data, methodology, factual inputs, models, analyses, technical information, reports, conclusions, or other scientific assessments, produced under a Federal award; and
(2) Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data, methodology, factual inputs, models, analyses, technical information, reports, conclusions, or other scientific assessments, for Federal purposes, including to allow for meaningful third-party evaluation.
(c) Bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior must include the language in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in full text in all NOFOs and financial assistance agreements.
(a)
(b)
(2) The Director of the Federal Register approves the material referenced in this section for incorporation by reference into this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect a copy at the Appraisal and Valuation Services Office within the Department of the Interior located at 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208–3466, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
(i) Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, 1155 15th Street NW, Suite 1111, Washington, DC 20005.
(A) Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Sixth Edition, 2016.
(B) You may obtain a print copy or interactive electronic version from The Appraisal Foundation at
(ii) [Reserved]
(c)
(d)
(2) If the interest in the land will be held for less than 15 years, reports must be submitted annually. If the interest in the land will be held for 15 years or more, then the recipient must submit the first report within one year of the period of performance end date of the award and then, at a minimum, every five years thereafter.
(3) The reports must be submitted to the Financial Assistance Officer within the period of performance of the award. After the end of the period of performance, reports must be submitted to a designated individual. Each bureau must have a process in place to designate specific individuals to receive, and review and accept the report.
(4) Recipients must use the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of real property reporting information, as of October 29, 2019, the Real Property Status Report Standard Form (SF) 429–A, General Reporting, to report status of land or interests in land under Federal financial assistance awards. Bureaus or offices may request to use an equivalent reporting format. The Director, Office of Grants Management must approve alternate equivalent formats.
(5) Reports must include, at a minimum, sufficient information to demonstrate that all conditions imposed on the land use are being met, and a signed certification to that fact by the recipient of the financial assistance award.
(6) The Financial Assistance Officer must indicate the reporting schedule, including due dates, in the award document. The schedule must conform with the frequency required in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. For awards issued prior to October 29, 2019, the recipient must contact the program to establish due dates for reports going forward. If there is already a reporting schedule in place, then the recipient and the program shall ensure that the schedule is updated to conform with this part prior to the due date of the next scheduled report.
(a) This section establishes DOI policies, procedures, and decision making criteria for using an indirect cost rate that differs from the non-Federal entity's negotiated rate or approved rate for DOI awards. These are established in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(c)(3) or (f).
(b) DOI accepts indirect cost rates that have been reduced or removed voluntarily by the proposed recipient of the award, on an award-specific basis.
(c) For all deviations to the Federal negotiated indirect cost rate, including statutory, regulatory, programmatic, and voluntary, the basis of direct costs against which the indirect cost rate is applied must be:
(1) The same base identified in the recipient's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, if the recipient has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement; or
(2) The Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base, in cases where the recipient does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or, with prior approval of the awarding bureau or office, when the recipient's federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement base is only a subset of the MTDC (such as salaries and wages) and the use of the MTDC still results in an overall reduction in the total indirect cost recovered. MTDC is the base defined by 2 CFR 200.68, Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC).
(d) In cases where the recipient does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, DOI will not use a modified rate based upon total direct cost or other base not identified in the federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or defined within 2 CFR 200.68.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of an updated and reissued system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement–016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
This final rule is effective August 30, 2019.
For general questions please contact: Jordan Holz, (202) 732–3300, Acting Privacy Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC 20536. For privacy issues please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor (202)–343–1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
DHS U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
In finalizing this rule, DHS exempts portions of the updated and reissued FALCON Search and Analysis (FALCON–SA) system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) personnel use FALCON–SA to conduct research and analysis using advanced analytic tools in support of ICE's law enforcement mission. Providing an individual access to FALCON–SA records pertaining to that individual could inform the subject of an ongoing or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory investigation, or reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. For these reasons, DHS will exempt portions of the FALCON–SA system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
DHS received two substantive comments on the NPRM and one substantive comment on the SORN.
Both commenters stated that exempting the portions of the FALCON–SA system of records from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), which ensures that all information collected about an individual “is relevant and necessary,” risks violating an individual's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Further, one commenter expressed concern that “collection” systems like FALCON–SA could be considered warrantless investigations and raise reasonable expectation of privacy considerations. The relevance of this objection is unclear as generally there is no warrant requirement for an investigation. Also, in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
Moreover, FALCON–SA is used for storing, searching, analyzing, and visualizing volumes of
One commenter indicated that FALCON–SA collects individuals' information without their consent, and therefore objected generally to Privacy Act exemptions for the FALCON–SA system of records. As noted above, FALCON–SA does not directly gather information from the individual, but rather ingests information collected through existing legal processes. DHS, in exempting portions of the FALCON–SA system of records from particular provisions of the Privacy Act, is not engaging in a search of any individual. To the extent comments address potential impacts or concerns with collection of information by other systems, DHS and ICE publish SORNs and rules for all systems of records that can be found at
Another commenter stated that the FALCON–SA System of Records allows ICE personnel to collect “any information [he or she] wants without disclosing where it came from or even acknowledging its existence.” While DHS notes this concern, law enforcement exemptions allow ICE personnel to retain evidentiary information in the appropriate system(s) without public disclosure. When law enforcement agencies share information they collect with ICE, appropriate ICE personnel determine whether it should be ingested into FALCON–SA. If information is ingested, ICE personnel do not make any changes to the data, in order to preserve data accuracy and integrity. Under this final rule, information that is or will be stored in FALCON–SA will be exempt from disclosure so that law enforcement investigations are not negatively impacted. DHS ensures that all FALCON–SA users are trained on the proper uses of the system. All ingests performed by a FALCON–SA user require ICE supervisory approval. FALCON–SA also implements extensive auditing of user actions in the system. The system automatically maintains an audit log, and any attempt to access information outside of the user's permissions will be automatically flagged throughout the enterprise. User actions are recorded and stored in audit logs accessible to supervisors and ICE IT security personnel, which are searched and analyzed to ensure proper use of the system. Audit data is also available to ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigators if there is an investigation into possible wrongdoing by a FALCON–SA user. Additional information on auditing and technical controls and safeguards can be found in the FALCON–SA Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), available at
The comment received in regard to the SORN can be broken down into two main topics:
(1) The system collects too broadly, and
(2) The routine uses for disclosure circumvent Privacy Act safeguards and contravene legislative intent.
Regarding the first point, the comment suggested that FALCON–SA collects “virtually unlimited” categories of records. ICE developed FALCON–SA to enhance ICE's ability to identify, apprehend, and initiate appropriate legal proceedings against individuals who violate criminal, civil, and administrative laws enforced by ICE. FALCON–SA supports the investigative work of ICE HSI agents and criminal research specialists by allowing them to search, review, upload, and analyze data pertinent to an investigative lead or an ongoing case. While “collection” is not an applicable concept in the context of actions that are undertaken through FALCON–SA directly, DHS acknowledges a general risk of over-collection of information. In circumstances when ICE directly collects information, ICE only collects the minimum amount relevant and necessary to further ICE's law enforcement mission. To that end, ICE maintains information about DHS personnel, other law enforcement personnel, victims, witnesses, and other
The commenter expressed concerns about disclosures pursuant to routine uses proposed in the FALCON–SA SORN. First, disclosures pursuant to the routine use exception are never mandatory, but instead are at the discretion of the agency. Second, FALCON–SA users have a requirement to document all disclosures made per these routine use exceptions as well as disclosures made under any other authority.
Specifically, the commenter expressed concerns about Routine Uses H, J, and O. Routine Use H authorizes disclosure to federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agencies for background investigations. Under this Routine Use, DHS only shares information about individuals' criminal, civil, and administrative law violations in response to other agencies' background investigations. This type of disclosure is limited to information that was collected for law enforcement purposes. Limited sharing to assist in law enforcement investigations is consistent with the purpose for collection.
Routine Use J authorizes disclosure to international and foreign partners in accordance with law and formal or informal international arrangements. DHS enters into formal or informal information sharing agreements that are consistent with the system's law enforcement purposes. Further, information sharing partners must execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), or an equivalent agreement stipulating that they will only use DHS information consistent with the purposes for which the information was collected.
Routine Use O authorizes disclosure to the media and members of the public with the prior approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, if the disclosure is a matter of legitimate public interest. Like all Routine Uses, disclosures are not mandatory. Media disclosures are limited in scope and subject to restrictions and procedures located in the DHS Privacy Policy Guidance Memorandum 2017–01
After consideration of public comments, the Department will implement the rulemaking as proposed.
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
81. The DHS/ICE–016 FALCON Search and Analysis (FALCON–SA) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The FALCON–SA System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings thereunder; and national security and intelligence activities. The FALCON–SA System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (c)(4): (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. Information on a completed investigation may be withheld and exempt from disclosure if the fact that an investigation occurred remains sensitive after completion.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(j) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Agricultural Marketing Service; Farm Service Agency; Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration; USDA.
Final rule.
This rule transfers certain regulations under the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to reflect changes in the organizational structure and delegated authorities within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This rule also makes corresponding revisions to the regulations to reflect the organizational changes. This action is necessary to enable the AMS Administrator to issue, maintain, and revise as necessary regulations related to programs under the AMS Administrator's delegated authority.
Effective August 30, 2019.
Dawana J. Clark, Legislative and Regulatory Review Staff, Office of the Administrator, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (202) 720–7540, Fax: (202) 690–3767, or Email:
In November 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture directed the reorganization of several USDA agencies. The purpose of the reorganization was to help USDA better meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and producers, while providing improved customer service and maximizing efficiency. A final rule published November 29, 2018 (83 FR 61309), eliminated GIPSA as a stand-alone agency and amended 7 CFR part 2 to include new delegations of authority from the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to the AMS Administrator. Amended § 2.79 authorizes the AMS Administrator to administer the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71–87h); the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (P&S), as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181
Currently, Title 7, Chapter VII, part 735 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains the USWA regulations, under FSA administration. This final rule transfers the USWA regulations in part 735 to Chapter VIII of Title 7 and redesignates them as part 869. Currently Chapter VIII is titled “Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (Federal Grain Inspection Service), Department of Agriculture.” This final rule revises the title of Chapter VIII to read “Agricultural Marketing Service (Federal Grain Inspection Service, Fair Trade Practices Program), Department of Agriculture” to reflect the elimination of GIPSA and the redelegation of administrative authority for FGIS and USWA activities to the AMS Administrator. The Deputy Administrator of AMS's Federal Grain Inspection Service oversees FGIS activities for the Administrator, and the Deputy Administrator of AMS's Fair Trade Practices Program (FTPP) oversees USWA activities for the Administrator.
Currently, Title 9, Chapter II, of the CFR, titled “Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (Packers and Stockyards Programs), Department of Agriculture” contains the P&S regulations. This final rule revises the title of Chapter II to read “Agricultural Marketing Service (Fair Trade Practices Program), Department of Agriculture” to reflect the elimination of GIPSA and the redelegation of administrative authority for P&S activities to the AMS Administrator. The Deputy Administrator of FTPP oversees P&S activities for the Administrator.
This final rule makes corresponding revisions to certain definitions, references, addresses, and telephone numbers in 7 CFR parts 800, 868, and 869; and 9 CFR parts 201,202, 203, and 206 to reflect redelegation to the AMS Administrator of authority over former GIPSA and FSA programs. This rule replaces references to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, the Farm Service Agency, and FSA as appropriate with references to the Agricultural Marketing Service and AMS. This rule redefines the term
This final rule revises redesignated 7 CFR part 869 by replacing references to FSA's Deputy Administrator, Commodity Operations or DACO with references to AMS's Warehouse and Commodity Management Division Director and AMS. This rule also revises cross references within part 869 by replacing references to other sections in part 735 with references to the corresponding sections in redesignated part 869. Specifically, this rule revises such cross references in §§ 869.3, 869.6, 869.303, 869.401, 869.402, 869.403, and 869.404.
This rule makes additional revisions to 9 CFR parts 201, 202, and 203. In § 201.2(f), the term
Currently, 9 CFR part 204 describes GIPSA organization and functions. Since GIPSA was eliminated and its functions redelegated to AMS, this section is no longer necessary. This final rule removes and reserves part 204.
This final rule is administrative in nature and reflects changes in the agency's organization. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective in fewer than 30 days after publication in the
Additionally, this rule is exempt from the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13771. This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Beans, Cotton, Cottonseeds, Grains, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar, Surety bonds, Tobacco, Warehouses, Textiles.
Administrative practice and procedure, Conflict of interests, Exports, Freedom of information, Grains, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice.
Administrative practice and procedure, Beans, Cotton, Cottonseeds, Grains, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sugar, Surety bonds, Tobacco, Warehouses, Textiles.
Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stockyards, Surety bonds, Trade practices.
Administrative practice and procedure, Stockyards.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stockyards.
Freedom of information, Organization and functions (Government agencies)
Archives and records, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Government contracts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swine.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, as authorized by the Secretary's Memorandum dated November 14, 2018, and under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 7 U.S.C. 71–87k, 181–229, 1621–1627, and 1631, the Department of Agriculture amends 7 CFR chapters VII and VIII and 9 CFR chapter II as follows:
7 U.S.C. 241
7 U.S.C. 71–87K, 1621–1627.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Information about the Agricultural Marketing Service, Service, Act, regulations, official standards, official criteria, rules of practice, instructions, and other matters related to the official inspection or Class X or Class Y weighing of grain may be obtained by telephoning or writing the Service at its headquarters or any one of its field offices at the numbers and addresses listed on the Service's website.
(d)
(e)
7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
7 U.S.C. 241
(a) AMS will administer all provisions and activities regulated under the Act under the general direction and supervision of AMS's Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, or a designee.
(d) * * *
(2) The following address: Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, Fair Trade Practices Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–3601.
(c) * * *
(1) Will be available at AMS's website, or
(2) May be requested at the following address: Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, Fair Trade Practices Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–3601.
(a) Any person who is subject to an adverse determination made under the Act may appeal the determination by filing a written request with AMS at the following address: Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, Fair Trade Practices Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 3601, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–3601.
7 U.S.C. 181–229c.
The definitions of terms contained in the Act shall apply to such terms when used in the Regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 9 CFR part 201; Rules of Practice Governing Proceedings under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 9 CFR part 202; and Statements of General Policy under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 9 CFR part 203. In addition, the following terms used in these parts shall be construed to mean:
(f)
(l)
(a) * * * All approved material is available for inspection at USDA, AMS, Packers and Stockyards Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202–720–7051, and is for sale by the National Conference of Weights and Measures (NCWM), 1135 M Street, Suite 110, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68508. * * *
7 U.S.C. 228(a); 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.81.
(d)
(e)
(j)
(k)
7 CFR 2.22 and 2.81.
(a)
(a) * * *
(6) Amount of money due; and to make certain that a copy of such letter, mailgram, or telegram is filed with a PSD regional office or with the PSD headquarters office within the prescribed time.
(a) In its administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Department has sought to promote and maintain open and fair competition in the livestock and packing industries, and to prevent unfair or anticompetitive practices when they are found to exist. It is the opinion of the Department that the ownership or operation of custom feedlots by packers presents problems which may under some circumstances result in violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
(d) The Department does not consider the existence of packer/custom feedlot relationships, by itself, to constitute a violation of the Act. In the event it appears that a packer/custom feedlot arrangement gives rise to a violation of the Act, an investigation will be made on a case-by-case basis, and, where warranted, appropriate action will be taken.
7 U.S.C. 1631; 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.81.
(c) Any such request and attachments must be filed in triplicate (one copy for
7 U.S.C. 198–198b; 7 U.S.C. 222.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the DAHER Aerospace Model TBM700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the use of an autothrust system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is August 30, 2019.
The FAA must receive your comments by September 30, 2019.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2019–0649 using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
Jeff Pretz, AIR–691, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329–3239; facsimile (816) 329–4090.
The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because substantially identical special conditions have been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances such that the FAA is satisfied that new comments are unlikely. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment.
The FAA
The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On March 28th, 2018, DAHER Aerospace (DAHER) applied for FAA validation of its change to Type Certificate No. A60EU
The installation of an ATS in the Model TBM700 is intended to reduce pilot workload. The ATS is useable in all phases from takeoff to approach. The system includes torque and airspeed management capability along with monitors to prevent the system from exceeding critical engine or airspeed limits. Throttle movement is provided by a servo, which moves the throttle lever. The servo can be overridden by pilot movement of the throttle and disengages upon selection of the A/T disconnect switch on the throttle.
Section 23.1329, amendment 23–49, only contained requirements for automatic pilot systems that act on the airplane flight controls. Autothrust systems are automatic systems that act on the thrust controls. These systems provide enhanced automation and safety, but may also introduce pilot confusion, countering the safety benefit. 14 CFR 25.1329, amendment 25–119, addresses these concerns for transport airplanes. Therefore, these special conditions are based on § 25.1329 and provide additional requirements to standardize the pilot interface and system behavior and enhance pilot awareness of system active and armed modes.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, DAHER must show that the Model TBM700 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A60EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” Refer to Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A60EU for the complete certification basis.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations in part 23 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model TBM700 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model TBM700 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The Model TBM700 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
An ATS, which provides commands to a servo attached to the throttle lever that automatically controls engine thrust. The ATS can be operated to control torque or airspeed.
The part 23 airworthiness regulations in the type certification basis do not contain appropriate safety standards for this design feature. However, part 25 regulations contain appropriate airworthiness standards; therefore, these special conditions are derived from 14 CFR 25.1329, “Flight guidance system,” applicable to autothrust systems.
These special conditions are applicable to the Model TBM700 airplane. Should DAHER apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on the Model TBM700 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–44702; Pub. L. 113–53, 127 Stat 584 (49 U.S.C. 44704) note.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for DAHER Aerospace Model TBM700 airplanes.
In addition to the requirements of §§ 23.143, 23.1309, and 23.1329, the following apply:
(a) Quick disengagement controls for the autothrust function must be provided for each pilot. The autothrust quick disengagement controls must be located on the thrust control levers. Quick disengagement controls must be readily accessible to each pilot while operating the thrust control levers.
(b) The effects of a failure of the system to disengage the autothrust function when manually commanded by the pilot must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of § 23.1309.
(c) Engagement or switching of the flight guidance system, a mode, or a sensor may not cause the autothrust system to affect a transient response that alters the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of these special conditions.
(d) Under normal conditions, the disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not cause a transient response of the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient.
(e) Under rare normal and non-normal conditions, disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not result in a transient any greater than a significant transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(2) of these special conditions.
(f) The function and direction of motion of each command reference control, such as heading select or vertical speed, must be plainly indicated on—or adjacent to—each control if necessary to prevent inappropriate use or confusion.
(g) Under any condition of flight appropriate to its use, the flight guidance system may not produce hazardous loads on the airplane, nor create hazardous deviations in the flight path. This applies to both fault-free operation and in the event of a malfunction, and assumes that the pilot begins corrective action within a reasonable period of time.
(h) When the flight guidance system is in use, a means must be provided to
(i) The flight guidance system functions, controls, indications, and alerts must be designed to minimize flightcrew errors and confusion concerning the behavior and operation of the flight guidance system. Means must be provided to indicate the current mode of operation, including any armed modes, transitions, and reversions. Selector switch position is not an acceptable means of indication. The controls and indications must be grouped and presented in a logical and consistent manner. The indications must be visible to each pilot under all expected lighting conditions.
(j) Following disengagement of the autothrust function, a caution must be provided to each pilot.
(k) During autothrust operation, it must be possible for the flightcrew to move the thrust levers without requiring excessive force. The autothrust may not create a potential hazard when the flightcrew applies an override force to the thrust levers.
(l) For purposes of these special conditions, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flightcrew inputs or environmental conditions.
(1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flightcrew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flightcrew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.
(2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flightcrew workload, discomfort to the flightcrew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of the following:
(i) Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
(ii) Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in § 23.143(c).
(iii) Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.
These regulations are effective September 15, 2019, through September 15, 2020. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11D is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2019, through September 15, 2020.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2018, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations section 71.1, effective September 15, 2018, through September 15, 2019. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11C in full text as proposed rule documents in the
This document incorporates by reference FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, in section 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11D, effective September 15, 2019, through September 15, 2020. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this action: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.11D is effective September 15, 2019, through September 15, 2020. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the
Department of State.
Final rule; notification of temporary modification.
The Department of State, in response to public comments, revises Category XI on the United States Munitions List to remove items that do not warrant continued inclusion, and, pursuant to its regulations and in the interest of the security of the United States, temporarily modifies paragraph (b) in Category XI of the United States Munitions List (USML).
This rule is effective August 30, 2019, except for amendatory instruction 3 which is effective August 30, 2021.
Ms. Sarah Heidema, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663–1282; email
On July 1, 2014, the Department published a final rule revising Category XI of the USML, 79 FR 37536, effective December 30, 2014. That final rule, consistent with the two prior proposed rules for USML Category XI (78 FR 45018, July 25, 2013 and 77 FR 70958, November 28, 2012), revised paragraph (b) of Category XI to clarify the extent of control and maintain the existing scope of control on items described in paragraph (b) and the directly related software described in paragraph (d).
The Department later determined that exporters may read the revised control language to exclude certain intelligence-analytics software that has been and remains controlled on the USML. Therefore, the Department determined that it was in the interest of the security of the United States to temporarily revise USML Category XI paragraph (b), pursuant to the provisions of 22 CFR 126.2, while a long-term solution was developed. The Department published a final rule on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 37974) that temporarily modified USML Category XI(b) until December 29, 2015. The Department published a final rule on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78130) that continued the July 2, 2015 modification to August 30, 2017. The Department published a final rule on August 30, 2017 (82 FR 41172) that continued the December 16, 2015 modification to August 30, 2018. The Department published a final rule on August 30, 2018 (83 FR 44228) that continued the December 16, 2015 modification to August 30, 2019.
The temporary revision clarified that the scope of control in existence prior to December 30, 2014 for USML Category XI paragraph (b) and directly related software in paragraph (d) remains in effect. This clarification is achieved by reinserting the words “analyze and produce information from” and by adding software to the description of items controlled.
The Department, with its interagency partners, continues to develop a long term solution for USML Category XI(b). However, that solution will not be in place when the current temporary modification expires on August 30, 2019. Therefore, the Department has determined, for the national security and foreign policy of the United States and in the best interest of the U.S. defense industry, to publish a final rule that extends the temporary modification of USML XI(b) for two years, to August 30, 2021, to allow it to be revised as part of the wholesale revision of USML Category XI.
On February 12, 2018, the Department published a Notice of Inquiry (83 FR 5970) requesting public comment on USML Categories V, X, and XI. The Department and the interagency are reviewing the public comments submitted in response, and the Department intends to draft a proposed rule setting out revised versions of the three categories for public comment. Extending the temporary revisions of USML Category XI(b) now will allow the U.S. government to finalize its review of USML Category XI, which might include proposing further modification to USML Category XI paragraph (b) as may be warranted.
In the public comments that the Department received in response to the Notice of Inquiry were several that identified current and imminent commercial uses for certain lower performing radars, including in driver-assisted and self-driving ground vehicles and in detect and avoid systems for autonomous aerial systems. In its review of the public comments and development of a rulemaking on USML Category XI, the Department and its interagency partners have determined that revisions to USML Category XI can be made to exclude these radars and radar components from the USML. The control for certain air surveillance radar in paragraph (a)(3)(ix) of USML Category XI is reserved and a note is added to Category XI that removes from the USML those transmit/receive modules and transmit/receive monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) fabricated exclusively with homojunction complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) silicon-based circuits on silicon substrates, as well as radars and radar antennas that are specially designed to use only such modules or MMICs. These radars and radar components will become subject to the Export Administration Regulations upon the effective date of this revision as a matter of law, pursuant to 15 CFR 734.3(a).
This rulemaking is exempt from section 553 (Rulemaking) and section 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States Government.
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule under the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking is a significant but not an economically significant rule, under the criteria of Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 13563.
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 as the impacts are considered de minimis (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017).
Arms and munitions, Classified information, Exports.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the State Department amends 22 CFR part 121 as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90–629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105–261, 112 Stat. 1920; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112–239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
* (b) Electronic systems, equipment or software, not elsewhere enumerated in this subchapter, specially designed for intelligence purposes that collect, survey, monitor, or exploit, or analyze and produce information from, the electromagnetic spectrum (regardless of transmission medium), or for counteracting such activities.
Category XI does not control transmit/receive modules, transmit/receive MMICs, transmit modules, or transmit MMICs that incorporate or are MMICs fabricated exclusively with homojunction CMOS silicon-based circuits on silicon substrates, or radars and radar antennas specially designed to use only such modules or MMICs.
*(b) Electronic systems or equipment, not elsewhere enumerated in this subchapter, specially designed for intelligence purposes that collect, survey, monitor, or exploit the electromagnetic spectrum (regardless of transmission medium), or for counteracting such activities.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Correcting amendments.
This document makes technical amendments to and corrects typographical errors in the final rule published by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in the
Effective on August 30, 2019.
Ron Bailey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, by telephone at (202) 606–5410, by email at
OSHRC published revisions to its rules of procedure in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Hearing and appeal procedures.
Accordingly, 29 CFR part 2200 is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
29 U.S.C. 661(g), unless otherwise noted.
Section 2200.96 is also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2112(a).
(f)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Self-represented parties or intervenors who do not elect e-filing must file documents by postage-prepaid first class or higher class U.S. Mail, commercial delivery service, personal delivery, or facsimile transmission as described in paragraph (d) of this section.
(7)
(c)
(b) Issue authorized subpoenas and rule on petitions to modify, revoke, or affirm, in accordance with § 2200.65;
(a) * * *
(6) A small employer whether self-represented or represented by counsel.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants, General Provisions to clarify the process by which state plans for the control of pollutants and facilities are incorporated by reference into this part. This action is intended to update and modify the outdated General Provisions that note that state plans are incorporated by reference and that describe the availability of state plans.
The direct final rule is effective on October 29, 2019, without further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse written comment by October 15, 2019 on the amendments. If significant adverse comments are received on the amendments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0298, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this direct final action, contact Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4607; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address:
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The
In 1978, the EPA established a new part 62 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including a subpart A—General Provisions. 43 FR 51393 (November 3, 1978). 40 CFR part 62 relates to the approval and promulgation of state plans and federal plans under Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and 129. Emission guidelines for various source categories are implemented through 40 CFR part 62 via an approved state plan or a federal plan for each separate source category. The EPA generally intends to incorporate in part 62, by reference, approved state plans. The requirements of the General Provisions, together with the provisions of the state-specific subparts of part 62, reflect that intention.
Among other matters, the General Provisions refer to the Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of state plans, stating generally that: “All approved regulatory provisions of each plan are incorporated by reference in this part.” 40 CFR 62.02(a). The General Provisions also address the availability of applicable plans, indicating that state plans would be available at EPA Headquarters, as well as at EPA Regional offices at stated addresses. 40 CFR 62.12 (cross-referencing 40 CFR 62.10). These references to EPA locations are, at least in part, out of date. The address for EPA Headquarters, for example, is given as the EPA's former location in Southwest Washington, DC, rather than its current location in Northwest Washington, DC.
The Freedom of Information Act generally requires federal agencies to publish substantive rules in the
The original, unamended, 1978 IBR language in 40 CFR part 62 has not fully kept pace with OFR's evolving policies and procedures on IBR. In addition, the existing regulations—dating back to 1978—relating to the availability of approved state plans only reference the physical availability of the plans at specified EPA locations, and the addresses for the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, as well as some of the Regional offices, are out of date. The EPA is amending sections 62.02, 62.10, and 62.12 of 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. These amendments will help to ensure that part 62 state plans or state plan revisions are appropriately incorporated by reference through the OFR's current IBR process. As part of that effort, the EPA is amending 40 CFR 62.02(d) to remove a broad, general statement relating to IBR. The EPA intends to continue to incorporate state plans by reference, but, going forward, the EPA intends to use appropriate IBR language in connection with each individual action relating to the approval of particular state plans, rather than attempt to rely, in all cases, on a simple statement in the General Provisions. In addition, we are updating the addresses of the EPA Region II and IV offices in the table to 40 CFR 62.10. Finally, we are adding an address for the National Archives and Records Administration and updating the EPA addresses in 40 CFR 62.12(a), (b), and (c).
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action is administrative and does not change any requirements for affected entities, including tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action is merely administrative.
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, and Air pollution control.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) Section 62.12 provides information on availability of applicable plans. The Administrator and state and local agencies shall enforce
(1) Regulatory provisions of a plan approved or promulgated by the Administrator, and
(2) All permit conditions or denials issued in carrying out the approved or promulgated regulations for the review of designated facilities.
The revisions read as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in § 60.23 of this chapter, all requests, reports, applications, submittals, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to this part shall be submitted in duplicate and addressed to the appropriate Regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Regional offices are as follows:
(a) EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
(b) The applicable EPA Regional office, at the address listed in § 62.10.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 announces the deletion of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Buoy Depot of the South Weymouth Naval Air Station (NAS) Superfund Site (Site) located in Weymouth, MA, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial deletion pertains to the soil and groundwater at the USCG Buoy Depot (Operable Unit #10). The remaining operable units at South Weymouth NAS will remain on the NPL and are not considered for deletion as part of this action. The EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, the deletion of this parcel does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective August 30, 2019.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0009. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Robert Lim, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Five Post Office Square (Mailcode: 07–3), Boston, MA 02109, (617) 918–1392, email:
The portion of the site to be deleted from the NPL is:
4.77 acres of property owned by the United States of America (United States Coast Guard) described in Quitclaim Deed dated October 30, 1941 and recorded in book 6561, Page 513, also identified as Lot 650–1 in Tax Map 58. Approximately 0.20 acres of property owned by the United States of America (United States Navy) described in Quitclaim Deed dated January 1, 1900, also identified as Plat 597–152 in Tax Map 58. Approximately 0.04 acres of property owned by LSTAR Southfield, LLC, described in Quitclaim Deed dated July 2, 2015 and recorded in book 33279, Page 51, also identified as Plat 597–138 in Tax Map 58. Approximately 0.11 acres of property owned by LSTAR Southfield, LLC, described in Quitclaim Deed dated July 2, 2015 and recorded in book 33279, Page 51, also identified as Plat 597–137 in Tax Map 58.
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was July 31, 2019. No public comments were received.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission modernizes the carriage election notice rules by permitting broadcasters to post their carriage elections online and send notices to covered multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) by email only when first electing carriage or changing their carriage election status from must carry to retransmission consent or vice versa. Additionally, all parties will be required to post their contact information online on Commission databases.
Lyle Elder,
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (
1.
2.
3. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), full power television broadcast stations, and certain low power stations and translator stations, are entitled to mandatory carriage of their signal (also known as “must carry”) on any cable system located within their local market, also known as their designated market area (DMA). Full power stations
4. Currently, the rules direct each commercial television broadcast station to send a triennial carriage election notice, via certified mail, to each cable system or DBS provider serving its market, and each NCE station to send such notices to DBS providers. As discussed herein, NCE stations are not required to make triennial cable carriage elections. In addition, the rules generally also require stations to place triennial carriage election statements in their online inspection files, but as explained in the
5. In response to the initial Public Notice in the Media Modernization proceeding, a number of commenters expressed concerns about, and proposed changes to, the carriage election notification process. Specifically, ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, and FBC Television Affiliates Association said the current “requirement burdens television stations because there is no central repository for the information necessary” to send election notices. Many of these commenters proposed that broadcasters should be able to satisfy their carriage election requirement by sending an email to an MVPD or simply uploading the carriage election into their public file. But the American Cable Association argued that continued reliance on certified mail is essential and AT&T proposed allowing notice to be sent via any express mail service, rather than only by certified mail, return receipt requested. Although some commenters in the Media Modernization docket proposed even broader changes to the must-carry/retransmission consent system, in this proceeding we are focused exclusively on the way broadcasters communicate carriage elections and requests. In response to these concerns, the Commission adopted a
6. On December 7, 2018, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and NCTA—the internet and Television Association (NCTA) jointly submitted a proposal setting forth a recommendation of how to modernize the election
While the proposal's terms are limited to commercial broadcast stations and cable operators, the types of entities that are members of NAB and NCTA, NAB “believes these rules should apply uniformly to all MVPDs.” NAB also has stated that “There is no reason to limit the proposal's application to only commercial broadcasters, and no one in the record has suggested doing so. The FCC should allow noncommercial broadcasters to benefit from a modernized notice regime, including by no longer requiring them to `elect' mandatory carriage every three years for satellite providers.” The Joint Proposal suggests that this change be in effect for the 2021–2023 carriage election cycle. The next carriage election deadline is October 1, 2020. Broadcasters would “continue to include copies of their election statements in their online public files.”
7. In order to make this process work, NAB and NCTA propose that a broadcaster email a notice to a cable operator whenever changing its election with respect to one or more of that operator's systems. Each such change notice must “identify [the broadcast] station call sign(s), the DMA and the specific change being made in election status,” and include an email address and phone number “in case cable operators have additional questions.” This email address and phone number must also be on the “first page of each of [a broadcaster's] stations' public files,” and must be updated if they change. If an operator has multiple systems within a DMA, the notice must identify them individually only if the broadcaster “changes its election for some systems . . . but not all.” If a broadcaster is unable to deliver a “change of election” notice to a listed email address due to a problem with the email address or the operator's ability to receive the email, and is unable to contact the operator using a provided phone number, then the notice will still be considered to have been properly delivered if it is timely placed in the broadcaster's public file and emailed to the Commission.
8. NAB and NCTA suggest that each cable operator “provide a general carriage elections email address, where broadcasters will send their election notices” and a phone number to be used only “in the event of questions as to whether” a notice was received. They propose that this contact information would be on the “first page” of each cable system's public file, “or in the FCC's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database, for cable operators that do not have an online public file.” The proposal contemplates that the contact information must be kept current by the cable operator, and should always be “up-to-date within 60 days of the next carriage election deadline.” In addition, cable operators would be required to “generate a response to the broadcaster's notification email so that the broadcaster knows its election notice was received,” but this response would “not be considered the cable operator's affirmation that the broadcast station fully satisfied its notice obligation.”
9. The Joint Proposal suggests updates to the Commission's online file and COALS databases to implement these proposed changes. Finally, it proposes the creation of a Commission “email address that broadcasters will [carbon copy] when sending election notices to cable operators.” The Joint Proposal specifically does not propose to change the current default election provisions, and recommends maintaining the status quo with respect to any situation not expressly contemplated in the proposal.
10. The Media Bureau issued a document seeking comment on the Joint Proposal (84 FR 4039, Feb. 14, 2019). Specifically, it asked whether, and to what extent, the Commission should adopt the recommendations set forth in the proposal. Commenters generally support the substance of the Joint Proposal, although DISH and AT&T oppose its application to DBS providers and claim that they have a greater need for triennial notices than other covered MVPDs.
11.
12. Almost all commenters support the Joint Proposal, and we find that it addresses many of the concerns raised throughout this proceeding by broadcasters and MVPDs alike. For example, ION and the Affiliates and Networks urge us to “adopt the proposal without” revision. Meredith states that the proposal “reduces the opportunity for `gotcha' gamesmanship” and it supports “this common sense, easily applied, Twenty First Century proposal.” But as noted above and discussed further below, DISH and AT&T, the two existing DBS providers, object to being subject to the Joint Proposal. In addition, AT&T suggests that we change the election deadline and the timeline for MVPD responses. As emphasized above, in this proceeding we are focused exclusively on the way broadcasters communicate carriage elections and requests. We did not seek comment on, and we do not make, any other changes to the carriage election process or the responsibilities and rights of the parties involved. The “unanswered questions” identified by DISH/AT&T, such as the question of which carriage election controls if a broadcaster files multiple requests or sends multiple notices, are not specific to this proceeding. That is, issues such as these would be handled just as they always have been. For example, our precedent generally holds that in the case where a broadcaster files multiple inconsistent carriage election notices, the first valid election is binding. ACA also proposed revisions to our rules “with respect to notices that cable operators are required to deliver to broadcast stations.” After filing comments, but before filing ex partes, the American Cable Association changed its name to ACA Connects—America's Communications Association. Although they are outside the scope of this proceeding, the Commission separately is seeking comment on the proposals raised by ACA, and related efforts to “extend[] the benefits of electronic delivery” to MVPD notices.
13.
14. The second component of our new approach is that, if a commercial broadcaster changes its carriage election for a specific covered MVPD, an election change notice must be sent to that MVPD's carriage election-specific email address and attached to the station's election statement in its public file by the carriage election deadline. Such change notices must include, with respect to each station covered by the notice: The station's call sign, the station's community of license, the DMA where the station is located, the specific change being made in election status, and an email address and phone number for carriage-related questions. This contact information must be the same carriage-related contact information posted in the online public file at the time the election notice is sent. Consistent with the Joint Proposal, if the notice is sent to a cable operator, the broadcaster “would need to identify specific cable systems for which a carriage election applies [only] if the broadcaster changes its election for some systems of the cable operator but not all.” In addition, the broadcaster must carbon copy
15. If a broadcaster does not receive a response verifying receipt of its change notice, or gets an indication that the message was not delivered, it must contact the MVPD via the provided phone number to confirm that the notice was received or arrange for it to be redelivered. The verification email from the MVPD is meant to confirm receipt of the email in a manner similar to a return receipt when sending certified mail. As under the current rules, it is the responsibility of the broadcaster who is sending the notice to ensure that the notice is timely sent and contains all of the required, accurate, information. If the email is timely and properly sent to the MVPD's listed address, but the broadcaster receives no verification and is unable to reach anyone at the provided phone number, the notice still will be considered to have been properly delivered if it was properly copied to the Commission's election notice mailbox and is timely placed in the broadcaster's public file. Similarly, if an MVPD does not maintain a required COALS account or public file, or fails to provide any carriage contact information at all, a broadcaster's election change notice still will be considered to have been properly delivered if it is timely sent to the Commission's election notice mailbox and is timely placed in the broadcaster's public file.
16.
17. Just like commercial stations seeking mandatory satellite carriage, NCE stations are required pursuant to section 338 of the Act to “request” carriage from DBS providers. DBS providers must retransmit eligible stations only “upon request.” DISH/AT&T assert that “[t]his is [ ] the reason why noncommercial educational stations must file carriage election letters every election cycle with DBS providers, but not with cable systems.” We disagree, because the statute does not require that NCEs repeatedly re-notify DBS providers about their carriage request. We find, instead, that by uploading and retaining a carriage request in their online public files, an NCE station will have satisfied the statutory requirement in section 338(a) to “request” carriage. Although we recognize that the
18.
19.
20. As suggested in the Joint Proposal, we also will require covered MVPDs to verify receipt of an emailed election change notice, via email sent back to the originating address, as soon as is reasonably possible. This will not constitute a statement that “the broadcast station fully satisfied its notice obligation,” but rather simply will indicate that the notice email was received. In other words, the verification email is meant to confirm receipt of the email in a manner similar to a return receipt when sending certified mail. As under the current rules, it is the responsibility of the broadcaster who is sending the notice to ensure that the notice is timely sent and contains all of the required, accurate, information. Although we anticipate that these verification emails will be generated automatically in most cases, we require only that they be sent expeditiously. A timely and correct notice of a change in election that is sent to the email address provided by the MVPD, carbon copied to
21. Though the Joint Proposal related to cable election notices, we are extending the rules to DBS providers as well. We are persuaded by NAB that having different sets of rules for cable and DBS “will only confuse the carriage election process and make it more difficult for broadcasters to ensure they have provided proper notice to all relevant MVPDs.” We disagree with DISH/AT&T that there are compelling reasons not to apply this updated process to them. They claim that “no party has explained—or even attempted to explain—how mailing, at most, two letters once every three years . . . is burdensome.” DISH/AT&T observe that we “need not have identical carriage election” notice procedures for DBS and cable, and that, “for example, the carriage election defaults are different.” Even granting that mailing these triennial letters imposes only a minimal burden on mandatory carriage stations, the fact that they do not send these letters to cable operators shows that it is an unnecessary burden. Indeed, the different carriage election defaults emphasized by DISH/AT&T increase the importance of modernizing the process for cable and DBS in a consistent way. As some small independent and noncommercial stations have learned, simply “mailing a letter” to a DBS provider is not, in fact, enough to ensure carriage under the current rules because carriage rights have been denied based on violations of the current mailing requirement. We believe that adopting a simplified and uniform election notification process will decrease the possibility that broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will fail to qualify for carriage based on technical noncompliance with our rules.
22. We also disagree that DBS providers have a greater need for the triennial notices than their cable counterparts and therefore that the methodology in the Joint Proposal should not apply to them. DISH/AT&T note that “stations may change content, ownership, and sometimes locations” between elections, and claim that unlike the cable operators that “have a local or, at least, a regional presence and are thus more aware of and familiar with these station changes . . . DBS providers may never have any contact with” stations that do not actively negotiate carriage agreements. According to DISH/AT&T, they therefore have a greater need for “triennial election notices [from mandatory carriage stations specifically] to update records and determine carriage obligations for the next three years,” because sometimes the changes mean the station is “not always eligible for continued carriage.” AT&T also “estimates that approximately 15% of its must-carry stations change election status or ownership and/or network affiliation from cycle to cycle.” However, broadcasters are not required to provide either “ownership” or “network affiliation” information in carriage election notices. Therefore, the number of stations that change election status is only a subset of the 15% of stations that AT&T references in its filing. Moreover, because the evidence in this proceeding shows that only a minority of stations elect must carry, there likely would be a very small number of stations that would change either to or from must-carry status in any given election cycle. Information about content, ownership, and tower location, however, is not required to be provided to the DBS providers by broadcasters in triennial election notices. If broadcasters are voluntarily supplying this information to the providers today, nothing in our new rules will prohibit their continuing to do so in the future.
23. We note that our updated election notification process specifically addresses a significant concern raised by DISH earlier in this proceeding. The NPRM asked whether the Commission should revise our rules such that broadcasters would be required to place election notices in the public file instead of mailing them. DISH contended in response that this would be “unworkable for MVPDs” unless notices were also sent directly to them, because MVPDs would have to “search hundreds of public files for new election requests.” Our revised rules ameliorate that potential problem by ensuring that notice of any new or changed carriage request is sent via email directly to any affected MVPD. By eliminating the “clutter” of hundreds of election notices that simply reaffirm an existing election, these rules will aid DBS providers in recognizing and focusing on stations whose election status has changed.
24. Indeed, the fact that election change notices will be emailed directly to MVPDs significantly undercuts the DBS providers' contention that the new rules will impose a large administrative burden. DISH/AT&T note that they each carry more than 1,300 broadcast stations nationwide and maintain that it “is not feasible for DISH and DIRECTV to manage that number of carriage election notifications through emails and phone calls.” Under our new rules, however, the DBS providers will have to manage notices from only the small fraction of stations changing their carriage election status in any given cycle. Although
25.
26. In addition, the Commission will create an “election notice verification” email inbox that broadcasters must carbon copy when notifying an MVPD of a changed election, located at
27.
28. ACA, with Pine Belt's support, “opposes the proposal's timeline as unrealistic for those small providers that would rely on COALS to make their contact information available online to broadcasters.”
29. Although we recognize ACA's concerns, we find that the burdens of our new rules will be minimal for small cable operators and that it will not take any entity a great amount of time to come into compliance. We note that, although this is a new obligation, small cable operators are familiar with COALS, which they are already required to keep up-to-date. There should be ample time for broadcasters and MVPDs to prepare for the new process and update their existing database entries with a single email address and phone number. We therefore adopt the Joint Proposal's suggested timing and plan to update our databases so that broadcasters and MVPDs will be able to add their carriage election contact information no later than July 31, 2020, in their public files or COALS, as appropriate. The Commission will announce the completion of these system updates via public notice.
30.
31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 394. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
42. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
43. There are also 417 Class A stations. Given the nature of these services, including their limited ability to cover the same size geographic areas as full power stations thus restricting their ability to generate similar levels of revenue, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, there are 1,968 LPTV stations and 3,776 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a “fill-in” service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
44.
45.
46.
47. Accordingly,
48.
49.
50.
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Equal employment opportunity, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Securities.
Civil defense, Communications equipment, Defense communications, Education, Equal employment opportunity, Foreign relations, Mexico, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 25, 73, and 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Each satellite carrier shall, no later than July 31, 2020, provide an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions and an up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions. Each satellite carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished. It must respond to questions from broadcasters as soon as is reasonably possible.
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(e) * * *
(15)
(e) * * *
(12)
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
(h)(1) On or before each must-carry/retransmission consent election deadline, each television broadcast station shall place a copy of its election statement, and copies of any election change notices applying to the upcoming carriage cycle, in the station's public file.
(2) Each cable operator shall, no later than July 31, 2020, provide an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions with respect to its systems and an up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions. Each cable operator is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished. It must respond to questions from broadcasters as soon as is reasonably possible.
(3) A station shall send a notice of its election to a cable operator only if changing its election with respect to one or more of that operator's systems. Such notice shall be sent to the email address provided by the cable system and carbon copied to
(i) Call sign;
(ii) Community of license;
(iii) DMA where the station is located;
(iv) Specific change being made in election status;
(v) Email address for carriage-related questions;
(vi) Phone number for carriage-related questions;
(vii) Name of the appropriate station contact person; and,
(viii) If the station changes its election for some systems of the cable operator but not all, the specific cable systems for which a carriage election applies.
(4) Cable operators must respond via email as soon as is reasonably possible, acknowledging receipt of a television station's election notice.
(d) * * *
(1)
(ii) Each satellite carrier shall, no later than July 31, 2020, provide an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions and an up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions. Each satellite carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished. It must respond to questions from broadcasters as soon as is reasonably possible.
(iii) A station shall send a notice of its election to a satellite carrier only if changing its election with respect to one or more of the markets served by that carrier. Such notice shall be sent to the email address provided by the satellite carrier and carbon copied to
(iv) A television station's written notification shall include with respect to each station referenced in the notice, the:
(A) Call sign;
(B) Community of license;
(C) DMA where the station is located;
(D) Specific change being made in election status;
(E) Email address for carriage-related questions;
(F) Phone number for carriage-related questions; and
(G) Name of the appropriate station contact person.
(v) A satellite carrier must respond via email as soon as is reasonably possible, acknowledging receipt of a television station's election notice.
(vi) Within 30 days of receiving a television station's carriage request, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing:
(A) Those local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such a decision; and
(B) Those local television stations it intends to carry.
(vii) A satellite carrier is not required to carry a television station, for the duration of the election cycle, if the station fails to assert its carriage rights by the deadlines established in this section.
(3) * * *
(ii) A new television station shall make its election request, in writing, sent to the satellite carrier's email address provided by the satellite carrier and carbon copied to
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this
Effective February 5, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Annick Banoun, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418–1521, or
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. This
2. We revise our caller ID spoofing rules to cover communications originating outside the United States directed at recipients within the United States, consistent with revised section 227(e). As Congress recognized, the threat to consumers from overseas fraudulent spoofing continues to grow. We therefore agree with the 42 State Attorneys General and other commenters that expanding our rules to cover bad actors reaching into the United States is a “necessary and important step in the continued fight against robocalls,” and that implementing the RAY BAUM'S Act changes will strengthen the Commission's ability to enforce its rules against fraudulent and other harmful spoofing.
3. To implement the prohibition on caller ID spoofing directed at the United States from callers outside our country, we revise § 64.1604 to provide that no person in the United States, nor any person outside the United States if the recipient is in the United States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any voice service or text messaging service. While the current Truth in Caller ID rules uses the phrase “person or entity,” we use the language of the statute, which is limited to “person.” At the same time, consistent with congressional intent and Commission precedent, we make clear that “person” includes both natural persons and non-natural persons,
4. Finally, we reject Yaana Technologies' suggestion that we cannot exercise the extraterritorial jurisdiction that Congress expressly provided in section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, which applies only to communications received in the United States. Yaana Technologies cites no specific treaty obligation that the statutory language contravenes, nor other legal barrier to the Commission's exercise of the legal authority given it by Congress, and we are aware of none. Moreover, the Commission's ongoing work with our international counterparts on caller ID spoofing issues in various fora is not inconsistent with the jurisdictional framework set forth in the statute. The Commission collaborates with our international counterparts on a bilateral, regional, and multilateral basis. For example, the Enforcement Bureau has executed a bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Commission's Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The Enforcement Bureau is also a member of UCENet, which is an international organization that brings together law enforcement entities across the globe to coordinate and assist each other's efforts to combat telecommunications fraud, spam, phishing, and the dissemination of computer viruses. Additionally, the Commission works with its international counterparts in the course of U.S. engagement in relevant regional and multilateral fora, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
5. We also expand the scope of communications covered by our caller ID spoofing rules, consistent with amended section 227(e) and as proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, we incorporate the phrase “in connection with any voice service or text messaging service” into the prohibition on causing “directly, or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.” We find, consistent with our proposal, that amending our rules to explicitly identify the services within § 64.1604's prohibition on unlawful spoofing better tracks the language of the statute and provides more direct notice to covered entities as to which services the prohibitions apply. As one commenter explains, the inclusion of the statutory phrase “in connection with any voice service or text messaging service” is not strictly necessary, because the phrase is encompassed by the definitions of “caller identification service” and “caller identification information” to which the prohibition applies. Amended section 227(e)(8) defines “caller identification service” as any service or device designed to provide the user of the service or device with the telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service. Such term includes automatic number identification services. However, the statutory language is clear, and we find that mirroring the statutory language “`will avoid creating ambiguity' or deviating from Congress's choices.”
6. To implement Congress' intent to expand the scope of the prohibition on harmful caller ID spoofing, we adopt definitions of “text message,” “text messaging service,” and “voice service” and revise the definitions of “caller identification information,” and “caller identification service” in accordance with section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act. We also adopt definitions of “short message service (SMS)” and “multimedia message service (MMS).” These definitions will be included in the definitions section of subpart P to our part 64 rules. We also take this opportunity to put in alphabetical order the definitions in subpart P of part 64 of our rules.
7.
8. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we define “N11 service code” as an abbreviated dialing code that allows telephone users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only three digits, of which the first digit is any digit other than `1' or `0,' and each of the last two digits is `1.' No commenters offered substantive suggestions on how to define “N11 service code,” so we looked to the language the Commission used nearly two decades ago when it described N11 services as “abbreviated dialing arrangements that allow telephone users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only three digits,” as well as the definition of “N11 service code” found in the recently-enacted National Suicide Hotline Prevention Act. The definition we adopt in this document is similar to the Commission's previous description but provides more specificity by clarifying that the first digit of an N11 code is any digit other than “1” or “0”, and that the second two digits are “1,” consistent with the National Suicide Hotline Prevention Act.
9. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we adopt definitions of SMS and MMS that are consistent with our descriptions of those terms in the Commission's 2018
10. We also clarify that for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, the definition of “text message” includes messages sent to or from a person or entity using Common Short Codes (Short Codes). Short Codes are “5- to 6-digit codes typically used by enterprises for communicating with consumers at high volume.” Short Codes are an addressing mechanism using the SMS and MMS protocols. Like other SMS and MMS messages, messages sent from a person or entity using Short Codes are directed to devices using 10-digit telephone numbers. As a convenience to consumers and to facilitate the delivery of high-volume traffic, wireless providers developed Short Codes, which are administered by the Common Short Code Administration and leased to enterprises. Once a Short Code is assigned to an applicant and before it can be used, each mobile provider must provision that code to the customer, usually through a third-party “aggregator” that handles the provisioning across multiple providers.
11. While, as Twilio explains, Short Codes may be less likely to be used by a person or entity sending messages in connection with malicious caller ID spoofing because the registration and administration process make “the sender of a short code SMS [ ] far easier to identify than the user of a 10-digit number,” this protection is not absolute. Twilio itself admits that it is not impossible to spoof a Short Code. Consumers have complained about possible Short Code spoofing, and some reporting indicates that Short Codes can be hacked which could lead to spoofing. Nonetheless, CTIA expresses concern about the Commission finding that the definition of “text message” for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules includes messages sent to or from a person or entity using Short Codes. CTIA argues that there is no technical evidence in the record that spoofing of Short Codes is possible or has occurred. CTIA also argues that an absence of notice under the Administrative Procedure Act for including Short Codes in the definition of text message and an absence of reference to Short Codes in the RAY BAUM'S Act counsel in favor of not including messages sent from a person or entity using Short Codes in the definition of text message. We find CTIA's arguments to be misplaced. The NPRM sought comment on the definition of text message that we adopt in this document, which includes SMS and MMS messages, and the record demonstrates that messages sent and received using Short Codes are SMS or MMS messages. The record demonstrates that messages sent and received using Short Codes are SMS or MMS messages, and there is nothing in the record that would allow us to conclude that Caller ID associated with a Short Code message cannot be spoofed. We are mindful of Congressional intent to protect against spoofing of SMS and MMS text messages for nefarious purposes, and therefore, because Short Codes are used by a person or entity sending SMS or MMS messages to 10-digit number identified devices, and could be used to perpetrate malicious spoofing, we conclude that the definition of “text message” in section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act and in our Truth in Caller ID rules is best interpreted as including messages sent to or from a person or entity using Short Codes. We make clear, however, that our decision only interprets section 503 of RAY BAUM'S Act in the context of Congress' specific intent to broadly expand our anti-spoofing rules to encompass other forms of spoofing sent via SMS and MMS, and we make no finding with respect to any other Commission jurisdiction over Short Codes. We also affirm that nothing in this
12.
13. We also clarify that messages sent over other IP-enabled messaging services that are
14. As we explained in the NPRM, we also find that the new statutory definition of “text message,” and other amendments to section 227(e) under the RAY BAUM'S Act regarding text messages, do not affect the Commission's finding that text messages are “calls” for purposes of section 227(b). Section 227(b), among other things, places limits on calls made using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Congress placed the new definition of “text message” in section 227(e) rather than in section 227(a), which contains definitions generally applicable throughout section 227. Consequently, we conclude that there is nothing in section 227(e) as amended to suggest that Congress intended to disturb the Commission's long-standing treatment of text messages under section 227(b), which has been in place since 2003.
15.
16.
17. We interpret the term “voice service” for the purpose of our Truth in Caller ID rules to both include and be more expansive than “telecommunications service” and “interconnected VoIP service” as currently defined in our rules. Our existing rules cover calls made using “telecommunications service” or “interconnected VoIP service.” 47 CFR 64.1600(c), (d). Because we received no comments from stakeholders in support of explicitly including the terms “telecommunications service” and “interconnected VoIP service” within the definition of “voice service,” we refrain from doing so at this time. The statutory language requires that communications encompassed by the definition of “voice service” must be “interconnected” with the public switched telephone network (PSTN). We interpret the term “interconnected” as it is used in the definition of “voice service” to include any service that enables voice communications either to the PSTN or from the PSTN, regardless of whether it enables both inbound and outbound communications within the same service. To this end, we interpret the definition of “voice service” to include one-way VoIP service and any similar IP-based or other technology-
18. We also clarify that the requirement to “us[e] resources from the North American Numbering Plan” in the definition of “voice service” includes one-way VoIP services that allow customers of such services to send voice communications to any end user who uses NANP resources. It does not require the provision of NANP resources directly to the customer of the service (
19. In the NPRM, we sought comment on “whether we should interpret `interconnected' to include both direct and indirect interconnection to the PSTN to account for different methods of interconnection.” In past Commission investigations, we have found that malicious caller ID spoofing often relies on “dialing platforms” or “third party platforms.” These platforms provide dialing software that can be used for sending either live or pre-recorded robocalls. Not all of these platforms are directly interconnected to the PSTN, however, as they may require a VoIP or local exchange carrier to connect their customers to the PSTN. Therefore, to ensure that our rules address malicious caller ID spoofing made with the aid of these platforms, and in light of the specific statutory context and purpose of the amended section 227(e), which is directed at persons who “knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information,” we clarify that for the purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, “interconnected” includes indirect, as well as direct, interconnection.
20. We conclude that “voice services” include “real-time, two-way voice communications” that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code. Congress explicitly excluded such communications from the definition of “text message” in section 227(e) as amended. Twilio argues that the phrase “ `real-time, two-way voice communications' that use `a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code' ” is vague and expansive and should not be considered part of the definition of “voice service” for the purpose of our Truth in Caller ID rules because Congress could have easily incorporated that phrase into the definition of “voice service” had it intended such service to be included. Contrary to Twilio's arguments, we find that phrase to be concrete and specific and we think that it is useful in providing clear boundaries around what types of services are covered by the term “voice services.” As such, we find that such real-time, two way voice communications that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code are covered by the amended definition of “voice services,”
21. We decline to include real-time, two-way voice communications between and among closed user groups that do not use 10-digit telephone numbers or N11 service codes in the definition of “voice service,” as such communications do not meet the statutory definition of “voice services.” In the
22. Finally, tracking the language of section 227(e) as amended, we conclude that the definition of “voice service” includes transmissions to “a telephone facsimile machine (fax machine) from a computer, fax machine, or other device.” We believe that Congress intended the inclusion of telephone facsimile machine transmissions within the definition of “voice service” to be narrow in scope, and therefore, decline to expand that definition to encompass “a computer or other device whose purpose is to store an image that could have been sent to a telephone facsimile machine,” as suggested by commenter John Shaw. We believe it is necessary to incorporate this additional specification into our rules to ensure consistency with the RAY BAUM'S Act and avoid confusion as to the scope of the prohibition. Indeed, in response to the NPRM, one commenter emphasized that its fax line “routinely receives unsolicited material promising treasures if certain steps are taken.”
23.
24. While numerous commenters took the opportunity to advocate for the adoption of the SHAKEN/STIR call authentication framework and for other issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, we decline to make other changes to our Truth in Caller ID rules, or other rules beyond the scope of this proceeding, at this time.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. Nefarious schemes that manipulate caller ID information to deceive consumers about the name and phone number of the party that is calling them, in order to facilitate fraudulent and other harmful activities, continue to plague American consumers. Last year, as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress amended section 227(e) of the Communications Act to (1) extend its scope to encompass malicious spoofing activities directed at consumers in the United States from actors outside the United States; and (2) extend its reach to caller ID spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging services. In this Report and Order (
30. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
31. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
32. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the
34.
35. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Reports generated using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than $100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990–N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data release date.
36. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Local governmental jurisdictions are classified in two categories—General purpose governments (county, municipal and
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions in this document. For the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration Numbers. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53. This
54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for such small entities.”
55. The relevant portions of the RAY BAUM'S Act do not distinguish between small entities and other entities and individuals. This
56. The Commission will send a copy of the
57. Accordingly,
58.
59.
60.
61.
Communications and common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
The Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless otherwise noted; sec. 503, Pub. L. 115–141, 132 Stat. 348.
(c)
(d)
(f)
(g)
(1) Telephone number;
(2) Portion of a telephone number, such as an area code;
(3) Name;
(4) Location information;
(5) Billing number information, including charge number, ANI, or pseudo-ANI; or
(6) Other information regarding the source or apparent source of a telephone call.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(1) Means a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code;
(2) Includes a short message service (SMS) message, and a multimedia message service (MMS) message and
(3) Does not include:
(i) A real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or
(ii) A message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another user of the same messaging service, except a message described in paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
(p)
(q)
(r)
(1) Means any service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) Includes transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine.
(a) No person or entity in the United States, nor any person or entity outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any voice service or text messaging service.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending and updating its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance internal to VA into the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM), and to incorporate any new agency specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates portions of the removed VAAR as well as other internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten, VA will publish them in the
This rule is effective on September 30, 2019.
Mr. Rafael N. Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 382–2787. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On November 29, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the
In particular, this final rule adds part 823, Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace. This final rule adds 823.103–70, Policy, to give contracting officers the option to include an evaluation factor for an offeror's Sustainable Action Plan when acquiring products and services.
This rule adds 823.103–71, Solicitation provision, which prescribes use of a new provision at 852.223–70, Instruction to Offerors—Sustainable Acquisition Plan, when the contracting officer requires an offeror to submit a Sustainable Action Plan with its proposal.
In subpart 823.3, Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data, this regulatory action adds 823.300, Scope of subpart, and 823.303–70, Contract clause, to prescribe the use of clause 852.223–71, Safety and Health, for use in administering safety and health requirements in solicitations and contracts for research, development, or test projects; transportation of hazardous materials; and construction.
This rule, under VAAR part 824, Protection of Privacy and Freedom of Information, adds 824.103, Procedures, to implement the procedures in FAR 24.103, by citing specific VA Handbooks in solicitations and contracts that require the design, development, or operation of a system of records; and by requiring the contracting officer to include in Statements of Work and Performance Work Statements procedures to follow in the event of a Personally Identifiable Information (PII) breach.
This final rule revises 824.203, Policy, to add coverage advising the public that the VA FOIA Service Office handles all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and to provide the centralized website and a link to the list of FOIA contacts where FOIA requests can be submitted electronically.
This rule adds part 826—Other Socioeconomic Programs, with a single subpart 826.2, Disaster or Emergency Assistance Activities. This part includes 826.202–1, Local area set-aside, to require the contracting officer to determine whether a local area set-aside should be further restricted to verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) or Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB), because, while the FAR allows further restriction to socioeconomic programs in FAR part 19, it does not mention the VA specific requirements under 38 U.S.C. 8127 and 8128. This regulatory action also adds 826.202–2, Evaluation preference, which has been revised on the basis of a public comment as described below.
This rule adds part 843, Contract Modifications, with a single subpart 843.2, Change Orders. This final rule adds 843.205, Contract clauses, which provides contracting officers with guidance for establishing the number of days (up to 60 days), the contractor may be granted to assert its right to an equitable adjustment within the Changes clause. This rule also adds 843.205–70, Contract changes—supplement, which prescribes the use of the clause 852.243–70, Construction Contract Changes—Supplement, (formerly numbered 852.236–88), which has been revised and moved to this part from VAAR 836.578.
This final rule makes three technical non-substantive changes:
At section 823.103–70, Policy, VA has removed specific examples of the types of products or services which might be classified “sustainable” products and services as it is unnecessary to list out all the possible types of products or services and FAR subpart 23.1 provides sufficient guidance.
Under sections 823.303–70, Contract clause, and 852.223–71, Safety and Health, VA has removed the term “hazardous operations” because the term is unnecessary.
VA is no longer proposing to add section 823.103–72, Contract file, which would have required the contracting officer to place the contractor's final Sustainable Acquisition Plan, if one is required, into the official contract file. This information is procedural in nature and has been moved to the VAAM.
VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. As stated previously, VA received 3 comments from two
The commenter believes the proposed language in VAAR 826.202–2 creates confusion regarding the contracting officer's obligations to evaluate and give preference to SDVOSBs and VOSBs in procurements not set aside for SDVOSBs or VOSBs. The commenter states that “VA should not use the phrase “shall consider” because this suggests that VA contracting officers have discretion in whether to provide evaluation preferences for SDVOSBs and VOSBs, which they do not.” The commenter recommends that the VA change the language at 826.202–2 to alleviate any confusion it may cause.
VA concurs with the recommendation and has revised 826.202–2, Evaluation preference, to reflect that contracting officers shall include evaluation factors in accordance with VAAR 815.304 and the evaluation criteria clause prescribed at 815.304–71(a): 852.215–70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors.
The commenter also recommends that VA should revise the proposed VAAR 815.304–71(a), which currently states that contracting officers shall insert VAAR 852.215–70, SDVOSB and VOSB Evaluation Factors, in competitively negotiated solicitations that are not set aside for SDVOSBs or VOSBs.
VA appreciates the comment and it is VA policy that SDVOSBs have priority over VOSBs when contracting under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 8127(i). However, the intent of the evaluation preference is to provide additional preference to veteran-owned small businesses when a procurement is performed outside of the authority under 38 U.S.C. 8127. This is in recognition of the requirement in 38 U.S.C. 8128(a) that small business concerns “owned and controlled by veterans” have a priority over other small businesses. 38 U.S.C. 8128(a) does not make a distinction between SDVOSB or VOSB. Therefore, the proposed language will remain unchanged.
Another commenter takes exception to the coverage at 843 pertaining to undefinitized change orders. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed coverage would have allowed contracting officers to obligate funds in an amount less than the legal obligation created when a contract modification is issued and requested that VA provide clarification on this matter.
VA appreciates the comment and after careful consideration, VA has removed 843.204–70, Definitization of unpriced change orders, on the basis that the FAR has sufficient coverage in this area and to alleviate any confusion.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).
The information collection requirements for 852.236–88, which is currently prescribed by 836.578, is currently approved by OMB and has been assigned OMB control number 2900–0422. As a part of this final rule, this information collection has been submitted to OMB to revise the title, redesignate the collection and renumber the clause currently numbered as section 852.236–88, Contract Changes—Supplement. Accordingly, if approved, the clause would reflect the new designation and revised title as set forth in the preamble and the amendatory language of this final rule to read: 852.243–70, Construction Contract Changes—Supplement, as prescribed by 843.205–70, Contract changes—supplement, under the associated OMB control number 2900–0422. The reference to the old number—852.236–88, would accordingly be removed. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has submitted these information collection amendments to OMB for its review and approval.
This final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The overall impact of the rule is of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual businesses will result from these rule updates. On this basis, the final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulatory action is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air pollution control, Drug abuse, Energy conservation, Government
Freedom of information, Government procurement, Privacy.
Disaster assistance, Government procurement, Indians.
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Government procurement.
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 23, 2019, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR parts 801, 824, 836 and 852 and adds parts 823, 826, and 843 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121; 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
Revise the reference to “852.236–88” to read “852.243–70”. The corresponding OMB Control Number 2900–0422 remains unchanged.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
(a) For new contracts and orders above the micro-purchase threshold, contracting officers may insert a solicitation provision to include an evaluation factor for an offeror's Sustainable Acquisition Plan.
(b) When a solicitation includes the provision at 852.223–70, Instruction to Offerors—Sustainable Acquisition Plan, offerors shall include a Sustainable Acquisition Plan in their technical proposal addressing the sustainable products and services for delivery under any resulting contract.
The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 852.223–70, Instruction to Offerors—Sustainable Acquisition Plan, in solicitations above the micro-purchase threshold.
This subpart provides a contract clause for use in administering safety and health requirements.
Contracting officers shall insert clause 852.223–71, Safety and Health, in solicitations and contracts that involve hazardous materials for the following types of requirements:
(a) Research, development, or test projects.
(b) Transportation of hazardous materials.
(c) Construction.
5 U.S.C. 552a; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1702; 38 CFR 1.550–1.562 and 1.575–1.584; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
VA rules implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 are in 38 CFR 1.575 through 1.584, Safeguarding Personal Information in Department of Veterans Affairs Records.
(c) The contracting officer shall reference the following documents in solicitations and contracts that require the design, development, or operation of a system of records—
(1) VA Handbook 6500.6, Contract Security;
(2) VA Handbook 6508.1, Procedures for Privacy Threshold Analysis and Privacy Impact Assessment;
(3) VA Handbook 6510, VA Identity and Access Management—
(i) The contracting officer will ensure that statements of work or performance work statements that require the design, development, or operation of a system of records include procedures to follow in the event of a Personally Identifiable Information (PII) breach; and
(ii) The contracting officer shall ensure that Government surveillance plans for contracts that require the design, development, or operation of a system of records include monitoring of the contractor's adherence to Privacy Act/PII regulations. The assessing official should document contractor-caused breaches or other incidents related to PII in past performance reports. Such incidents include instances in which the contractor did not adhere to Privacy Act/PII contractual requirements.
(a) VA rules implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are in 38 CFR 1.550 through 1.562.
(b) Upon receipt of a request, the contracting officer shall provide the requester with the name of the cognizant VA FOIA Service Office. The VA FOIA Service Office (see
38 U.S.C. 8127–8128; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1702; 38 CFR 1.550–1.562 and 1.575–1.584; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
(c) The contracting officer shall determine whether a local area set-aside should be further restricted to verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) or Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) pursuant to subpart 819.70.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8128, the contracting officer shall include evaluation factors in accordance with 815.304 and the evaluation criteria clause prescribed at 815.304–71(a), 852.215–70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3), 1303(a)(2) and 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
As authorized in the introductory text of clauses FAR 52.243–1, Changes—Fixed-Price; FAR 52.243–2, Changes—Cost-Reimbursement; and FAR 52.243–4, Changes, and in the prescription at FAR 43.205(c) for FAR 52.243–3, Changes—Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hours, the contracting officer may vary the period within which a contractor must assert its right to an equitable adjustment but the extended period shall not exceed 60 calendar days.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.243–70, Construction Contract Changes—Supplement, in solicitations and contracts for construction that are expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold for construction.
38 U.S.C. 8127–8128, and 8151–8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301–1.304.
As prescribed in 823.103–71, when the Contracting Officer deems a Sustainable Acquisition Plan necessary, the Contracting Officer shall insert the following provision:
Offerors shall include a Sustainable Acquisition Plan in their technical proposals. The plan must describe the approach and quality assurance mechanisms for applying FAR subpart 23.1, Sustainable Acquisition Policy and other Federal laws, regulations and Executive Orders governing sustainable acquisition. The plan shall clearly identify those products and services included in the proposal.
(End of provision)
As prescribed by 823.303–70, the Contracting Officer shall insert the following clause:
(a) To help ensure the protection of the life and health of all persons, and to help prevent damage to property, the Contractor shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations applicable to the work being performed under this contract. These laws are implemented or enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other regulatory/enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels.
(1) Additionally, the Contractor shall comply with the following regulations when developing and implementing health and safety operating procedures and practices for both personnel and facilities involving the use or handling of hazardous materials and the conduct of research, development, or test projects:
(i) 29 CFR 1910.1030, Bloodborne pathogens; 29 CFR 1910.1450, Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories. These regulations are available at
(ii) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standards and Regulations, pursuant to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801
(2) The following Government guidelines are recommended for developing and implementing health and safety operating procedures and practices for both personnel and facilities:
(i) Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at
(ii) Prudent Practices in the Laboratory, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 20001, available at
(b)(1) The Contractor shall maintain an accurate record of, and promptly report to the Contracting Officer, all accidents or incidents resulting in the exposure of persons to toxic substances, hazardous materials; the injury or death of any person; or damage to property incidental to work performed under the contract resulting from toxic or hazardous materials and resulting in any or all violations for which the Contractor has been cited by any Federal, State or local regulatory/enforcement agency.
(2) The report shall include a copy of the notice of violation and the findings of any inquiry or inspection, and an analysis addressing the impact these violations may have on the work remaining to be performed. The report shall also state the required action(s), if any, to be taken to correct any violation(s) noted by the Federal, State, or local regulatory/enforcement agency and the time frame allowed by the agency to accomplish the necessary corrective action.
(c) If the Contractor fails or refuses to comply with the Federal, State or local regulatory/enforcement agency's directive(s) regarding any violation(s) and prescribed corrective action(s), the Contracting Officer may issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action (as approved by the Federal, State, or local regulatory/enforcement agencies) has been taken and documented to the Contracting Officer. No part of the time lost due to any such stop work order shall form the basis for a request for extension or costs or damages by the Contractor.
(d) The Contractor shall insert this clause in each subcontract involving toxic substances or hazardous materials. The
(End of clause)
As prescribed in 843.205–70, the Contracting Officer shall insert this clause in solicitations and contracts for construction that are expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold. The Contracting Officer shall fill in the number of days in which a Contractor must assert its right to an equitable adjustment; however, such amount shall not exceed 60 calendar days.
The FAR clauses 52.236–2, Differing Site Conditions; 52.243–4, Changes; and 52.243–5, Changes and Changed Conditions, are supplemented as follows:
(a) Submission of request for equitable adjustment proposals. When directed by the Contracting Officer or requested by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, in accordance with FAR 15.403–5, submit proposals for changes in the work exceeding $500,000 in writing to the Contracting Officer or Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), and to the resident engineer.
(1) The Contractor must provide an itemized breakdown for changes exceeding the micro-purchase threshold (see FAR 2.101).
(2) The itemized breakdown shall include materials, quantities, unit prices, labor costs (separated into trades), construction equipment, etc. Labor costs shall be identified with specific material placed or operation performed.
(3) Proposals shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer or ACO and the resident engineer as expeditiously as possible, but not later than [
(4) Proposals shall be signed by each subcontractor participating in the change.
(5) The Contracting Officer will consider issuing a settlement by determination to the contract if the Contractor's proposal required by paragraph (a)(3) of this clause is not received within the time period specified in paragraph (a)(3), or if agreement has not been reached.
(b) Paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this clause and the following paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) apply to proposals for changes in the work $500,000 or less:
(1) As a basis for negotiation, allowances not to exceed 10 percent each for overhead and profit for the party performing the work will be based on the value of labor, material, and equipment required to accomplish the change. As the value of the change increases, a declining scale will be used in negotiating the percentage of overhead and profit. This declining scale will also be used to negotiate the prime Contractor's or upper-tier subcontractor's fee when work is performed by lower-tier subcontractors (to a maximum of three tiers) and will be based on the net increased cost to the prime or upper-tier subcontractor, as applicable. Profit (fee) shall be computed by multiplying the profit percentage by the sum of the direct costs and computed overhead costs. Allowable percentages on changes will not exceed the following:
(i) 10 percent overhead and/or 10 percent profit (fee) on the first $20,000.
(ii) 7.5 percent overhead and/or 7.5 percent profit (fee) on the next $30,000.
(iii) 5 percent overhead and/or 5 percent profit (fee) on a balance over $50,000.
(2) The Contracting Officer will consider issuing a settlement by determination to the contract if the Contractor's proposal required by paragraph (3) is not received within 30 calendar days, or if agreement has not been reached.
(c)(1) Overhead and Contractor's fee percentages shall be considered to include insurance other than mentioned herein, field and office supervisors and assistants, security police, use of small tools, incidental job burdens, and general home office expenses and no separate allowance will be made. Assistants to office supervisors include all clerical, stenographic and general office help. Incidental job burdens include, but are not necessarily limited to, office equipment and supplies, temporary toilets, telephone and conformance to OSHA requirements. Items such as, but not necessarily limited to, review and coordination, estimating and expediting relative to contract changes are associated with field and office supervision and are considered to be included in the Contractor's overhead and/or fee percentage.
(2) Where the Contractor's or subcontractor's portion of a change involves credit items, such items must be deducted prior to adding overhead and profit for the party performing the work. The Contractor's fee is limited to the net increase to Contractor or subcontractors' portions of cost computed in accordance with this clause.
(3) Where a change involves credit items only, a proper measure of the amount of downward adjustment in the contract price is the reasonable cost to the Contractor if it had performed the deleted work. A reasonable allowance for overhead and profit are properly includable as part of the downward adjustment for a deductive change. The amount of such allowance is subject to negotiation.
(End of clause)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; stay of regulations.
On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations. FRA has stayed the SSP final rule's requirements until September 4, 2019. FRA is issuing this final rule to extend that stay until March 4, 2020.
Effective August 29, 2019, 49 CFR part 270, stayed February 13, 2017, at 82 FR 10443, and further stayed March 21, 2017, at 82 FR 14476, May 22, 2017, at 82 FR 23150, June 7, 2017, at 82 FR 26359, November 30, 2017, at 82 FR 56744, and December 7, 2018, at 83 FR 63106, is further stayed until March 4, 2020.
Elizabeth A. Gross, Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel; telephone: 202–493–1342; email:
On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement an SSP to improve the safety of their operations.
FRA's review included petitions for reconsideration of the SSP final rule (Petitions). Various rail labor organizations (Labor Organizations) filed a single joint petition.
On October 30, 2017, FRA met with the Passenger Safety Working Group and the System Safety Task Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to discuss the Petitions and comments received in response to the Petitions.
In response to draft rule text FRA presented for discussion during the RSAC meeting, the States indicated they would need an extended caucus to discuss. On March 16, 2018, the Executive Committee of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC)
On June 12, 2019, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed certain amendments responding to the petitions for reconsideration.
FRA received thirteen comments in response to the NPRM.
FRA has considered Amtrak's comment opposing extension of the stay in light of Amtrak's central role in the Nation's passenger rail system. Nevertheless, given the number of comments received in response to the SSP NPRM, the importance of the issues discussed therein, the lack of opposition to the stay from all commenters except Amtrak, and FRA's interest in addressing the issues raised in the petitions through notice and comment rulemaking prior to requiring full compliance with the SSP final rule, FRA believes it appropriate to extend the stay of the rule an additional six months until March 4, 2020. Extending the stay should provide FRA adequate time to review comments responding to NPRM and to issue a final rule in that proceeding.
This final rule is a non-significant deregulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures.
In August 2016, FRA issued the System Safety Program final rule (2016 Final Rule) as part of its efforts to continuously improve rail safety and to satisfy the statutory mandate in sections 103 and 109 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The 2016 Final Rule requires passenger railroads to establish a program that systematically evaluates railroad safety risks and manages those risks with the goal of reducing the number and rates of railroad accidents, incidents, injuries, and fatalities. Paperwork requirements are the largest burden of the 2016 Final Rule.
FRA believes that this final rule, which will stay the requirements of the 2016 Final Rule until March 4, 2020, will reduce regulatory burden on the railroad industry. By staying the requirements of the 2016 Final Rule, railroads will realize a cost savings as railroads will not sustain any costs during the first six months of this analysis. In addition, because this analysis discounts future costs and this final rule will move forward all costs by six months, the present value costs of this stay will lower the present value cost of the SSP rulemaking. FRA
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule will affect passenger railroads, but will have a beneficial effect, lessening the burden on any small railroad.
“Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as including a small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a “small entity” in the railroad industry is a for profit “linehaul railroad” that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a “short line railroad” with fewer than 1,500 employees, or a “commuter rail system” with annual receipts of less than $15.0 million dollars.
For purposes of this analysis, this final rule will apply to 31 commuter or other short-haul passenger railroads and two intercity passenger railroads, Amtrak and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC). Neither is considered a small entity. Amtrak serves populations well in excess of 50,000, and the ARC is owned by the State of Alaska, which has a population well in excess of 50,000.
Based on the definition of “small entity,” only one passenger railroad is considered a small entity: The Hawkeye Express (operated by the Iowa Northern Railway Company). As the final rule is not significant, this final rule will merely provide this entity with additional compliance time without introducing any additional burden.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(b), the FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A substantial number of small entities may be impacted by this regulation; however, any impact will be minimal and positive.
There are no new collection of information requirements contained in this final rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with State and local government officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined that this 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. In addition, FRA has determined that this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in 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, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211 and has determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, System safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA extends the stay of the SSP final rule published August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53850) until March 4, 2020.
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106–20107, 20118–20119, 20156, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, this final rule provides the 2018 and 2019 adjustments to the civil penalties that the NTSB may assess against a person for violating certain NTSB statutes and regulations.
This final rule is effective on August 30, 2019.
A copy of this final rule, published in the
Kathleen Silbaugh, General Counsel, (202) 314–6080 or
Currently, the NTSB may impose a civil penalty up to $1,617 on a person who violates 49 U.S.C. 1132 (Civil aircraft accident investigations), 1134(b) (Inspection, testing, preservation, and moving of aircraft and parts), 1134(f)(1) (Autopsies), or 1136(g) (Prohibited actions when providing assistance to families of passengers involved in aircraft accidents). 49 CFR 831.15.
The current maximum penalty amount was calculated after the passage of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), which required agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustment for inflation by January 15th every year. OMB, M–16–06,
At the time of the 2015 Act, the maximum civil penalty amount had been $1,000. 49 U.S.C. 1155. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, the NTSB issued an IFR on October 12, 2017 that calculated the agency's catch-up adjustment and its 2017 annual inflation adjustment. Civil Monetary Catch Up Inflation Adjustment and Annual Inflation Adjustment, 82 FR 47401 (Oct. 12, 2017). The catch-up adjustment increased the original maximum penalty from $1,000 to $1,591. And the 2017 annual adjustment increased the maximum civil penalty from $1,591 to $1,617. While the IFR stated that the maximum civil penalty would be adjusted for inflation by January 15, 2018, the agency did not publish subsequent annual inflation adjustments.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has since published updated guidance for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. OMB, M–19–04,
No violations will be assessed at the 2018 inflation adjustment amount. Nevertheless, the 2018 adjustment was used to calculate the 2019 maximum penalty amount, which ultimately increased the maximum civil penalty from $1,617 to $1,692.
The 2018 and 2019 annual adjustments are calculated by multiplying the applicable maximum civil penalty amount by the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI–U), and rounding to the nearest dollar. OMB, M–19–04,
For the 2018 annual adjustment, the December 15, 2017 OMB annual guidance states that the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018 is 1.02041. Multiplying $1,617 (the 2017 inflation adjustment amount) by 1.02041 equals $1,650.00297, which rounded to the nearest dollar equals $1,650. As explained above, no violations will be assessed at this amount.
For the 2019 adjustment, the December 14, 2018 OMB annual guidance states that the CPI–U multiplier for 2019 is 1.02522. Multiplying $1,650 (the 2018 inflation adjustment amount) by 1.02522 equals $1,691.613, which rounded to the nearest dollar equals $1,692. This updated maximum penalty applies only to civil penalties assessed after the effective date of this final rule. The next adjustment for inflation will be calculated by January 15, 2020.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator has determined agency regulations that exclusively implement the annual adjustment are consistent with OMB's annual guidance, and have an annual impact of less than $100 million are generally not significant regulatory actions under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB, M–19–04,
The NTSB does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial direct effect on state government or will preempt state law. Accordingly, this rule does not have implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
This NTSB also evaluated this rule under E.O. 13175,
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is inapplicable because the final rule imposes no new information reporting or recordkeeping necessitating clearance by OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply because, as a final rule, this action is not subject to prior notice and comment.
The NTSB has concluded that this final rule neither violates nor requires further consideration under the aforementioned Executive Orders and acts.
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents, Aviation safety, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Investigations, Marine safety, Pipeline safety, Railroad safety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Preamble, the NTSB amends 49 CFR part 831, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1113(f).
Section 831.15 also issued under Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, amended by Pub. L. 114–74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (Atlantic king mackerel) in or from Federal waters in the Atlantic southern zone off the Florida east coast between the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties and the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties to 50 fish per day. This commercial trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the Atlantic king mackerel resource.
This temporary rule is effective from September 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the
The southern zone for Atlantic king mackerel encompasses an area of Federal waters south of a line extending from the state border of North Carolina and South Carolina, as specified in 50 CFR 622.2, and north of a line extending due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (50 CFR 622.369(a)(2)(ii)). The area of the southern zone in which this temporary rule applies is in Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida, and north of 25°20′24′ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)).
From April 1 through September 30, the commercial trip limit for Atlantic king mackerel in Federal waters off the east coast of Florida between the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties, and the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(B)). However, if during this period NMFS determines that 75 percent of the commercial quota in the Atlantic southern zone specified in 50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)(A) has been harvested, then the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from this area that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is reduced to 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(B)).
NMFS has determined that for the 2019–2020 fishing year, 75 percent of the March 1 through the September 30 commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone will be harvested by September 1, 2019. Accordingly, a 50-fish commercial trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat. and north of 25°20′24″ N lat. off the east coast of Florida in the Atlantic southern zone effective from September 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019. On October 1, 2019, the new seasonal commercial quota will be in effect and a commercial trip limit of 50 fish will continue for this area.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(B) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the commercial trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the Atlantic king mackerel stock. The capacity of the fishing fleet allows for more rapid harvest of the commercial quota under the greater trip limit. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2019 total allowable catch of sablefish allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 28, 2019, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2019.
Josh Keaton, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing
The 2019 total allowable catch (TAC) of sablefish allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 503 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2019 TAC of sablefish allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that sablefish caught by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b). This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program for the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of sablefish by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 26, 2019.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A320–214, –216, –232, and –233 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of undetected contacts between certain harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the center tank structure. This proposed AD would require modification of the fasteners for certain harness routings, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated 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 October 15, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990 1000; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3223.
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–0155, dated July 20, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018–0155”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320–214, –216, –232, and –233 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A Zonal Safety review identified previously undetected contacts between harnesses and the centre tank structure. Investigation determined that these contacts were introduced with a new harness routing upon installation of a common fuel quantity indicating system across A320 family aeroplanes (Airbus mod 155636).
This condition, if not corrected, could create, in case of lightning strike with chafing present, an ignition source inside the centre fuel tank, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320–92–1121 to provide instructions for modification of the harnesses.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of harnesses 17QT and 18QT of the common fuel quantity indicating system by introducing longer spacers and additional clamps.
EASA AD 2018–0155 describes procedures for modification of the fasteners for harness routings 17QT and 18QT.
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
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2018–0155 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 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. As a result, EASA AD 2018–0155 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2018–0155, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2018–0155 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2018–0155 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by October 15, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320–214, -216, -232, and -233 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018–0155, dated July 20, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018–0155”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical system installation.
This AD was prompted by a report of undetected contacts between certain harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the center tank structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address undetected contacts between certain harnesses of the common fuel quantity indicating system and the center tank structure, which could create, in case of a lightning strike with chafing present, an ignition source inside the center fuel tank, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 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, EASA AD 2018–0155.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD:
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2018–0155 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2018–0155, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990 6017; email:
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3223.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319–112, A319–115, A319–132, A320–214, A320–216, A320–232, A320–233, A320–251N, A320–271N, A321–211, A321–231, A321–232, A321–251N, and A321–253N airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of finding container/galley end stop bumpers damaged in service. This proposed AD would require replacement of the affected bumpers with serviceable bumpers, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated 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 October 15, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3223.
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019–0106, dated May 15, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0106”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319–112, A319–115, A319–132, A320–214, A320–216, A320–232, A320–233, A320–251N, A320–271N, A321–211, A321–231, A321–232, A321–251N, and A321–253N airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several reports were received of finding container/galley end stop bumpers damaged in service. Deformed end stops could break or lose their function to maintain container/galley in their position on the aeroplane.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to container/galley detachment under certain forward loading conditions, possibly resulting in injury to aeroplane occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the applicable SB [service bulletin], providing instructions to modify and re-identify affected galleys.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected galleys by replacement of the affected bumpers with serviceable bumpers
EASA AD 2019–0106 describes procedures for modification of the affected galleys by replacement of the affected bumpers with serviceable bumpers.
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 the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019–0106, 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 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. As a result, EASA AD 2019–0106 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019–0106, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019–0106 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019–0106 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 274 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by October 15, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019–0106, dated May 15, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0106”).
(1) Model A319–112, –115, and –132 airplanes.
(2) Model A320–214, –216, –232, –233, –251N, and –271N airplanes.
(3) Model A321–211, –231, –232, 251N, and –253N airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of finding container/galley end stop bumpers damaged in service. The FAA is issuing this AD to address deformed end stops, which could break or lose their function to maintain the container/galley in position on the airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to container/galley detachment under certain forward loading conditions, possibly resulting in injury to airplane occupants.
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, EASA AD 2019–0106.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019–0106 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019–0106 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019–0106, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3223.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350–941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the results of a structural analysis, which identified that the upper frame fittings (UFF) of the forward cargo door surrounding structure have a low fatigue life. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the forward cargo door UFF and brackets for discrepancies and, depending on the findings, doing applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated 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 October 15, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3218.
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019–0126, dated June 5, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0126”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350–941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Structural analysis conducted on A350 aeroplanes identified that the upper frame fittings (UFF) of the forward cargo door surrounding structure have a low fatigue life, as a result of the loading by the cargo door actuator.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of a forward fuselage cargo door UFF, possibly resulting in affecting the structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the [service bulletin] SB to provide inspection instructions of the forward cargo door UFF and brackets located at fuselage frames (FR) 23 to FR26.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the forward cargo door UFF and brackets [for discrepancies, including cracking], at fuselage FR23 to FR26, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
EASA AD 2019–0126 describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the UFF and brackets of the forward cargo door for discrepancies, including cracking, and applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include a modification to reinforce the affected UFF brackets, and repair of any discrepancy detected in the area surrounding the UFF brackets.
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 a 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 agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019–0126 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 2019–0126 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019–0126, 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 2019–0126 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019–0126 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required or optional actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
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.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by October 15, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350–941 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019–0126, dated June 5, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0126”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by the results of a structural analysis that identified that the upper frame fittings (UFF) of the forward cargo door surrounding structure have a low fatigue life. The FAA is issuing this AD to address low fatigue life of the UFF of the forward cargo door surrounding structure, which could lead to failure of a forward fuselage cargo door UFF, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
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, EASA AD 2019–0126.
The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019–0126 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019–0126, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3218.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of lavatory waste bin fire extinguishers found depleted. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the installation of the waste bins for interference (the inspection also includes a weight check of the waste bin fire extinguisher and an inspection of the discharge tubes for damage), modification of affected waste bins, and replacement of affected fire extinguishers, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. This proposed AD would also require replacement of the fire extinguisher if any damaged discharge tube is found or the weight of the waste bin fire extinguisher is too low. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3226.
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019–0095, dated April 30, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0095”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurrences have been reported of lavatory waste bin fire extinguishers found depleted. The subsequent investigation results revealed that this was due to damage to the discharge tubes, which may have occurred during installation or removal of the waste bin, having collided with the fire extinguisher discharge tubes. Except for the affected fire extinguishers, having too long discharge tubes, this interference is fully due to the geometry of the affected waste bins.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of discharging the extinguishing agent in case of lavatory bin fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services published the SB [Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–25–134, dated February 28, 2019], providing inspection instructions to verify correct clearance between the waste bin and the fire extinguisher discharge tubes and to replace affected fire extinguishers.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the installation of each affected waste bin, modification of the affected waste bin(s) and replacement of the affected fire extinguisher(s). This [EASA] AD also prohibits (re) installation of affected waste bins or affected fire extinguishers.
EASA AD 2019–0095 describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the installation of each affected waste bin for interference between the waste bins and the fire extinguisher discharge tubes (the inspection for interference also includes a weight check of the waste bin fire extinguisher and a detailed inspection of the discharge tubes for damage), modification of affected waste bins, and replacement of affected fire extinguishers. 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 a 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 agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019–0095 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD, and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.”
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 to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019–0095 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019–0095, 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 2019–0095 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019–0095 will be available on the internet at
EASA AD 2019–0095 specifies doing an inspection for interference, which includes a weight check of the waste bin fire extinguisher and an inspection of the discharge tubes for damage. EASA AD 2019–0095 includes a corrective action for the inspection for interference but does not identify a corrective action for the weight check and inspection of the discharge tubes. However, the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019–0095 does specify a corrective action for the weight check and inspection of the discharge tubes (
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary 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:
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
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by October 15, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of lavatory waste bin fire extinguishers found depleted. An investigation revealed that damage to the discharge tubes may have occurred during installation or removal of the waste bin. Insufficient clearance between the waste bin and the discharge tubes may have caused the fire extinguisher discharge tubes to collide with the waste bin and discharge. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could lead to failure of discharging the extinguishing agent during a lavatory bin fire, and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
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 2019–0095, dated April 30, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019–0095”).
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019–0095 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019–0095 does not apply to this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2019–0095 (which includes a weight check of the waste bin fire extinguisher and an inspection of the discharge tubes for damage), any damaged discharge tube is found or the weight of the waste bin fire extinguisher is too low, before further flight, replace the fire extinguisher with a serviceable fire extinguisher.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2019–0095, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3226.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Seven). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On August 23, 2019, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019–12 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019–12 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), filed August 23, 2019.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than September 26, 2019.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend the Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants, General Provisions to clarify the process by which state plans for the control of pollutants and facilities are incorporated by reference into this part. This action is intended to update and modify the outdated General Provisions that note that state plans are incorporated by reference and that describe the availability of state plans. Concurrently, EPA is also taking direct final action on these amendments. If we receive no significant adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0298, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this proposed action, contact Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4607; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address:
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The
The EPA is issuing both a proposal and a direct final rule amending §§ 62.02, 62.10, and 62.12 of subpart A of 40 CFR part 62. As further discussed in the direct final rule action, these amendments update and clarify provisions relating to the Incorporation by Reference (IBR) of state plans approved, in accordance with Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and 129, by the EPA, including information concerning the availability of such plans.
The EPA is taking direct final action because we view the revisions as administrative, noncontroversial, and anticipate no significant adverse comments. The EPA has identified the specific revisions and explained our reasons for these revisions in the direct final rule. At the same time, the EPA is proposing to make the same amendments. If no significant adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal,
If the EPA receives significant adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct final rule. The EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The amendments to the regulatory text proposed in this notice are identical to the amendments made in the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this
For a complete discussion of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305–7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission addresses how to
Submit comments on or before September 30, 2019; reply comments on or before October 15, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 17–317 and 17–105, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• 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 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Lyle Elder,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on whether and how to apply the new carriage election notification rules adopted in the
2. As with other broadcasters and MVPDs, we believe that Excluded Entities would have no difficulty establishing an email address and phone number to use for carriage-related communications. Given that they do not currently maintain accounts in either COALS or the online public file system, however, they would need to establish a means to publicize this contact information. For example, we could require Excluded Entities to establish and maintain a very narrow online public file solely for carriage-related information. Excluded Entities also could simply post any required public-facing information (
3.
4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 394. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
14. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.
15. There are also 417 Class A stations. Given the nature of these services, including their limited ability to cover the same size geographic areas as full power stations thus restricting their ability to generate similar levels of revenue, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, there are 1,968 LPTV stations and 3,776 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a “fill-in” service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
16.
17.
18. The majority of the Excluded Entities are small entities. We are considering a variety of possibilities to minimize the economic impact on small entities, as the
19.
20.
21.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 21–4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of
Comments on Amendment 21–4 must be received on or before October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2019–0106, by any of the following methods;
•
•
Information relevant to Amendment 21–4, which includes two memos categorically excluding this action from further National Environmental Protection Act review, a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) are available for public review during business hours at the NMFS West Coast Regional Office at 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, or by requesting them via phone or the email address listed in the
FMP Amendment 21–4, background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council website at
Colin Sayre, phone: 206–526–4656, or email:
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon, and California under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared and NMFS implemented the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any federal management plan (FMP) or plan amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish notification that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This document announces that Amendment 21–4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public input received during the comment period in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 21–4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Amendment 21–4 proposes changing the bycatch allocation for canary and widow rockfish to set-asides in the at-sea whiting sectors and removing formulas for determining amounts of expected bycatch in the at-sea whiting sectors for three species: Pacific ocean perch (POP), darkblotched rockfish, and widow rockfish. This change would allow the at-sea whiting sector to more efficiently harvest its full allocation through set-aside management of constraining bycatch species.
The proposed rule implementing the proposed FMP amendment also includes several follow-on action adjustments to regulations for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Catch Share Program to complete outstanding elements of the program, respond to problems identified after program implementation, and modify outdated regulations. These changes would improve the quota trading system to increase overall fishing quota utilization for the shorebased IFQ sector; ensure fair and equitable access to fishery resources in the event the C/P co-op dissolves; and provide a more complete socio-economic evaluation of Catch Share program performance.
The proposed FMP amendment would adjust how bycatch allocations for darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch (POP), canary rockfish, and widow rockfish the at-sea whiting fishery are set and managed. The 2018 final rule implementing Amendment 21–3 (January 8, 2018; 83 FR 757) converted formal “hard cap” bycatch allocations of darkblotched and POP in at-sea whiting sectors to set-asides, which are an off the top deductions of expected bycatch from the annual catch limits (ACL) for the at-sea sectors. The proposed FMP amendment would convert formal bycatch allocations of canary and widow rockfish to set-asides in the at-sea whiting fishery as well as remove existing formulas used to determine set-aside amounts of darkblotched rockfish, POP, and widow rockfish. The Council would instead determine set-aside amounts biennially as part of the Pacific Coast Groundfish harvest specifications. If a sector exceeds its set-aside amount the fishery would not be subject to automatic closure. Instead, NMFS would have the authority to take routine inseason action
The proposed rule implementing Amendment 21–4 also includes the following regulatory changes:
This action would allow the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) sector to trade unused quota pounds (QP) after the end of a fishing year to cover deficits from the previous fishing year. In covering deficits after the end of the fishing year, vessel account owners would be allowed to cover QP deficits that exceed the annual vessel limit for a given stock. This action would also eliminate the September 1st expiration deadline for QP that have not been transferred from quota share accounts to vessel accounts. These changes would provide shorebased IFQ participants greater flexibility and economic efficiency to fully utilize IFQ issued each year.
This action would set accumulation limits for the Catcher Processor (C/P) co-op sector. The proposed rule would limit individuals or entities to owning or controlling a maximum of five C/P endorsed permits. Accumulation limits would become effective only in the event the current cooperative management structure for the at-sea C/P sector dissolves and an IFQ program is implemented.
This action would require new data collections from C/P permit owners and Quota Share permit owners. C/P endorsed permit owners would be required to complete trawl ownership interest forms currently required during annual renewal of Catcher Vessel and Mothership permits. Catcher Vessels, Motherships, and shorebased processors are currently required to respond to this data collection. This requirement is necessary to monitor compliance with accumulation limits. The proposed action would also require Quota Share permit owners that do not also own, charter or lease a vessel, shorebased processor or first receiver site to submit participation and quota cost/earning information through a subset of the Catch Share Economic Data Collection program. The new economic data collections would allow managers to better evaluate Catch Share program performance.
NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. NMFS submitted a proposed rule to implement Amendment 21–4 and associated actions for Secretarial review and approval, and expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21–4 and associated actions in the near future. For public comments on the proposed rule to be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on Amendment 21–4, those comments must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of opportunity to object to the revised Land Management Plan for the Chugach National Forest.
The Forest Service is revising the Chugach National Forest's Land Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Service has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for its revised Forest Plan and a draft Record of Decision (ROD). This notice is to inform the public that the Chugach National Forest is initiating a 60-day period where individuals or entities with specific concerns about the Chugach National Forest's revised Forest Plan and the associated FEIS may file objections for Forest Service review prior to the approval of the revised Forest Plan. This is also an opportunity to object to the Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern for the Chugach National Forest.
The Chugach National Forest's revised Forest Plan, FEIS, draft ROD, species of conservation concern list, and other supporting information will be available for review at:
Copies of the Chugach National Forest's revised Forest Plan, FEIS, draft ROD, and Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern for the Chugach National Forest can be obtained online at:
Objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer by one of the following methods:
•
• Via fax to (907) 586–7840. Faxes must be addressed to “Objection Reviewing Officer.” The fax coversheet should specify the number of pages being submitted.
•
Chugach National Forest's Revision Team Leader, Sue Jennings at (907) 789–6238 or
The decision to approve the revised Forest Plan for the Chugach National Forest and the Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern for the Chugach National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):
(1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address if available—in cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;
(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);
(3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;
(4) The name of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible official;
(5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to which the objection applies;
(6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the draft plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;
(7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and
(8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except the following need not be provided:
a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,
b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management plans or other published Forest Service documents,
c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and
d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision comment period.
It is the responsibility of the objector to ensure that the reviewing officer receives the objection in a timely manner. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the objection filing period.
The responsible official who will approve the ROD and the revised Forest Plan for the Chugach National Forest is Jeff E. Schramm, Forest Supervisor, Chugach National Forest, Chugach National Forest Supervisor's Office, 161 E. 1st Ave, Door 8, Anchorage, AK 99501, and Phone: (907) 743–9500. The responsible official for the list of species of conservation concern is David Schmid, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Alaska Region, 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
The Regional Forester is the reviewing officer for the revised Forest Plan since the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)). The decision to approve the species of conservation concern list will be subject to a separate objection process. The Chief of the Forest Service is the reviewing officer for species of conservation concern identification since the Regional Forester is the responsible official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and solicitation for nominations.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is soliciting nominations of veterinary service shortage situations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) for fiscal years (FY) 2020–2022, as authorized under the National Veterinary Medical Services Act (NVMSA). This notice initiates the nomination period for FY 2020 and prescribes the procedures and criteria to be used by eligible nominating officials (State, Insular Area, DC and Federal Lands) to nominate veterinary shortage situations for fiscal years 2020–2022. Each year all eligible nominating officials may submit nominations, up to the maximum indicated for each entity in this notice. NIFA is conducting this solicitation of veterinary shortage situation nominations under an approved information collection (OMB Control Number 0524–0050).
Shortage situation nominations must be submitted between the first Monday in October and the second Monday in November in each relevant fiscal year.
Submissions must be made by downloading the Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section of the NIFA website at:
VMLRP Program Coordinator; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture; 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133; Email:
Food supply veterinary medicine embraces a broad array of veterinary professional activities, specialties and responsibilities, and is defined as all aspects of veterinary medicine's involvement in food supply systems, from traditional agricultural production to consumption. A series of studies and reports
Two programs, born out of this concern, aim to mitigate the maldistribution of the veterinary workforce: The Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) and Veterinary Services Grant Program (VSGP), both administered by USDA- NIFA. VMLRP addresses increasing veterinary school debt by offering veterinary school debt payments in exchange for service in shortage situations, while VSGP addresses other factors contributing to the maldistribution of veterinarians serving the agricultural sector. Specifically, the VSGP promotes availability and access to (1) specialized education and training which will enable veterinarians and veterinary technicians to provide services in designated veterinarian shortage situations, and (2) practice-enhancing equipment and personnel resources to enable veterinary practices to expand or improve access to veterinary services.
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these guidelines have been approved by OMB Control Number 0524–0050.
In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA). This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations. In FY 2010, NIFA announced the first funding opportunity for the VMLRP.
Section 7104 of the 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113–79) added section 1415B to NARETPA, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 3151b) to establish the Veterinary Services Grant Program (VSGP). This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive grants to qualified entities and individual veterinarians that carry out programs in veterinarian shortage situations and for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining veterinary services. Funding for the VSGP was first appropriated in FY 2016 through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113). The VSGP was re-authorized in Section 7106 of the 2018 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 115–334).
Pursuant to the requirements enacted in the NVMSA of 2004 (as revised), and the implementing regulation for this Act, Part 3431 Subpart A of the VMLRP Final Rule [75 FR 20239–20248], NIFA hereby implements guidelines for eligible nominating officials to nominate veterinary shortage situations for the FY 2020–2022 program cycle.
Section 1415A of NARETPA, as amended and revised by Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act, directs determination of veterinarian shortage situations for the VMLRP to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.
While the NVMSA (as amended) specifies priority be given to food animal medicine shortage situations, and that consideration also be given to specialty areas such as public health, epidemiology and food safety, the Act does not identify any areas of veterinary practice as ineligible. Accordingly, all nominated veterinary shortage situations will be considered eligible for submission.
A subset of the shortages designated for VMLRP applicants is also available to satisfy requirements, as applicable, for VSGP applicants. In addition, a shortage situation under the VSGP must also be designated rural as defined in section 343(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)).
Nominations describing either public or private practice veterinary shortage situations are eligible for submission.
The only authorized respondent on behalf of each State is the chief State Animal Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor or the Governor's designee in each State. The only authorized respondent on behalf of the Federal Government is the Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy Administrator of Veterinary Services, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or designee), as duly authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture. The eligible nominating official must submit nominations using the instructions provided in section A.4, FY 2020–2022 Shortage Situation Nomination Process. NIFA strongly encourages the nominating officials to involve leading health animal experts in the State in the identification and prioritization of shortage situation nominations.
NIFA will accept the number of nominations equivalent to the maximum number of designated shortage areas for each State. For historical background and more information on the rationale for capping nominations and State allocation method, visit
The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) is based on data from the 2017 Agricultural Census conducted by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Awards from previous years have no bearing on a State's maximum number of allowable shortage nomination submissions or designations in any given year, or number of nominations or designations allowed for subsequent years. NIFA reserves the right in the future to proportionally adjust the maximum number of designated shortage situations per State to ensure a balance between available funds and the requirement to ensure that priority is given to mitigating veterinary shortages corresponding to situations of greatest need. Nomination Allocation tables for FY 2020–2022 are available under the VMLRP Shortage Situations section of the VMLRP website at
Table I lists the maximum nomination allocations by State. Table II lists “Special Consideration Areas” which include any State or Insular Area not reporting data to NASS, reporting less than $1,000,000 in annual Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($), and/or possessing less than 500,000 acres. One nomination is allocated to any State or Insular Area classified as a Special Consideration Area.
Table III shows the values and quartile ranks of States for two variables broadly correlated with demand for food supply veterinary services: “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” (LPTS) and “Land Area (acres)” (LA). The maximum number of NIFA-designated shortage situations per State is based on the sum of quartile rankings for LPTS and LA for each State and can be found in Table IV.
While Federal Lands are widely dispersed within States and Insular Areas across the country, they constitute a composite total land area over twice the size of Alaska. If the 200-mile limit for U.S. coastal waters and associated fishery areas are included, Federal Land total acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health officials have responsibilities for matters relating to terrestrial and aquatic food animal health on Federal Lands. Interaction between wildlife and domestic livestock, such as sheep and cattle, is particularly common in the plains States where significant portions of Federal lands are leased for grazing. Therefore, both SAHOs and the Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy
NIFA emphasizes that the shortage nomination allocation is set to broadly balance the number of designated shortage situations across States prior to the nomination and award phases of the VMLRP and VSGP. Awards will be made based strictly on the peer review panels' assessment according to each program's review criteria; thus no State will be given a preference for placement of awardees. Additionally, each designated shortage situation will be limited to one award per program per year.
For the FY 2020–2022 program cycle, all eligible nominating officials submitting may, during each nomination period: (1) Request to retain designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in the previous year and/or (2) submit new nominations. Any shortage from previous year not retained or submitted as a new nomination will not be considered a shortage situation in the next year. The total number of new nominations plus designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the maximum number of nominations each eligible nominating official is permitted.
The following process is the mechanism for retaining a designated nomination: Each nominating official should review the map of VMLRP designated shortage situations for the previous year—FY 2019's map can be found here: (
Both new and retained nominations must be submitted on the Veterinary Shortage Situation Nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at
Nominations retained (carried over) will be designated without review unless major changes in content are identified during administrative processing or the shortage has been retained for three years. Major changes in content or shortages already retained for three consecutive years will be treated as new submissions and undergo merit review.
Submissions must be made by downloading the Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at https://nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp-shortage-situations, completing the fillable PDF form, and submitting it via email to:
Both new and retained (carry-over) nominations must be submitted on or before the deadlines listed in the table below.
Each shortage situation is approved for one program year cycle only. However, any previously approved shortage situation not filled in a given program year may be resubmitted as a retained (carry-over) nomination. Retained (carry-over) shortage nominations (without any revisions) will be automatically approved for up to three years before requiring another merit review. By resubmitting a carry-over nomination, the nominating official is affirming that in his or her professional judgment the original case made for shortage status, and the original description of needs, remain current and accurate. Shortage situations where an award was made, if still considered shortages, may be resubmitted as new nominations.
For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary shortage situations, the definitions provided in 7 CFR part 3431 are applicable.
The VMLRP Shortage Nomination Form must be used to nominate veterinarian shortage situations. Once designated as a shortage situation, VMLRP applicants will use the information to select shortage situations they are willing and qualified to fill, and to guide the preparation of their applications. NIFA will use the information to assess contractual compliance of awardees. The form is available in the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at
NIFA will convene a panel of food supply veterinary medicine experts from some or all of the following groups: Federal and/or State agencies, and institutions receiving Animal Health and Disease Research Program funds under section 1433 of NARETPA, to review the nominations and make recommendations to the NIFA Program Manager. NIFA will review the panel's recommendations and designate the VMLRP shortage situations. The list of approved shortage situations will be made available on the VMLRP website at
Criteria used by the shortage situation nomination review panel and NIFA for certifying a veterinary shortage situation will be consistent with the information requested in the shortage situations nomination form. NIFA understands the process for defining the risk landscape associated with veterinary service shortages within a State may require consideration of many qualitative and quantitative factors. In addition, each shortage situation will be characterized by a different array of subjective and objective supportive information that must be developed into a cogent case identifying, characterizing, and justifying a given geographic or disciplinary area as deficient in certain
While NIFA anticipates some arguments made in support of a given shortage situation will be qualitative, respondents are encouraged to present verifiable quantitative and qualitative evidentiary information wherever possible. Absence of sufficient data to support a shortage such as animal and veterinarian census data for the proposed shortage area(s), or sufficient information regarding the characteristics of the shortage so that applicants may prepare successful applications and panelists are able to fully evaluate the fit of the applicant to the shortage area, may lead the panel to recommend revision of the shortage nomination to address these issues. If the revisions are not addressed, the shortage nominations will not be approved.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (the Agency) Notice of Solicitation of Applications (Notice) is being issued prior to passage of a final appropriations act to allow potential applicants time to submit applications for financial assistance under Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) for Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and give the Agency time to process applications within the current FY. This Notice is being issued prior to enactment of full year appropriation for FY 2020. The Agency will publish the amount of funding received in any continuing resolution or the final appropriations act on its website at
The REAP has two types of funding assistance: (1) Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Assistance and (2) Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grants.
The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance provides grants and guaranteed loans to agricultural producers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements to their operations. Eligible renewable energy systems for REAP provide energy from: Wind, solar, renewable biomass (including anaerobic digesters), small hydro-electric, ocean, geothermal, or hydrogen derived from these renewable resources.
The Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grant is available to a unit of State, Tribal, or local government; instrumentality of a State, Tribal, or local government; institution of higher education; rural electric cooperative; a public power entity; or a council, as defined in 16 U.S.C. 3451. The recipient of grant funds, grantee, will establish a program to assist agricultural producers and rural small businesses with evaluating the energy efficiency and the potential to incorporate renewable energy technologies into their operations.
See under
The applicable USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator for your respective State, as identified via the following link:
For information about this Notice, please contact Anthony Crooks, Rural Energy Policy Specialist, USDA Rural Development, Energy Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 3225, Room 6870, Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 205–9322. Email:
The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America (
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) helps agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce energy costs and consumption and helps meet the Nation's critical energy needs. REAP has two types of funding assistance: (1) Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Assistance and (2) Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grants.
The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Assistance provides grants and guaranteed loans to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. Eligible renewable energy systems for REAP provide energy from: Wind, solar, renewable biomass (including anaerobic digesters), small hydro-electric, ocean, geothermal, or hydrogen derived from these renewable resources.
The Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grant is available to a unit of State, Tribal, or local government; instrumentality of a State, Tribal, or local government; institution of higher education; rural electric cooperative; a public power entity; or a council, as defined in 16 U.S.C. 3451. The recipient of grant funds, grantee, will establish a program to assist agricultural producers and rural small businesses with evaluating the energy efficiency and the potential to incorporate renewable energy technologies into their operations.
A.
The Notice announces the acceptance of applications under REAP for FY 2020
The administrative requirements in effect at the time the application window closes for a competition will be applicable to each type of funding available under REAP and are described in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart B. In addition to the other provisions of this Notice:
(1) The provisions specified in 7 CFR 4280.101 through 4280.111 apply to each funding type described in this Notice.
(2) The requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.112 through 4280.124 apply to renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements project grants.
(3) The requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.125 through 4280.152 apply to guaranteed loans for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements projects. For FY 2020, the guarantee fee amount is one percent of the guaranteed portion of the loan, and the annual renewal fee is one-quarter of 1 percent (0.250 percent) of the guaranteed portion of the loan.
(4) The requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.165 apply to a combined grant and guaranteed loan for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements projects.
(5) The requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.186 through 4280.196 apply to energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants.
A.
B.
C.
To ensure that small projects have a fair opportunity to compete for the funding and are consistent with the priorities set forth in the statute, the Agency will set-aside not less than 20 percent of the FY 2020 funds until June 29, 2020, to fund grants of $20,000 or less.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
D.
E.
The eligibility requirements for the applicant, borrower, lender, and project (as applicable) are clarified in 7 CFR part 4280 subpart B and are summarized in this Notice. Failure to meet the eligibility criteria by the time of the competition window may result in the Agency reviewing an application, however will preclude the application from receiving funding until all eligibility criteria have been met.
A.
B.
C.
D.
(1)
(2)
E.
A.
B.
(1)
(a) Information for the required content of a grant application to be considered complete is found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart B.
(i) Grant applications for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements projects with total project costs of $80,000 or less must provide information required by 7 CFR 4280.119.
(ii) Grant applications for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements projects with total project costs of $200,000 or less, but more than $80,000, must provide information required by 7 CFR 4280.118.
(iii) Grant applications for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements projects with total project costs of greater than $200,000 must provide information required by 7 CFR 4280.117.
(iv) Grant applications for energy audits or renewable energy development assistance grant applications must provide information required by 7 CFR 4280.190.
(b) All grant applications must be submitted either as hard copy to the appropriate Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant's proposed project is located, or electronically using the Government-wide
(i) Applicants submitting a grant application as a hard copy must submit one original to the appropriate Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant's proposed project is located. A list of USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinators is available via the following link:
(ii) Applicants submitting a grant application to the Agency via the
(c) After successful applicants are notified of the intent to make a Federal award, applicants must meet the requirements of 7 CFR 4280.122 (a) through (h) for the grant agreement to be executed.
(2)
(a) Information for the content required for a guaranteed loan application to be considered complete is found in 7 CFR 4280.137.
(b) All guaranteed loan applications must be submitted as a hard copy to the appropriate Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant's proposed project is located. A list of USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinators is available via the following link:
(c) After successful applicants are notified of the intent to make a Federal award, borrowers must meet the conditions prior to issuance of loan note guarantee as outlined in 7 CFR 4280.142.
(3)
(a) Information for the content required for a combined guaranteed loan and grant application to be considered complete is found in 7 CFR 4280.165(c).
(b) All combined guaranteed loan and grant applications must be submitted as hard copy to the appropriate Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant's proposed project is located. A list of USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinators is available via the following link:
(c) After successful applicants are notified of the intent to make a Federal award, applicants must meet the requirements, including the requisite forms and certifications, specified in 7 CFR 4280.117, 4280.118, 4280.119, and 4280.137, as applicable, for the issuance of a grant agreement and loan note guarantee.
(4)
(a) Grant applications for energy audits or renewable energy development assistance must provide the information required by 7 CFR 4280.190 to be considered a complete application.
(b) All energy audits or renewable development assistance grant applications must be submitted either as
(c) After successful applicants are notified of the intent to make a Federal award, applicants must meet the requirements of 7 CFR 4280.195 for the grant agreement to be executed.
5.
(a) Register in SAM prior to submitting a grant application; which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705–5711 or online at
(b) Provide a valid DUNS number in its grant or loan application.
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal grant award or a grant application under consideration by the Agency.
(d) If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements of IV.C. (1) through (3) at the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine the applicant is not eligible to receive the award.
C.
(1)
(a) For applicants requesting a grant only of $20,000 or less or a combination grant and guaranteed loan where the grant request is $20,000 or less, that wish to have their grant application compete for the “Grants of $20,000 or less set aside,” complete applications must be received no later than
(i) 4:30 p.m. local time on October 31, 2019, or
(ii) 4:30 p.m. local time on March 31, 2020.
(b) For applicants requesting a grant only of over $20,000 (unrestricted) or a combination grant and guaranteed loan where the grant request is greater than $20,000, complete applications must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. local time on March 31, 2020.
(2)
(3)
D.
E.
(1)
(a) Applicants can be awarded only one renewable energy system grant and one energy efficiency improvement grant in FY 2020.
(b) For renewable energy system grants, the minimum grant is $2,500 and
(c) For renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements loan guarantees, the minimum REAP guaranteed loan amount is $5,000 and the maximum amount of a guaranteed loan to be provided to a borrower is $25 million.
(d) Renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements guaranteed loan and grant combination applications. Paragraphs IV.E.(1)(b) and (c) of this Notice contain the applicable maximum amounts and minimum amounts for grants and guaranteed loans. Requests for guaranteed loan and combined grant and guaranteed loan will not exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, with any Federal grant portion not to exceed 25 percent of the eligible project costs, whether the grant is part of a combination request or is a grant-only.
(2)
(a) Applicants may submit only one energy audit grant application and one renewable energy development assistance grant application for FY 2020 funds.
(b) The maximum aggregate amount of energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants awarded to any one recipient under this Notice cannot exceed $100,000 for FY 2020.
(c) The 2018 Farm Bill mandates that the recipient of a grant that conducts an energy audit for an agricultural producer or a rural small business must require the agricultural producer or rural small business to pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the energy audit, which shall be retained by the eligible entity for the cost of the audit.
(3)
F.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
A.
(1)
(a) Complete renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements grant applications requesting $20,000 or less are eligible to compete in up to five competitions within the FY as described in 7 CFR 4280.121
(b) If the application remains unfunded after the final National Office competition for the FY it must be withdrawn. Pursuant to the publication of this announcement, all complete and eligible applications will be limited to competing in the FY that the application was received, versus rolling into the following FY, which may result in less than five total competitions. This was effective for any application submitted on or after April 1, 2017.
(b) Complete renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements grant applications, regardless of the amount of funding requested, are eligible to compete in two competitions a FY—a State competition and a national competition as described in 7 CFR 4280.121(a).
(2)
(3)
(4)
B.
(1)
(a) Funds for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grants of $20,000 or less will be allocated to the States. Eligible applications must be submitted by March 31, 2020, in order to be considered for these set-aside funds. Approximately 50 percent of these funds will be made available for those complete applications the Agency receives by October 31, 2019, and approximately 50 percent of the funds for those complete applications the Agency receives by March 31, 2020. All unused State allocated funds for grants of $20,000 or less will be pooled to the National Office.
(b) Eligible applications received by March 31, 2020, for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grants of $20,000 or less, that are not funded by State allocations can be submitted to the National Office to compete against grant applications of $20,000 or less from other States at a national competition. Obligations of these funds will take place prior to June 29, 2020.
(c) Eligible applications for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements, regardless of the amount of the funding request, received by March 31, 2020, can compete for unrestricted grant funds. Unrestricted grant funds will be allocated to the States. All unused State allocated unrestricted grant funds will be pooled to the National Office.
(d) National unrestricted grant funds for all eligible renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grant applications received by March 31, 2020, which include grants of $20,000 or less, that are not funded by State allocations can be submitted to the National Office to compete against grant applications from other States at a final national competition.
(2)
(3)
Renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements combined grant and guaranteed loan applications will compete with grant-only applications for grant funds allocated to their State. If the application is ranked high enough to receive State allocated grant funds, the State will request funding for the guaranteed loan portion of any combined grant and guaranteed loan applications from the National Office guaranteed loan reserve, and no further competition will be required. All unfunded eligible applications for combined grant and guaranteed loan applications that are received by March 31, 2020, and that are not funded by State allocations can be submitted to the National Office to compete against other grant and combined grant and guaranteed loan applications from other States at a final national competition.
(4)
C.
D.
(1) May allow for applications for an under-represented technology to receive additional points.
(2) May allow for applications that help achieve geographic diversity to receive additional points. This may include priority points for smaller grant requests which enhances geographic diversity.
(3) May allow for applicants who are members of unserved or under-served populations to receive additional points if one of the following criteria are met:
(a) Owned by a veteran, including but not limited to individuals as sole proprietors, members, partners, stockholders, etc., of not less than 20 percent. In order to receive points, applicants must provide a statement in their applications to indicate that owners of the project have veteran status; or
(b) Owned by a member of a socially-disadvantaged group, which are groups whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. In order to receive points, the application must include a statement to indicate that the owners of the project are members of a socially-disadvantaged group.
(4) May allow for applications that further a Presidential initiative, or a Secretary of Agriculture priority, including Federally declared disaster areas, to receive additional points.
(5) The proposed project is located in an impoverished area, has experienced long-term population decline or loss of employment.
E.
(1)
(a) For State allocated funds:
(i) The applicant must be notified that they may accept the remaining funds or submit the total request for National Office reserve funds available after pooling. If the applicant agrees to lower its grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(ii) If two or more grant or combination applications have the same score and remaining funds in the State allocation are insufficient to fully award them, the Agency will notify the applicants that they may either accept the proportional amount of funds or submit their total request for National Office reserve funds available after pooling. If the applicant agrees to lower its grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(b) The applicant notification for national funds will depend on the competition as follows:
(i) For an application requesting a grant of $20,000 or less or a combination application where the grant amount is $20,000 or less from set-aside pooled funds, the applicant must be notified that they may accept the remaining funds, or submit the total request to compete in the unrestricted state competition. If the applicant agrees to lower the grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project. A declined partial award counts as a competition.
(ii) For an application requesting a grant of $20,000 or less or a combination application where the grant amount is $20,000 or less from unrestricted pooled funds, in which this is the final competition or for those applications requesting grants of over $20,000 and combined grant and guaranteed loan application, the applicant must be notified that they may accept the remaining funds or their grant application will be withdrawn. If the applicant agrees to lower the grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(iii) If two or more grant or combination applications have the same score and remaining funds are insufficient to fully award them, the Agency will notify the applicants that they may either accept the proportional amount of funds or be notified in accordance with V.D.(1)(b)(i) or (ii), as applicable.
(iv) At its discretion, the Agency may instead allow the remaining funds to be carried over to the next FY rather than selecting a lower scoring application(s) or distributing funds on a pro-rata basis.
(2)
(3)
A.
B.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) Renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grants that are awarded are required to fulfill the reporting requirements as specified in 7 CFR 4280.123.
(b) Guaranteed loan applications that are awarded are required to fulfill the reporting requirements as specified in 7 CFR 4280.143.
(c) Combined guaranteed loan and grant applications that are awarded are required to fulfill the reporting requirements as specified in 7 CFR 4280.165(f).
(d) Energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants grant applications that are awarded are required to fulfill the reporting requirements as specified in 7 CFR 4280.196.
For further information contact the applicable USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator for your respective State, as identified via the following link:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvements grants and guaranteed loans, as covered in this Notice, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570–0067. The information collection requirements associated with energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants have also been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0570–0067.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD–3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of intent and availability of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice to hold a public meeting.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has issued a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental Draft EIS) for Central Electric Power Cooperative's (Central Electric) proposed McClellanville Area 115–kV Transmission Project (Project) in South Carolina. In this document, RUS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with an anticipated decision request to approve or deny funding for Central Electric's proposed Project. The Supplement Draft EIS was prepared to address substantial changes to the proposed action and assesses new circumstances and information relevant to potential environmental impacts originally evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS).
In April 2014, RUS issued a Draft EIS that evaluated six 115–kV transmission line corridors originating in Georgetown County, South Carolina and terminating in the McClellanville area of Charleston County, South Carolina. Since publication of the Draft EIS, updated engineering data has resulted in substantial changes to the proposed action, including the need to evaluate new transmission line corridors originating from the Jamestown and Charity areas of Berkeley County, South Carolina, and to account for a new winter weather operating agreement between the former South Carolina Electric and Gas (now Dominion Energy South Carolina) and Berkeley Electric Cooperative that addresses load concerns during the winter months. In addition, the following changes made it necessary to supplement the Draft EIS: The promulgation of a new environmental regulation applicable to RUS (7 CFR part 1970, which replaced the former 7 CFR part 1794, RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures), issuance and implementation of Executive Order 13807: “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental
The Supplemental Draft EIS addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of Central Electric's proposed Project. The Project includes the construction of a new 115 kV transmission line needed to energize the new McClellanville Substation located near the McClellanville service area. The Supplemental Draft EIS considers three alternatives, encompassing three potential corridor locations with one corridor including two different alignments. The overall project area encompasses parts of Berkeley, Georgetown and Charleston counties in coastal South Carolina, and potentially crosses the Francis Marion National Forest.
The Supplemental Draft EIS has identified the potential for impacts to various resources, including wetlands, biological resources and cultural resources (including historic properties). Central Electric does not hold easements across these areas. Once a final right-of-way (ROW) is selected within the preferred corridor, coordination with federal and state agencies and other interested parties would occur to identify, evaluate and, if needed, mitigate any adverse effects. RUS will compile public comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS and produce a Final EIS that considers and responds to those substantive public comments. Based on this analysis in additional to technical and financial reviews, RUS will decide to approve or deny an application for funding.
The public comment period on the Supplemental Draft EIS starts with the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's environmental impact statement (EIS) receipt notice in the
For information on the proposed Project and the EIS process, please contact Ms. Lauren Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Suite 2, Asheville, North Carolina 28801, Telephone: (202) 695–2540 or email:
RUS is authorized to make loans and loan guarantees that finance the construction of electric distribution, transmission, and generation facilities, including system improvements and replacements required to furnish and improve electric service in rural areas, as well as demand side management, energy conservation programs, and on-grid and off-grid renewable energy systems. Central Electric is an electric transmission cooperative that provides transmission service from the bulk transmission system to South Carolina's 20 retail electric cooperatives. Berkeley Electric, a member distribution electric cooperative of Central Electric, was formed in 1940 to bring electric service to rural areas of coastal South Carolina. Berkeley Electric owns and operates more than 5,000 miles of distribution line serving more than 80,000 accounts in Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties.
The Supplemental Draft EIS considers three alternatives, encompassing three potential corridor locations with one corridor including two different alignments. The corridors range in length from 16 to 31 miles and encompasses parts of Berkeley, Georgetown and Charleston counties in South Carolina. The corridor locations propose to cross both public and private lands, including the Francis Marion National Forest, Santee Coastal Reserve, and other private and public lands used for conservation management purposes; all corridors are located entirely within the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. The Supplemental Draft EIS analyzes the extent of Central's Electric's proposal with regard to the following: Water resources, biological resources, soils and geology, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, recreation and land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, transportation, health and safety, and noise.
Central Electric plans to request financial assistance for the proposed Project from RUS. Completing the EIS is one of RUS's requirements in processing a future application from Central Electric, along with other technical and financial considerations. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b) of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ Regulations), RUS will serve as the lead agency in the preparation of the EIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service are participating as cooperating agencies. RUS has prepared a Supplemental Draft EIS to analyze the impacts of the respective federal actions and the proposed Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, CEQ Regulations, RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures, and the U.S. Forest Service's National Environmental Policy Act procedures.
Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this Notice also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or
RUS has determined that its action regarding the proposed Project would be an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties.” As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must consider the effect of the proposed Project on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making in its Section 106 review process. Any party wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to the RUS contact provided in this Notice.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2019.
Direct all written comments to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Suite 2099B, Washington, DC 20233 (or via the internet at
All U.S. firms desiring to participate in the NATO International Competitive Bidding (ICB) process under the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) must be certified as technically, financially and professionally competent. The U.S. Department of Commerce provides the Declaration of Eligibility that certifies these firms. Any such firm seeking certification is required to submit a completed Form BIS–4023P along with a current annual financial report and a resume of past projects in order to become certified and placed on the Consolidated List of Eligible Bidders.
Applications are submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Defense Programs Division where the contents are reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the NATO Program Specialist. The application is a one-time effort. The information provided on the BIS–4023P form is used to certify the U.S. firm and place it in the bidders list database.
BIS has developed a form-fillable .PDF version of the BIS–4023P to enable electronic submission of this form. The form is available at the following URL:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that the 28 companies subject to this administrative review are part of the China-wide entity because none filed a separate rate application (SRA) and/or a separate rate certification (SRC). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2017 through October 31, 2018. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 30, 2019.
Leo Ayala, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3945.
On November 1, 2018, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the People's Republic of China (China).
The product covered by this order is MSG, whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging. MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213.
Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
None of the 28 companies subject to this review filed an SRA or an SRC. Commerce preliminarily determines that these companies have not demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status. Commerce also preliminarily determines that the 28 companies subject to review are part of
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to Commerce within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For companies that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 315.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under section 322(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 322(b) of the Act.
In Proclamation No. 8332 (73 FR 80289, December 31, 2008), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle B of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.
CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Oman, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile or apparel industry, subject to section 322(b) of the Act.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of this countervailing duty (CVD) order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable August 30, 2019.
Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4798.
On August 5, 2008, Commerce published its CVD order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China (China) in the
On May 1, 2019, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the countervailing duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the China, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Commerce received a substantive response from domestic producers
On July 2, 2019, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under items 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if this order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This is a virtual meeting. However, members of the public may also come to 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 Room 8836. This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting will be held Monday, September 9, 2019 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). These times and the agenda
Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3 Room 8836. 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Members of the public may participate virtually by registering at:
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 301–734–1156; Email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting and webinar/conference call.
The Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Section to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) announces a special meeting to be held September 5–6, 2019. The meeting is open to the public and will be accessible via conference call and webinar.
The meeting and webinar will take place in open session on September 5, 2019, 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and September 6, 2019, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
The meeting will also be accessible via conference call and webinar. Conference call and webinar access information are available at:
Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and audio will be available via phone. There will not be opportunity for public comment.
Terra Lederhouse at (301) 427–8360.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and discuss information on recent white marlin and yellowfin tuna assessments, updates on the shortfin mako stock assessment, and ICCAT's progress on the Atlantic bluefin tuna management strategy evaluation. Additional information on the meeting and the agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Terra Lederhouse at (301) 427–8360 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 971
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of availability and public meetings.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to evaluate a range of alternatives for changes to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) to expand the boundary of the sanctuary, update sanctuary-wide regulations, update the individual marine zones and their associated regulations, and revise the sanctuary management plan. FKNMS protects 3,800 square miles of waters surrounding the Florida Keys, from
Comments on this DEIS will be considered if received by January 31, 2020. Public meetings will be held in the following locations and times as indicated below.
The public meetings on September 23, 30, and October 7 in the Florida Keys are designed to be informational only. NOAA will not provide time for oral public comment; however, written comments will be accepted. These meetings will explain the actions, purpose, and likely impacts proposed in the Restoration Blueprint. NOAA will provide for oral and written public comment at the October 15 and December 10 Sanctuary Advisory Council meetings at the Isla Bella Beach Resort in Marathon. Please check
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NOS–2019–0094, by the following methods:
•
•
Beth Dieveney, Policy Analyst, FKNMS at 305–797–6818 or by email at
Copies of the DEIS can be downloaded or viewed on the internet at
Designated in 1990, FKNMS was the ninth national marine sanctuary to be established in a network that comprises 13 sanctuaries and two marine national monuments. As one of the largest marine protected areas in the United States, the sanctuary currently protects approximately 3,800 square miles of coastal and ocean waters from the estuarine waters of South Florida along the Florida Keys archipelago, encompassing more than 1,700 islands, out to Dry Tortugas National Park.
The mission of the sanctuary is to protect the marine resources of the Florida Keys while facilitating human uses that are consistent with the primary objective of sanctuary resource protection. Through continued science-based management, FKNMS endeavors to sustain high-quality environmental and socioeconomic resources for current and future generations. The Florida Keys support more than 77,000 residents and approximately 5.5 million visitors, who collectively contribute to the $4.7 billion economy (Key West Chamber of Commerce, 2018), which relies on the existence and maintenance of a healthy marine environment. The ecosystems of FKNMS provide habitats for more than 6,000 species of fishes, invertebrates, and plants in addition to uniquely expansive and diverse seagrass and coral reef communities. These resources are increasingly threatened by various factors, including high levels of use, coral disease, and climate change. Since release of the 2011 condition report, sanctuary resources have been impacted by Hurricane Irma, a serious coral disease outbreak, a seagrass die-off and other threats.
FKNMS is currently operating under a 2007 revised management plan and regulations largely developed as part of the original management plan process in 1997, with minor modifications to the regulations in 2001 and 2010. Consequently, the sanctuary's 1997 regulations and marine zones and 2007 management plan need updating to reflect current strategies for protecting sanctuary resource and providing recreational access and public use opportunities.
This DEIS includes a proposed action with various components intended to counteract the decline in resource condition in the Florida Keys through a series of regulatory and management measures. These measures are designed to reduce threats and, where appropriate, restore coral reefs, seagrasses, and other important habitats. Following the principles and processes set forth in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act ((NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431
As the lead agency for this federal action, NOAA proposes to expand the boundary of the sanctuary, update
NOAA is seeking public comment on the DEIS, which is available at
16 U.S.C. 1431
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
On June 13, 2019, NMFS received an application from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on behalf of their respective states; the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; and the Willamette Committee (hereafter called—“eligible entities”). The eligible entities are requesting authorization to intentionally take, by lethal methods, California sea lions (
Comments must be received by October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2019–0073, by any of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous).
Mr. Robert Anderson, NMFS, West Coast Region (503) 231–2226.
The application is available via the internet at the following address:
Section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361,
Section 120(b)(1) establishes the criteria whereby a state may apply to the Secretary requesting authorization for the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds which are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of salmonid fishery stocks. Section 120(b)(2) requires that any such application shall include a means of identifying the individual pinniped or pinnipeds, and shall include a detailed description of the problem interaction and expected benefits of the taking.
Section 120(c)(1) requires the Secretary to determine whether an application has produced sufficient evidence to warrant establishing a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force). On June 18, 2019, NMFS determined that the application received on June 13, 2019, contained sufficient evidence to warrant establishing a Task Force, which will be established after the closing of a public comment period.
Public Law 115–329, the Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2018, amended Public Law 103–238, the MMPA Amendments of 1994, by replacing section 120(f) California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals; investigation and report, with a new section 120(f) Temporary Marine Mammal Removal Authority on the Waters of the Columbia River or its Tributaries.
The 2018 amendments to section 120(f) superseded the individually identifiable and significant negative impact criteria, within the meaning of section 120(b)(1), by statutory exception. The 2018 Amendments also included additional eligible entities
Section 120(f)(2)(C) requires the Secretary to establish procedures to coordinate issuance of permits [authorizations] under this subsection, including application procedures and timelines, delegation and revocation of permits to and between eligible entities, monitoring, periodic review, and geographic, seasonal take, and species-specific considerations. Therefore, in establishing the procedures pursuant to section 120(f)(2)(C), NMFS will continue to rely on existing timelines, procedures, considerations, and information requirements in sections 120(b), 120(c), 120(e), and 120(i), to assist the Task Force with its deliberations and recommendation, and for the Secretary to make a decision to approve or deny an application.
Pursuant to section 120(f)(2)(C), on June 4, 2019, NMFS issued a Decision Memorandum establishing application requirements and program implementation procedures for prospective and approved authorizations issued to an eligible entity under section 120(f). The June 4, 2019, Decision Memorandum fulfilled the statutory requirement that the Secretary establish procedures to coordinate issuance of permits [authorizations] pursuant to section 120(f). Taken together, NMFS will consider existing section 120 procedures and the 120(f)(2)(C) procedures to fulfill the information requirements for applications submitted under section 120(f).
Prospective authorizations apply only to sea lions that are not listed under the ESA, or designated as a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA. California and Steller sea lions are not listed under the ESA nor are they designated as a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA.
Pursuant to section 120(f), an eligible entity may request authorization to lethally remove sea lions, and the Regional Administrator is required to: (1) Review the application to determine whether the applicant has produced sufficient evidence to warrant establishing a Task Force to address the situation described in the application; (2) publish a notice in the
Section 120(c)(2) requires the Task Force be composed of the following: (1) Employees of the Department of Commerce; (2) scientists who are knowledgeable about the pinniped interaction; (3) representatives of affected conservation and fishing community organizations; (4) Indian Treaty tribes; (5) the states; and (6) such other organizations as NMFS deems appropriate. The Task Force reviews the application, the factors contained in section 120(d), and public comments and, as required by section 120, recommends to NMFS whether to approve or deny the application. The Task Force is also required to submit with its recommendation a description of the specific pinniped individual or individuals; the proposed location, time, and method of such taking; criteria for evaluating the success of the action; the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority; and a suggestion for non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action.
On June 13, 2019, NMFS received an application pursuant to section 120(f) from the above-mentioned eligible entities. The eligible entities are requesting authorization to intentionally take, by lethal methods, California sea lions (
According to the information in the application, sea lion predation, within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f), is having a significant negative impact on the recovery on the above-mentioned fishery stocks. Additionally, the application states that removal of sea lions is also intended to protect species of lamprey or sturgeon that may not be listed as endangered or threatened but are listed as a species of concern.
On June 18, 2019, NMFS provided the above-mentioned eligible entities a letter acknowledging receipt of their application and a determination that the application produced sufficient evidence of the problem interaction to warrant establishing a Task Force. The application provides: Detailed information that documents sea lion population trends; a detailed description of the problem interaction, including estimates of the numbers of sea lions present within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f); numbers of salmonids consumed and the proportion of all salmonids that have been taken by sea lions at Bonneville Dam and Willamette Falls (a subarea of the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f); past efforts to nonlethally deter sea lions; methods for capturing, handling and euthanizing sea lions; and a detailed description of the expected benefits of the taking of sea lions.
The proposed action to address sea lion predation is part of a comprehensive salmon and steelhead recovery strategy. As reported in the application, significant actions to address the decline of salmon and steelhead stocks in the Columbia River basin have been underway for several decades, and are progressing each year as a result of the implementation of ESA recovery plans throughout the Columbia River basin. These actions include harvest reductions, hydroelectric system
In considering whether the application should be approved or denied, the MMPA requires that the Task Force and NMFS consider: (1) Population trends, feeding habits, the location of the pinniped interaction, how and when the interaction occurs, and the number of animals involved; (2) past efforts to deter such pinnipeds, and whether the applicant has demonstrated that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist and that the applicant has taken all reasonable nonlethal steps without success; (3) the extent to which such pinnipeds are causing undue injury impact to, or imbalance with, other species in the ecosystem, including fish populations; and (4) the extent to which such pinnipeds are exhibiting behavior that presents an ongoing threat to public safety.
NMFS solicits public comments on the application and any additional information that should be considered by the Task Force in making its recommendation, or by NMFS in making its determination whether to approve or deny the application. NMFS is interested in receiving additional information related to the factors that must be considered in determining whether to approve or deny the application (see Background), and on the impact of sea lion predation within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f) on the above-mentioned fish stocks.
NMFS requests that comments be specific. In particular, we request information regarding: (1) Observations of sea lion predation activity on salmonids and eulachon within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f); (2) information on areas where numbers of sea lions are concentrated within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f), including resting/haul out sites and locations where sea lions have been repeatedly observed taking salmonids and eulachon; and (3) dates when sea lions have been observed within the geographic area (see Summary) established in section 120(f).
NMFS also solicits the names and affiliations of experts from the academic and scientific community, tribes, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector for consideration as potential Task Force members. A Task Force, established under section 120(c) must, to the maximum extent practicable, consist of an equitable balance among representatives of resource users and non-users as outlined above. Nominations for Task Force membership must include sufficient background information (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in October, November, and December of 2019. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2020 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on October 10, November 14, and December 12, 2019. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on October 16, October 18, November 4, November 19, December 6, and December 17, 2019. See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Somerville, MA; Mount Pleasant, SC; and Largo, FL. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Manahawkin, NJ; Port Saint Lucie, FL; Key Largo, FL; Kitty Hawk, NC; Kenner, LA; and Ronkonkoma, NY. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824–5399.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark ID and Safe Handling, Release, and ID workshops are posted on the internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Thus, certificates that were initially issued in 2016 will be expiring in 2019. Approximately 163 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since April 2008.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or
1. October 10, 2019, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 23 Cummings Street, Somerville, MA 02145.
2. November 14, 2019, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 1104 Isle of Palms Connector Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464.
3. December 12, 2019, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 100 East Bay Drive, Largo, FL 33770.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2016 will be expiring in 2019. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 328 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. October 16, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
2. October 18, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South U.S. Highway 1, Port St Lucie, FL 34952.
3. November 4, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.
4. November 19, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
5. December 6, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
6. December 17, 2019, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Marriott Courtyard, 5000 Express Drive South, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.
To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682–0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearing.
This notice announces an additional public hearing for a proposed rule NMFS published on July 12, 2019. The proposed rule would adjust regulatory measures that reduce bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS).
The public hearing will be held at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office in Gloucester, MA on September 19, 2019, from 5 p.m.–7 p.m. Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before September 30, 2019. For the specific date, time, and address information see the
NMFS will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule to adjust regulatory measures that reduce bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS on September 19, 2019 from 5 p.m.–7 p.m. at the following address: National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Hearing Room A, 55 Great Republic Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2018–0035, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Jennifer Cudney, 727–824–5399 or Craig Cockrell, 301–427–8503.
On July 12, 2019, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
In the proposed rule, NMFS scheduled a hearing in Gloucester, MA on July 16, 2019. Recently, NMFS has received feedback from the public that there was not a sufficient amount of time (
16 U.S.C. 971
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603–2117, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603–2117, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On June 7, 2019, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603–2117, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 5/17/2019, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
The Commission received a public comment from counsel for the current contractor, citing impact on one employee who currently performs this work, lack of experience, and safety concerns for people with severe disabilities as the reasons for his client's objection to the Commission's action. The counsel asked the Commission to delay the addition of the service to the Procurement List until he and his client can address the Commission in person. For the reasons described below, the Commission has determined that the proposed Waste Management Services are suitable to be added to the Procurement List.
The mission of the AbilityOne Program is to create employment opportunities for people who are blind or severely disabled through the Federal procurement system. In the process of adding products or services to the Program, the Commission is required to perform an impact analysis on the current contractor, which was accomplished with a finding of no severe adverse impact. In accordance with 41 CFR 51–2.4(a)(4), the impact analysis focused on the company, rather than a specific individual. Further, if the project is not added to the AbilityOne Program, the current contractor will have to re-compete for a new contract, with no guarantee of a winning bid.
For 23 years, the nonprofit agency proposed to perform the work, CW Resources, Inc. (CWR), has successfully provided similar trash hauling services for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. This past performance is geographically relevant, as it is also located in New London, CT, making CWR familiar with waste management processes in this area. In addition, CWR is well established in the janitorial line of business, and performs on 46 Procurement List projects that are either purely janitorial/custodial projects or have a custodial component (
Regarding the safety of individuals with significant disabilities, CWR has identified direct labor positions and tasks that can be safely performed by people with significant disabilities. The
The Commentor requested to make an oral presentation to the Commission prior to the Agency's suitability determination regarding adding this service to the Procurement List. The Commission does not accept meeting requests from current contractors prior to commencing deliberations, as there is no provision in regulation for such meetings. Rather, any public party may request reconsideration after a Commission decision to add a product or service to the PL.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
On 7/26/2019, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announces a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requesting an extension of approval for a collection regarding a form used to verify whether pools and spas are in compliance with the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. In the
Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by September 30, 2019.
Submit comments about this request by email:
Bretford Griffin, Consumer Product
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information. CPSC previously published a notice announcing the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. 84 FR 27772 (June 14, 2019). CPSC received only one comment, and it supported the information collection.
On August 5, 2011, the CPSC published a final rule incorporating by reference ANSI/APSP–16 2011 as the successor standard, effective September 6, 2011. 76 FR 47436. On May 24, 2019, the CPSC published a direct final rule incorporating by reference ANSI/APSP–16 2017 as the next successor standard. ANSI/APSP–16 2017 will become effective November 24, 2020. 84 FR 24021. The Act requires that, in addition to having the anti-entrapment devices or systems, each public pool and spa in the United States with a single main drain other than an unblockable drain shall be equipped with one or more of the following devices or systems designed to prevent entrapment by pool or spa drains including a safety vacuum release system, suction-limiting vent system, gravity drainage system, automatic pump shut-off system or drain disablement. The CPSC will collect information through the verification of compliance form to identify drain covers, pools, and spas that do not meet the performance requirements in ANSI/APSP–16 2011 (or, after November 24, 2020, its successor standard, ANSI/APSP–16 2017) and the Act.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Disability Accommodation Reimbursement Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by September 30, 2019.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202–395–6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Sharron Walker-Tendai, at 202–606–3904 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 30, 2019.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Angela James, 571–372–7574, or
The aggregate data collected under these programs are published in the annual publications, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Parts 1–5, Lock Performance Monitoring System Quarterly Reports, and Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States. Each data base and publication provide essential information for an understanding of the utilization of our Nation's navigation systems and the fleet using these systems. The data bases provide essential information to those with the responsibilities over the physical system or to those involved in shipping or moving commodities on the Nation's waterways.” [River and Harbor Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1043)].
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposed extension of collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 30, 2019.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use under Control Number 0704–0369 through October 31, 2019. DoD proposes that OMB approve an extension of the information collection requirement, to expire three years after the approval date.
DoD will consider all comments received by October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0369, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Jennifer Johnson, at 571–372–6100.
DoD uses the following DFARS provisions and clauses in solicitations and contracts to require offerors and contractors to identify and mark data or software requiring protection from unauthorized use, release, or disclosure in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2320:
252.227–7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items.
252.227–7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation.
252.227–7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.
252.227–7018, Rights in Noncommercial Technical Data and Computer Software—Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2320(a)(2)(D), DoD may disclose limited rights data to persons outside the Government, or allow those persons to use data with use, release, or disclosure restrictions, if the recipient agrees not to further release, disclose, or use the data. Therefore, the clause at DFARS 252.227–7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items, requires the contractor to identify and mark data or software that it provides with limited rights.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2321(b), contractors and subcontractors at any tier must be prepared to furnish written justification for any asserted restriction on the Government's rights to use or release data. The following DFARS clauses require contractors and subcontractors to maintain adequate records and procedures to justify any asserted restrictions:
252.227–7019, Validation of Asserted Restrictions—Computer Software.
252.227–7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2320, DoD must protect the rights of
The provision at DFARS 252.227–7028, Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government, requires an offeror to identify any technical data or computer software that it previously delivered, or will deliver, under any Government contract. DoD needs this information to avoid paying for rights in technical data or computer software that the Government already owns.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 30, 2019.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Angela James, 571–372–7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Defense Technical Information Center announces a proposed generic information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Information Management Control Officer, 3030 Defense Pentagon RM 3C152, Washington, DC 20301, Mr. Steve Lippi or call 703–614–4161.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability and notice of activity in Wetlands as required by Executive Order 11990 (
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the potential deployment of a Continental United States (CONUS) Interceptor Site (CIS). The CIS Final EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA and assesses the impacts of a potential deployment of a CIS. As required by the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the MDA evaluated candidate sites for the potential future deployment of additional ground-based interceptors for homeland defense against threats from nations such as North Korea and Iran.
All potential sites analyzed in this Final EIS contain wetlands that would be affected. All practicable measures were taken to arrange a CIS footprint to minimize and avoid impacts to wetlands while still maintaining operational effectiveness. However, there are no practicable deployment alternatives that would completely avoid impacts to wetlands. If a deployment decision were made, the MDA would coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and applicable state departments of environmental protection to determine appropriate mitigations for wetland impacts. As required by Executive Order (E.O.) 11990 (
The Final EIS will be available for 30 days following publication of the NOA in the
Mr. Mark Wright, MDA Public Affairs, at 571–231–8212, or by email:
The USEPA's Notice of Availability (NOA) (ER–FRL–9027–4) and the Department of Defense's (DoD) NOA (81 FR 34315–34316) for the Draft EIS was published in the
If deployed, a CIS would be an extension of the existing Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. To the extent practicable, the CIS would be
Candidate site locations considered in the EIS are: Fort Custer Training Center in Michigan; Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center (Recently renamed Camp James A. Garfield) in Ohio; and Fort Drum in New York. The Final EIS also analyzed a No Action Alternative or no CIS deployment, which is the preferred alternative. Consistent with the 2019 Missile Defense Review, the DoD does not have a proposed action, budget authority, or direction to deploy as CIS and does not propose to deploy a CIS at this time.
For each of the candidate site locations, the following resource areas were assessed: Air quality, air space, biological, cultural, environmental justice, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, water, wetlands, and visual and aesthetics.
Public reading copies of the Final EIS are available for review at the public libraries within the communities near the Candidate Locations. For more information, including a downloadable copy of the Final EIS, visit the MDA website at
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC–IPAD) will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, September 12, 2019 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The address of the public meeting is One Liberty Center, 875 N Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203.
Dwight Sullivan, 703–695–1055 (Voice),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the DoD and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102–3.150(a) concerning the meeting on September 12, 2019 of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the DoD, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.140 and 102–3.150.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District, on behalf of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC), announces the availability of a Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment Project. The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluated potential impacts resulting from the proposed cemetery's contiguous acreage, by utilizing the former Navy Annex site, located south of the existing cemetery, and relocating roadways and modifying an interchange, in Arlington, Virginia. The EA also described the potential adverse effects on cultural resources related to the integration of the Air Force Memorial into the cemetery as part of the expansion, the conversion of Patton Drive to a pedestrian trail, and the demolition of a portion of the boundary wall. ANC and key stakeholders—the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Arlington County developed a roadway realignment and relocation that creates an opportunity to address multimodal capacity along Columbia Pike while enabling the cemetery to maximize land available for internment capacity, as provided through Congressional legislation.
The Draft FONSI is available for a 30-day review period. Written comments will be accepted until the close of business on September 30, 2019.
The public is invited to submit comments to Ms. Kathy Perdue, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Planning and Policy Branch, 803 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510 or via email:
Ms. Kathy Perdue, (757) 201–7218.
The Draft FONSI and Final EA are available for review at the following locations:
(1) The USACE Norfolk District Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion website:
(2) The ANC website:
(3) Compact Discs will be available at the following Arlington County, Virginia Public Libraries:
a. Arlington County Central Library, 1015 N Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22201.
b. Aurora Hills Branch Public Library, 735 South 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202.
Columbia Pike Branch Public Library, 816 South Walter Reed Drive, Arlington, VA 22204.
ANC, a Direct Report Unit of the Headquarters Department of the Army, is the lead federal agency for this Project, and the USACE has prepared the draft NEPA document on behalf of (ANC), assisted by the HNTB Corporation. The following are served as cooperating agencies during the NEPA process: Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA–EFLHD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Arlington County. The ANC and the USACE also considered the input of the public.
ANC is located within the eastern boundary of Arlington County, in the northeastern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and at the western terminus of Memorial Avenue, directly across the Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Potomac River from the District of Columbia (Washington DC). ANC is our nation's most hallowed ground. This Army cemetery consists of 624 acres and is the final resting place of over 400,000 service members and their families. The proposed Southern Expansion site, bounded by Washington Boulevard (Route 27), I–395, the VDOT Maintenance Complex, the Foxcroft Heights neighborhood, and the ANC, involves approximately 70 acres, including roadway corridors, among three landowners: ANC, Arlington County, and VDOT.
FHWA–EFLHD, in addition to its role as a cooperating agency, is designing the roadways that would be relocated as a result of ANC expansion. The FHWA–EFLHD has indicated that all decision-
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), the Army, as the lead federal agency, has determined that the project does not have the potential to cause significant impacts on the human environment, and has developed the Draft FONSI and Final EA to examine and assess the impacts of the Proposed Action. FHWA–EFLHD has indicated that all decision-making to-date is agreeable, and that FHWA–EFLHD intends to adopt the ANC's EA and issue its own FONSI if appropriate, after the traffic studies related to the modified access to Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) with Columbia Pike.
The Office of the Under Secretary of the Navy, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Department of the Navy Information Management Control Officer, 2000 NAVY PENTAGON RM 4E563, Washington, DC 20350, Ms. Barbara Figueroa or call 703–614–7885.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES); Department of Education (ED).Sciences (IES)
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 29, 2019.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Warner, 202–245–7744.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 29, 2019.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202–502–7411 or email
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Stationary Combustion Turbines (EPA ICR Number 1967.08, OMB Control Number 2060–0540), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0687, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 1381.12, OMB Control Number 2050–0122) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–RCRA–2050–0122, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–9037; fax number: 703–308–0514; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Regional Administrator is providing notice of the EPA's decision to withdraw the Proposed Determination to restrict the use of certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit.
Visit
EPA Region 10 is providing notice under 40 CFR 231.5(c) of EPA's withdrawal of the Proposed Determination to restrict the use of certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit issued under EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(c) authority. EPA is concluding the process it started in July 2017, suspended in January 2018, and resumed in June 2019 to withdraw the Proposed Determination. EPA has decided that now is the appropriate time to complete the withdrawal of the Proposed Determination in light of developments in the record and the availability of processes for EPA to address record issues with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prior to any potential future decision-making by EPA regarding this matter.
In 2011, EPA initiated an assessment to determine the significance of the Bristol Bay watershed's ecological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources. The stated purpose was to characterize the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed; increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the Region's fish resources; and inform future decision-making. Also in 2011, Northern Dynasty Minerals, which wholly owns the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), submitted information to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that detailed its intention to develop a large-scale mine at the Pebble deposit. EPA Region 10 used this information to develop its mining scenarios for the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. After two rounds of public comments on drafts of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment in 2012 and 2013 that generated over one million comments, as well as independent external peer review, EPA Region 10 finalized the Assessment in January of 2014.
On July 21, 2014, EPA Region 10 published in the
The next step in the section 404(c) process would have been for EPA Region 10 to either forward a Recommended Determination to EPA Headquarters or to withdraw the Proposed Determination pursuant to 40 CFR 231.5(a). However, PLP filed a lawsuit that alleged that EPA formed three advisory committees in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to assist EPA “in developing and implementing an unprecedented plan to assert EPA's purported authority under section 404(c) of the federal Clean Water Act . . . in a manner that will effectively preempt [p]laintiff from exercising its right through the normal permit process to extract minerals from the Pebble Mine deposit in Southwest Alaska.” Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 2,
In July 2017, EPA Region 10 issued a notice of a proposal to withdraw its July 2014 Proposed Determination that was published in the
1. Provide PLP with additional time to submit a CWA Section 404 permit application to the Corps;
2. Remove any uncertainty, real or perceived, about PLP's ability to submit a permit application and have that permit application reviewed; and
3. Allow the factual record regarding any forthcoming permit application to develop.
The notice opened a public comment period that closed on October 17, 2017. During the public comment period, EPA received more than one million public comments regarding its proposal to withdraw. EPA also held two hearings in the Bristol Bay watershed during the week of October 9, 2017. Approximately 200 people participated in the hearings. EPA also consulted with federally recognized tribal governments from the Bristol Bay region and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Regional and Village Corporations with lands in the Bristol Bay watershed on the Agency's proposal to withdraw.
On December 22, 2017, PLP submitted a CWA Section 404 permit application to the Corps to develop a mine at the Pebble deposit. On January 5, 2018, the Corps issued a notice that provided PLP's permit application to the public and stated that an EIS would be required as part of its permit review process consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Corps also invited relevant federal and state agencies, including EPA, to be cooperating agencies on the development of the EIS.
On January 26, 2018, EPA Region 10 issued a notice announcing a “suspension” of the proceeding to withdraw the Proposed Determination. This action was published in the
On March 1, 2018, EPA Region 10 accepted the Corps' invitation to serve as a cooperating agency for development of the EIS for the Pebble project. As a cooperating agency, EPA has participated in meetings and provided comments on early drafts of EIS material, including on sections of the Preliminary DEIS in December of 2018. EPA also provided scoping comments to the Corps on June 29, 2018.
The Corps released a Draft EIS and Section 404 Public Notice (404 PN) on February 20, 2019. The public comment periods for both opened on March 1, 2019 and closed on July 1, 2019. The Corps received over 100,000 comments on the Draft EIS. EPA submitted over 100 pages of comments to the Corps on the Draft EIS and over 50 pages of comments on the 404 PN.
On June 26, 2019, the EPA General Counsel, acting by delegated authority for the Administrator, directed EPA Region 10 “to continue deliberating regarding whether to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination or alternatively, decide to leave the 2014 Proposed Determination in place.” The General Counsel's memorandum indicated that the suspension notice had created confusion regarding the status of the 2014 Proposed Determination and that by “making a decision one way or the other, the Region will provide much-needed clarity and transparency to the public on this issue.” In addition, the General Counsel also asked the Region to “reconsider its previous statement that it would seek additional public comment on the 2014 Proposed Determination, in light of the ample opportunity for public comment previously provided and the current public comment opportunity on the more than 1,400-page [Draft EIS].”
CWA Section 404(a) allows the Corps to issue permits authorizing the discharge of dredged or fill material at specified disposal sites. Section 404(b) provides that “[s]ubject to subsection (c) . . ., each such disposal site shall be specified for each such permit by the Secretary. . . .” CWA Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to deny or restrict the use of defined areas as a disposal site:
The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Before making such determination, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary. The Administrator shall set forth in writing and make public his findings and his reasons for making any determination under this subsection.
The statute authorizes, but does not mandate, EPA to initiate the section 404(c) process.
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 231 establish the procedures for EPA's consideration of whether to use its section 404(c) authority:
•
•
•
•
With regard to Step 1, the regulations provide that the Regional Administrator “may” initiate certain actions if he or she “has reason to believe” that an unacceptable adverse effect “could result.” 40 CFR 231.3(a). The regulations do not require immediate action where the Regional Administrator makes such a finding because the Regional Administrator has the “necessary discretion in deciding when to act or whether to act at all.” 44 FR 58079, October 9, 1979. In addition, EPA uses the term “could” for this early stage “because the preliminary determination merely represents a judgment that the matter is worth looking into.” 44 FR 58078, October 9, 1979. Importantly, a “proposed determination does not represent a judgment that discharge of dredged or fill material will result in unacceptable adverse effects; it merely means that the Regional Administrator believes that the issue should be explored.” 44 FR 58082, October 9, 1979.
Although the regulations provide a standard for the Regional Administrator's decision regarding whether to issue a recommended determination (
In addition, EPA's implementing regulations recognize the statutory mandate for EPA to consult with the Corps on its section 404(c) decision. Indeed, EPA's regulations require consultation with the Corps throughout the various stages of the regulatory process. Of particular note, the regulations contemplate two specific engagements with the Corps during the initial stages of the section 404(c) process.
First, EPA's regulations generally contemplate that where there is a permit application pending, the Regional Administrator's initial determination of whether the discharge “could” result in an unacceptable adverse effect would be made after considering the record developed during its coordination with the Corps on the permit application. Section 231.3(a) provides that the Regional Administrator's decision under that provision must be based on an evaluation of “information available to him, including any record developed under the section 404 referral process specified in 33 CFR 323.5(b).”
In addition, EPA's final rule preamble promulgating its regulations in 40 CFR part 231 states:
EPA's announcement of intent to start a 404(c) action will ordinarily be preceded by an objection to the permit application, and under § 325.8 such objection serves to halt issuance of the permit until the matter is resolved. . . .
The promulgation of regulations under 404(c) will not alter EPA's present obligations to make timely objections to permit applications where appropriate. It is not the Agency's intention to hold back and then suddenly to spring a veto action at the last minute. The fact that 404(c) may be regarded as a tool of last resort implies that EPA will first employ its tool of “first resort,”
Second, once the Regional Administrator has made the requisite finding, the regulations provide an opportunity for the Corps, among others, to consult with the Regional Administrator prior to the issuance of a proposed determination. The purpose of this consultation is to provide information to demonstrate that no unacceptable adverse effects will occur or for the Corps to notify the Regional Administrator of his or her intent to take corrective action to prevent unacceptable adverse effects. 40 CFR 231.3(a)(2).
In addition to the initial stages, the remainder of the 404(c) process, including the opportunity for public comment and consultation with the Corps, is intended to obtain information relating to whether corrective action is available to reduce the adverse impacts of the discharge. 40 CFR 231.4(a), 231.6. EPA's final rule preamble recognized the role the Corps permitting process would play in implementing corrective action identified during the section 404(c) process. In response to a commenter that asked for EPA to provide an opportunity for public comment on any corrective action “proposed by the permitting authority during the consultative process, where the effect of such corrective measures is to obviate the need for the 404(c) action,” EPA indicated that “in such a situation, it would be more appropriate for the public comment to come as part of the permit process rather than the 404(c) procedure, since it will be the permitting authority who will have the responsibility for incorporating appropriate corrective measures into a permit.” 44 FR 58081, October 9, 1979.
It is important to note that the regulations envision that all the 404(c) regulatory steps would occur over relatively short timeframes. 40 CFR 231.3(a)(2), 231.4(a), 231.5(a), 231.6. Although EPA's regulations allow for an extension of time, this exception was only intended where there is good cause. 40 CFR 231.8;
Section 404(q) directs the Secretary of the Army to enter into agreements with various federal agencies, including the EPA “to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, duplication, needless paperwork, and delays in the issuance of permits under this section.” The agreements must be developed “to assure that, to the maximum extent practicable” the Corps decision on a permit application will be made no later than 90 days after the application is published.
EPA and the Corps have entered into various agreements pursuant to section 404(q). The operative agreement was entered in 1992. Part IV, paragraph 3 of the 1992 EPA and Army Memorandum of Agreement to implement section 404(q) (hereinafter referred to as the “404(q) MOA”), sets forth the “exclusive procedures” for elevation of individual permits cases. Once the process is initiated, the 404(q) MOA outlines a process to resolve EPA's concerns that, if necessary, culminates with the Corps providing EPA with a copy of the Statement of Findings/Record of Decision prepared in support of the permit decision “to assist the EPA in reaching a decision whether to initiate 404(c) before the permit is issued or activity may begin.” The MOA provides a 10-day period for EPA to initiate the section 404(c) process before the permit is issued or the activity may begin.
After conferring with EPA's General Counsel, EPA Region 10 is concluding the withdrawal process that was initiated on July 19, 2017. EPA's July 19, 2017 notice stated that it was proposing to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination “[b]ecause the Agency retains the right under the settlement agreement to ultimately exercise the full extent of its discretion under section 404(c), including the discretion to act prior to any potential Army Corps authorization of discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit, the Agency believes that withdrawing the Proposed Determination now, while allowing the factual record regarding any forthcoming permit application to develop, is appropriate at this time for this particular matter.” 82 FR 33124. In suspending this withdrawal process, EPA noted that “the factual record regarding the permit application can develop notwithstanding the Proposed Determination” and EPA “has discretion to consider that factual record after it has developed.” 83 FR 8670, February 28, 2018.
EPA has carefully considered the positions articulated in 2014 Proposed Determination and the 2017 and 2018 notices in light of the developments since they were published. First, the Corps' DEIS includes significant project-specific information that was not accounted for in the 2014 Proposed Determination and, based on that information, the Corps has reached
EPA is withdrawing the 2014 Proposed Determination because there is new information that has been generated since 2014, including information and preliminary conclusions in the Corps' DEIS, that conflict with EPA's Proposed Determination and that EPA will need to consider before any potential future decision-making regarding this matter. As discussed below, the current record before the agency is different from the one considered by the Regional Administrator in 2014 and, consistent with general administrative law principles for agency decision-making, EPA must consider the entire record of this proceeding. As a result, any decision-making process under section 404(c) should, if initiated, be based on the available information at that time rather than based on a proposed determination which, through the passage of time, the submittal of a permit application, and a significant expansion of the record, has effectively grown stale.
Shortly after EPA issued the 2014 Proposed Determination, EPA was enjoined from working on the 2014 Section 404(c) process when a Federal District court issued a preliminary injunction. That injunction remained in place until May 11, 2017 when EPA and PLP settled the pending cases. EPA's record and work relating to the Proposed Determination was completely frozen from November 2014 until May 2017. Within a few months of its settlement with EPA, PLP submitted its permit application, and since that time, the Corps' record has grown significantly to include project-specific information, analyses, and preliminary conclusions developed during the permitting process.
The record will only continue to grow until the Corps issues a final EIS, and during this time Region 10 is precluded under the settlement agreement from forwarding a Recommended Determination to EPA Headquarters until the Corps issues a final EIS or May 2021, whenever is sooner. EPA used its extension authority under 40 CFR 231.8 to suspend the process and keep the Proposed Determination pending during the timelines provided in the settlement agreement. 83 FR 8671, February 28, 2018. Although the regulations allow extensions for the short regulatory timeframes if there is good cause, these timeframes provide evidence that extensions authorized under 40 CFR 231.8 were not intended to allow for long-term gaps, as in this case, that could result in decision-making without the full record.
When EPA entered into the settlement agreement in 2017 and proposed to withdraw the Proposed Determination, EPA did not know if or when PLP would submit a CWA Section 404 permit application. And even once PLP submitted a permit application and despite the Corps' estimated schedule, EPA did not know and could not know when it issued its 2018 suspension exactly how long the NEPA process would take and how it would proceed. Given the current status of the NEPA process, it is now clear that EPA's 2014 Proposed Determination does not account for the significant project-specific information that has been developed and will be developed during the multi-year permitting process.
In particular, PLP's current proposal is to produce 1.3 billion tons of ore from the Pebble deposit over 20 years. The 2014 Proposed Determination relied heavily on the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which evaluated three hypothetical mine scenarios that represented different stages of mining at the Pebble deposit, based on the amount of ore processed: Pebble 0.25 (approximately 0.25 billion tons of ore over 20 years), Pebble 2.0 (approximately 2.0 billion tons of ore over 25 years), and Pebble 6.5 (approximately 6.5 billion tons of ore over 78 years). These hypothetical mine scenarios drew on preliminary information developed by Northern Dynasty Minerals in 2011 and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, consultation with experts, and baseline data collected by PLP to characterize the mine site, mine activities, and the surrounding environment. EPA 2014 ES–10, Ch. 6. The Assessment disclosed the uncertainties associated with these hypothetical scenarios and recognized that the exact details of any future mine plan for the Pebble deposit or for other deposits in the watershed would differ from EPA's mine scenarios.
Although a number of aspects of the PLP's current proposal evaluated in the DEIS are similar to the mine scenarios evaluated in the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, there are aspects of PLP's proposal that differ from EPA's scenarios considered in the Assessment. While the agencies do not know the extent of the differences on the overall impacts of the project and how they may relate to the Corps' NEPA and 404 analyses, the distinctions themselves are evidence that there is now different information in the Agencies' records than in 2014.
While any subsequent mine expansion may change the mine components and impacts, differences between the 2014 projected mining proposal evaluated by EPA and PLP's current 20-year mining proposal include the following:
• The movement of most mine component facilities out of the Upper Talarik Creek watershed which may result in reduced impacts to aquatic resources in the Upper Talarik Creek watershed;
• The elimination of cyanide leaching as part of the ore processing, which eliminates risks of impacts due to cyanide that would otherwise be in tailings and process water and eliminates risk of cyanide spills;
• The placement of a liner under the disposal facility containing pyritic tailings and potentially acid generating (PAG) waste rock, which would minimize the potential for groundwater contamination;
• The reduction in waste rock, which may make it more feasible to backfill PAG waste rock into the open pit at closure;
• The separation of pyritic tailings from bulk tailings, which may make it more feasible to backfill pyritic tailings into the open pit at closure and may result in the ability to more effectively reclaim the pyritic tailings/PAG waste rock site and reduce surface impacts and reduce water management needs of this site following closure; and
• The relocation of treated water discharge locations, which allows flow augmentation and may reduce impacts due to open pit dewatering.
In addition to these differences in the mining proposal, the Corps' DEIS and EPA's 2014 Proposed Determination draw some conflicting preliminary conclusions regarding the information about the project. EPA recognizes that these documents have different purposes and that the Corps has not yet prepared its specific section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis. DEIS, Section 4.22 Wetlands and Other Waters/Special Aquatic Sites, 4.22–4. In addition, EPA's issuance of a Proposed Determination represents a judgment that the matter should be “look[ed] into” or “explored.” While the Proposed Determination describes EPA's basis for its 2014 preliminary determinations, EPA has not rendered a final determination on this matter. The Corps' conclusions are also preliminary, and EPA provided detailed comments on the Draft EIS and 404 PN on July 1, 2019 which raise issues for the Corps' consideration about some of the Corps' analyses and preliminary conclusions (including the examples discussed below). EPA's July 1, 2019 letters also make recommendations to provide significant additional information about key project components and plans and improve the environmental modeling and other aspects of the impact assessment.
In this decision, EPA is not seeking to resolve any conflicting preliminary conclusions of the Agencies or conclusively address the merits of the underlying technical issues. Rather, in withdrawing the Proposed Determination, EPA has considered the full record as it now stands, including the conflicting preliminary conclusions of the Agencies. EPA is providing a few examples of the divergent views expressed by the Agencies on some key questions that will ultimately need to be resolved. The examples are not an exhaustive list but are included to illustrate that the Agencies have expressed divergent views on important issues related to the impact of the proposed project.
For example, the DEIS states in a section regarding fish displacement and habitat loss that “there is sufficient available habitat for relocation without impacts to existing populations . . . [t]he extent or scope of these impacts would [be] limited to waters in the vicinity of the mine site footprint, and may not be observed downstream from the affected stream channel.” DEIS Section 4.24, page 4.24–8. However, EPA's 2014 Proposed Determination states that “[t]he elimination and dewatering of anadromous fish streams would also adversely affect downstream habitat for salmon and other fish species.” Proposed Determination 2014, 4–9 (citations omitted).
As another example, the Alaska District's DEIS preliminarily concluded in a section discussing impacts on coho and Chinook populations that:
[C]onsidering the low quality and low use of coho and Chinook rearing habitat, the lack of spawning in SFK east reaches impacted, and the low level of coho spawning in NFK Tributary 1.190, measurable impacts to salmon populations would be unlikely . . . modeling indicates that indirect impacts associated with mine operations would occur at the individual level, and be attenuated upstream of the confluence of the NFK and SFK with no measurable impacts to salmon populations.
The headwater and beaver-modified habitats eliminated or dewatered by the Pebble 0.25 stage mine could support [coho and Chinook] populations that are distinct from those using habitats farther downstream in each watershed. Besides destroying the intact, headwater-to-larger river networks of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds, stream losses that eliminate local, unique populations could translate into a substantial loss of genetic variability with impacts extending well beyond the footprints of the lost habitats. . . . Thus, loss of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds' discrete fish populations could have significant repercussions well beyond that suggested by their absolute proportion within the larger watersheds. . . . Thus, the elimination or dewatering of nearly 5 miles (8 km) of salmon streams caused or facilitated by the discharge of dredged or fill material for the Pebble 0.25 stage mine could reduce the overall productivity of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds for both species, at a level that the aquatic ecosystem may not be able to afford.
Given the need for any final EPA 404(c) decision to be based on the entire record, EPA has concluded that a Proposed Determination which in its current form does not account for the full record and does not grapple with differing conclusions, including those noted previously, cannot serve as a basis for such a decision. If in the future EPA decides to proceed under its 404(c) authority, a new proposed determination would be appropriate to ensure consideration by the Regional Administrator of the full record prior to making the required determination under 40 CFR 231.3(a) and ensure meaningful public engagement through the public comment period on any new proposed determination. As discussed below, EPA concludes that the proper avenue for considering the full available record and resolving technical issues, including conflicting information and conclusions, should be through the now available processes before any potential decision-making by EPA.
EPA is also withdrawing the 2014 Proposed Determination because it has determined that given the record developments, as well as the language and structure of the 404(c) regulations, as discussed previously, at this time, the appropriate sequencing is to resolve technical issues during the Corps' permitting process rather than through a separate 404(c) process initiated in 2014 that does not reflect the full record.
EPA is participating in the Corps' NEPA process as a cooperating agency for the preparation of the EIS pursuant to the Corps' invitation and schedule. In this role, EPA has provided significant technical comments to the Corps relating to impacts of the project. EPA has and will continue to work constructively with the Corps as a cooperating agency, providing special expertise in specific areas requested by the Corps, including: Alternatives; recreation; aesthetics and visual resources; soils; surface- and groundwater hydrology; water and sediment quality; wetlands and special aquatic sites; vegetation; and mitigation. EPA plans to continue to work with the Corps and the other cooperating agencies on the next steps in the NEPA process, including the development of the final EIS and other information to inform the Corps' permit decision.
In addition to supporting the Corps as a cooperating agency, EPA is evaluating the information relevant to the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and providing feedback to the Corps. EPA's July 1, 2019 comments on the 404 PN for Pebble's permit application stated that it “has concerns regarding the extent and magnitude of the substantial proposed impacts to streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources that may result, particularly in light of the
In its section 404 letter, EPA Region 10 also invoked the process to resolve these concerns pursuant to the 404(q) MOA. EPA's June 1, 2019 letter stated that “Region 10 finds that this project as described in the PN may have substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts on fisheries resources in the project area watersheds, which are aquatic resources of national importance.”
EPA recognizes that the Corps, through well-established processes of continued analysis and coordination with EPA, may resolve some of the issues raised by EPA's letter. In addition, EPA recognizes that it is incumbent on the Agency to reanalyze its prior position, which was based on hypothetical scenarios, now that there is actual, non-speculative information before EPA in the form of a section 404 permit application and associated information.
As such, EPA believes it is appropriate to defer to the Corps' decision-making process to sort out the information before deciding whether to initiate a section 404(c) process based on the full record before the agencies. This approach is appropriate in these circumstances in light of the record developments and EPA's regulations as described previously. Under the statute and regulations, the Corps is the lead agency for issuing permits under section 404(a). The Corps should have the first opportunity to consider project-specific information here without having to contend with a 404(c) proposal that does not account for all of the available information.
Moreover, when EPA is considering use of its authority under section 404(c), the Corps plays an important coordination and consultation role in the initial stages of EPA's decision-making, and that role may differ depending on whether or not there is a pending CWA 404 permit application. As discussed previously, the regulations provide that where there is a permit application pending, “it is anticipated” that the coordination process “will normally be exhausted prior to any final decision of whether to initiate a 404(c) proceeding.” The current coordination procedures between EPA and the Corps on individual permitting decisions is now memorialized in the 1992 404(q) MOA. The elevation procedures represent a longstanding, well-understood, and agreed-upon process that the agencies have utilized for more than two decades.
Importantly, EPA could not have initiated the 404(q) MOA process when EPA Region 10 started its section 404(c) process for the Pebble deposit area in 2014 or when EPA issued its February 2018 suspension notice. After the Corps noticed PLP's 404 permit application for public comment, EPA could and did initiate the section 404(q) MOA procedures. Now that the 404(q) MOA process is available to resolve issues, EPA has determined that it is most appropriate to use that process to resolve issues as the record develops before engaging in any possible future decision-making regarding its section 404(c) authority. By initiating the 404(q) MOA process, EPA Region 10 is following an avenue to work with the Corps Alaska District throughout the permitting process to resolve concerns. If unresolved, EPA Region 10 can elevate to EPA Headquarters, which can decide whether to engage with the Department of the Army. If EPA proceeds through this process and its concerns remain outstanding when the Corps is ready to issue the permit, the MOA specifically contemplates that EPA will have an opportunity to consider exercising its section 404(c) authority at that time. If EPA believes that these processes are not addressing its concerns, EPA retains the discretion and the authority to decide to use its section 404(c) authority “whenever” it determines, in its discretion, that the statutory standard for exercising this authority has been met, including at the end of 404(q) MOA process, by initiating a new section 404(c) process that is informed by the entirety of the facts and the Corps' decision-making known to the Agency at that time.
The Corps, in addition to the public, also plays an important role in identifying information or potential corrective actions to address EPA's unacceptable adverse effects finding. In particular, EPA's regulations provide a 15-day opportunity for the Corps to provide such information prior to the issuance of the proposed determination. Although the Corps participated in EPA's 2014 process prior to the issuance of the Proposed Determination, the nature of the Corps' engagement in this instance was somewhat limited because there was no permit application pending. Now that PLP submitted a permit application, the Corps is in a different position regarding its ability to provide information relating to corrective actions to prevent unacceptable adverse effects and that information should be accounted for in the Corps' permitting process as well as by EPA.
For these reasons, EPA has determined that it is most appropriate to participate in the 404 permitting processes to address concerns as the record develops rather than continue with a separate 404(c) action initiated in 2014. This approach will ensure that both agencies will be able to consider the full record and engage on issues consistent with their respective roles provided for under the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing regulations.
EPA's February 2018
As discussed previously, EPA's withdrawal action aligns with the third basis included in EPA's original July 2017 proposed withdrawal relating to the factual development of the record for PLP's permit application and EPA's ability, consistent with its settlement agreement, to exercise section 404(c) prior to any potential Corps authorization of discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit. EPA is focusing its responses on that issue and on comments that EPA explained that it was not addressing in its 2018 suspension notice.
EPA's February 28, 2018 notice indicated that “in light of EPA's forbearance from proceeding to the next step of the section 404(c) process . . ., EPA concludes that the factual record regarding the permit application can develop notwithstanding the Proposed Determination.” 83 FR 8670. Although that remains true, given the need for any final EPA 404(c) decision to be based on the entire record, EPA has concluded that a Proposed Determination which in its current form does not account for the full record and does not grapple with differing conclusions, including those noted previously, should not serve as a basis for such a decision.
In response to comments that EPA cannot withdraw a Proposed Determination without considering the
EPA's February 28, 2018 notice indicated that comments received on the Administrator's review “do not need to be addressed” because the Proposed Determination was not being withdrawn.
EPA has also determined that it is unnecessary to seek additional public comment as indicated by the February 2018
This decision provides clarity and certainty that EPA Region 10 will be working through the Corps' permitting process, including as a cooperating agency, and the 404(q) MOA process for engagement on this matter. This notice concludes EPA's withdrawal process that was initiated on July 19, 2017 and suspended on January 26, 2018. As Regional Administrator and after conferring with EPA's General Counsel, I am providing notice of withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed Determination described herein under 40 CFR 231.5(c)(1).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Responsible Appliance Disposal Program (EPA ICR Number 2254.03, OMB Control Number 2060–0703) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0358, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats,
Sally Hamlin, Stratospheric protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (mail code 6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9711; fax number: (202) 343–2362; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (EPA ICR Number 2115.07, OMB Control Number 2060–0535), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0701, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is submitting an information collection request (ICR), Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (EPA ICR Number 1656.16, OMB Control Number 2050–0144) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0052, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Wendy Hoffman, Office of Emergency Management, mail code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–8794; fax number: (202) 564–2625; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The burden to sources that are currently covered by 40 CFR part 68 for initial rule compliance, including rule familiarization and program implementation, was accounted for in previous ICRs. The term “source” refers to a “stationary source,” which is the Clean Air Act term for facility. This information collection covers sources submitting an RMP update to comply with its five-year compliance deadline within this ICR period, sources that revised and resubmitted their RMPs between the five-year deadlines because of changes occurring at the source that triggered an earlier resubmission, and sources that have been assigned a different deadline in 2020, 2021 or 2022 based on the date of their most recent submission. In addition, this ICR accounts for burden for new sources that may become subject to the regulations, sources that have been out of compliance since the last regulatory deadline but are expected to comply during this ICR period, and sources that have deadlines beyond this ICR period but are required to comply with certain prevention program documentation requirements during this ICR period.
There are two primary reasons for this increase in burden. First, this ICR period includes a larger number of RMPs reported than the previous ICR period. Second, the burden varies from ICR to ICR due to different resubmission deadlines based on the sources' RMP re-submission deadlines and other regulatory deadlines. Therefore, the burden changes each year depending on how many sources are required to submit their RMP and comply with certain prevention program requirements. The number of sources subject to the regulations fluctuates regularly and is lower in this ICR than the previous ICR. However, any decrease in burden caused by the lower number of sources is offset by the increased burden from the major RMP reporting year.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), EPA Worker Protection Standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (EPA ICR Number 1426.12, OMB Control Number 2050–0105) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0007, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Sella M. Burchette, U.S. Environmental Response Team, MS 101, Building 205, Edison, NJ 08837, telephone number: 732–321–6726; fax number: 732–321–6724; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted the portions specific to Battle Area Complex Restricted Area R–2201 and the Expand Restricted Area R–2205, including the Digital Multi-Purpose Training Range, of the Departments of Army and the Air Force's Final EIS No. 20130181, filed 06/28/2013 with the EPA. FAA was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures (EPA ICR Number 1360.17 and OMB Control Number 2050–0068) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0368 to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Elizabeth McDermott, Office of
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The data collected for new and existing UST system operations and financial requirements are used by owners and operators and/or EPA or the implementing agency to monitor results of testing, inspections, and operation of UST systems, as well as to demonstrate compliance with regulations. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that UST systems are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
EPA uses state program applications to determine whether to approve a state program. Before granting approval, EPA must determine that programs will be no less stringent than the federal program and contain adequate enforcement mechanisms.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol or EPA Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR) for Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules (EPA ICR No. 1896.11, OMB Control No. 2040–0204) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0442, to (1) EPA online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kevin Roland, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–4588: fax number: 202–564–3755; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Emission Guidelines for Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (EPA ICR Number 1927.08, OMB Control Number 2060–0451), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0685, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In general, all emission guidelines standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to the emission guidelines.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the FCC announces and provides an agenda for the next meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC).
September 19, 2019. The meeting will come to order at 9:30 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room TW–C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Justin L. Faulb, Designated Federal Authority (DFO) of the BDAC, at
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The FCC will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the internet from the FCC's web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The agency must receive comments on or before October 29, 2019.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, 202–418–2054.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: GOIS BROADCASTING BOSTON LLC; WLLH(AM), Fac. ID No. 24971, Channel 1400 kHz, To LAWRENCE, MA, From LOWELL, MA, File No. BP–20190620AAC; HOUR GROUP BROADCASTING, INC., WLTG(AM), Fac. ID No. 27694, Channel 1430 kHz, To UPPER GRAND LAGOON, FL, From PANAMA CITY, FL, File No. BP–20190613AAF; HANCOCK COUNTY BROADCASTING, LLC, WCAZ(AM), Fac. ID No. 60017, Channel 1510 kHz, To CARTHAGE, IL, From MACOMB, IL, File No. BP–20190705AAE; SOLID ROCK FOUNDATION, KBDW(FM), Fac. ID No. 176883, Channel 219A, To STINNETT, TX, From LEFORS, TX, File No. BPED–20190617AAH; POINT FIVE LLC, KWIE(FM), Fac. ID No. 191522, Channel 267A, To HINKLEY, CA, From BARSTOW, CA, File No. BPH–20190701AAZ; ROUTE 66 MEDIA, LLC, KHNZ(FM), Fac. ID No. 198807, Channel 267A, To LEFORS, TX, From MEMPHIS, TX, File No. BPH–20190617AAJ; MEKADDESH GROUP CORPORATION, NEW(FM), Fac. ID No. 198750, Channel 286C2, To RANKIN, TX, From SANDERSON, TX, File No. BMPH–20190725AAY; and ENTRAVISION HOLDINGS, LLC, KVVA–FM, Fac. ID No. 1331, Channel 296C3, To SUN LAKES, AZ, From APACHE JUNCTION, AZ, File No. BPH–20190723AAO. The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 1, 2019.
1.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 250 people. The public is also welcome to view the meeting by webcast. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for the webcast link
The meeting will be held on November 6, 2019, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST and November 7, 2019, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.
CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, Atlanta, Georgia 30329–4027 and via webcast at
Nancy Anderson, MMSc, MT(ASCP), Senior Advisor for Clinical Laboratories, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop V24–3, Atlanta, Georgia 30329–4027, telephone (404) 498–2741;
All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least five business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 15 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at:
It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments on agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item. At this meeting, CLIAC is specifically soliciting public comments to address the questions below. Information provided via public comments will not be considered advice directly addressed to HHS. Rather, it will be used by CLIAC to inform their deliberations and recommendations to HHS and to help focus a CLIAC workgroup that will be convened in response to an April 2019 CLIAC recommendation that such a workgroup be charged with providing input to CLIAC in advising how CLIA might be updated.
1. Are bioinformaticists needed in clinical and public health laboratories? If so, what are the current roles, responsibilities, and competencies of bioinformaticists in these settings?
2. What areas exist in CLIA where specific requirements or guidance might be needed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of new and emerging
3. What data are available that could assist in answering how CLIA may need to be revised or where guidance may be needed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of emerging technologies?
In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated). To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least five business days prior to the meeting date. For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting or that wish to provide data in response to the questions above, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least five business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution. Written comments should be provided to the contact person at the mailing or email address below and will be included in the meeting's Summary Report.
The CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC website on the day of the meeting for materials:
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by room seating. The meeting room accommodates 216 for public seating. Room 245, adjacent to the meeting room, will be available once the meeting room reaches capacity, providing up to 18 additional seats. Time will be available for public comment. The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for meeting registration and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP website:
The meeting will be held on October 23, 2019 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT, and October 24, 2019 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT.
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC–2019–0073 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE Atlanta, GA 30329–4027; Telephone: 404–639–8367; Email:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled time, CDC will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for each scheduled public comment session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email by October 16, 2019. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes, and each speaker may only speak once per meeting.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). This meeting is open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the audio conference (information below). The audio conference line has 150 ports for callers.
The meeting will be held on October 16, 2019, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., EDT.
Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1–866–659–0537; the pass code is 9933701.
Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E–20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329–4027, Telephone (513) 533–6800, Toll Free 1(800) CDC–INFO, Email
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92–463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
This notice solicits comments on the Proposed Revision for the information collection requirements related to State Program Report.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by October 29, 2019.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Susan Jenkins, Director, Office of Performance and Evaluation Administration for Community, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: (202) 795–7369, Email:
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The PRA requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
ACL is requesting approval from OMB to continue collecting data after expiration on 12/31/2019. This is a revision request to the 2016 approved version of the Reporting Requirements for Title III and VII State Program Report Definitions. The currently approved version of the State Program Report (SPR) includes language intended for usage in FY 2023. Since these data elements are not required for usage until FY 2023, under the Paperwork Reduction Act ACL is required to update the information collection (IC) to contain only the language and requirements for collection years 2020–2023. Removing the proposed FY 2023 language from the currently approved SPR causes a revision to OMB 0985–0008. ACL intends to seek OMB approval under a new OMB control number for the FY 2023–2026 data elements allowing usage of 0985–0008
The Older Americans Act (OAA) requires annual program performance reports from States, the District of Columbia, and Territories. In compliance with this OAA provision, ACL developed a SPR in 1996 as part of its National Aging Program Information System (NAPIS). The SPR collects information about how State Agencies on Aging expend their OAA funds as well as funding from other sources for OAA authorized supportive services. The SPR also collects information on the demographic and functional status of the recipients, and is a key source for ACL performance measurement. The information submitted by Title III grantees is AoA's principle source for data and information on programs and services funded under the Older Americans Act (OAA). The SPR serves as the Program Performance Report for the state grantees to meet their annual grantee reporting requirements and includes the data required by the OAA be reported in the AoA Annual Report to Congress. This IC is summary data of services for seniors provided or managed by State Units on Aging (SUA) and Area Agencies on Aging (AAA). Data is submitted annually by the 50 states, four Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands), and Washington, DC. The SPR includes information on the number of people served, the number of units of specific services, Title III expenditures, total expenditures, number of state and local staff, number of providers, and major accomplishments.
Data from the SPR are the primary source for performance measures in the Congressional budget justification, the HHS Annual Performance Plan and Report as well as the Annual Report to Congress.
AoA also uses the data to respond to inquiries from stakeholders, the public, press, program and policy decision makers. Information from the most recent SPR is available on-line on the Aging Integrated Database (AGID). Results are available annually.
The proposed FY 2020 version posts on the ACL website link entitled
For review and comment on this proposed information collection request, please visit the ACL website
ACL estimates the burden associated with this collection of information as follows: 2,750 annual burden hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Pediatric Rare Diseases—A Collaborative Approach for Drug Development Using Gaucher Disease as a Model; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9115.
In the
On page 57759, in the first column, in the document heading and in the third column under
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for NERLYNX and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product NERLYNX (neratinib), which is indicated for extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer, to follow adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for NERLYNX (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,399,865 and 9,211,291) from Puma Biotechnology, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 5, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of NERLYNX represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for NERLYNX is 5,102 days. Of this time, 4,738 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 364 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 472 days or 1,826 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Consideration of Uncertainty in Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals, De Novo Classifications, and Humanitarian Device Exemptions.” This guidance document describes FDA's current approach to considering uncertainty in making benefit-risk determinations to support certain FDA premarket decisions for medical devices—premarket approval applications (PMAs), De Novo requests, and humanitarian device exemption applications. This guidance document elaborates on the consideration of uncertainty as part of our overarching approach to a benefit-risk based framework that is intended to assure greater predictability, consistency, and efficiency through the application of least burdensome principles. This guidance also provides examples of how the principles for considering uncertainty could be applied in the context of clinical evidence and circumstances where greater uncertainty could be appropriate in premarket decisions, balanced by postmarket controls—PMAs for Breakthrough Devices and PMAs for devices for small patient populations.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Sonja Fulmer, Office of Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5451, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–5979.
The 1976 Medical Device Amendments (Pub. L. 94–295) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) established a risk-based framework for the regulation of medical devices. The law established a three-tiered risk classification system based on the risk posed to patients should the device fail to perform as intended. Under this system, devices that pose greater risks to patients are subject to more regulatory controls and requirements. Generally, for any regulatory decision, there exists some uncertainty around benefits and risks. The Agency generally provides marketing authorization for a device when it meets the applicable standards, including that its benefits outweigh its risks.
In 2015, following pilots conducted over 4 years, FDA established the Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) Program as a voluntary program for certain medical devices that address an unmet need in the treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. Under this program, an eligible device subject to a PMA could be approved with greater uncertainty about the product's benefits and risks, provided that, among other requirements, the data still support a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, including that the probable benefits of the device outweigh its risks for a patient population with unmet medical needs. For devices subject to PMA, the Agency has the authority to impose, when warranted, postmarket requirements, including post-approval studies and postmarket surveillance, as a condition of approval, which could be used to address this greater uncertainty.
This guidance provides further information on how FDA considers uncertainty in benefit-risk determinations for PMAs, De Novo requests, and Humanitarian Device Exemption applications. FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Consideration of Uncertainty in Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals, De Novo Classifications, and Humanitarian Device Exemptions. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidance have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for voting members to serve on the Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (DGMPAC) and the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC) device panels in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. This annual notice is also in accordance with the 21st Century Cures Act, which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to provide an annual opportunity for patients, representatives of patients, and sponsors of medical devices that may be specifically the subject of a review by a classification panel to provide recommendations for individuals with appropriate expertise to fill voting member positions on classification panels.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees, and therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Nominations received on or before October 29, 2019 will be given first consideration for membership on the DGMPAC and Panels of the MDAC. Nominations received after October 29, 2019 will be considered for nomination to the committee as later vacancies occur.
All nominations for membership should be submitted electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal:
Regarding all nomination questions for membership, contact the following persons listed in table 1:
FDA is requesting nominations for voting members for vacancies listed in table 2:
The DGMPAC reviews regulations proposed for promulgation regarding good manufacturing practices governing the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, packing, storage and installation of devices, and makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding the feasibility and reasonableness of those proposed regulations. The DGMPAC also advises the Commissioner on any petition submitted by a manufacturer for an exemption or variance from good manufacturing practice regulations that is referred to the committee.
The MDAC reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in many activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, performs the following duties: (1) Advises the Commissioner regarding recommended classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories, (2) advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices, (3) advises on formulation of product development protocols, (4) reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices, (5) reviews guidelines and guidance documents, (6) recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act, (7) advises on the necessity to ban a device, and (8) responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.
The Dental Products Panel also functions at times as a dental drug panel. The functions of the dental drug panel are to evaluate and recommend whether various prescription drug products should be changed to over-the-counter status and to evaluate data and make recommendations concerning the approval of new dental drug products for human use.
The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.
The DGMPAC consists of a core of nine members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Secretary. Persons nominated for membership as a health professional or officer or employee of any Federal, State, or local government should have knowledge of or expertise in any one or more of the following areas: Quality assurance concerning the design, manufacture, and use of medical devices in accordance with 21 CFR part 820 and/or ISO 13485. To be eligible for selection as a representative of the general public, nominees should possess appropriate qualifications to understand and contribute to the DGMPAC's work. Three of the members shall be officers or employees of any State or local government or of the Federal Government; two shall be representative of the interests of the device manufacturing industry; two shall be representatives of the interests of physicians and other health professionals; and two shall be representatives of the interests of the general public. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. Members are invited to serve for overlapping terms of 4 years. The current needs for the DGMPAC are listed in table 2.
The MDAC with its 18 panels shall consist of a maximum of 159 standing members. Members are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities in clinical and administrative medicine, engineering, biological and physical sciences, and other related professions. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. A maximum of 122 members shall be standing voting members and 37 shall be nonvoting members who serve as representatives of consumer interests and of industry interests. FDA is publishing separate documents announcing the Request for Nominations Notification for Non-Voting Representatives on certain panels of the MDAC. Persons nominated for membership on the panels should have adequately diversified experience appropriate to the work of the panel in such fields as clinical and administrative medicine, engineering, biological and physical sciences, statistics, and other related professions. The nature of specialized training and experience necessary to qualify the nominee as an expert suitable for appointment may include experience in medical practice, teaching, and/or research relevant to the field of activity of the panel. The current needs for each panel are listed in table 2. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up to 4 years.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on one or more of the advisory panels or advisory committees. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address, telephone number, and email address if available, and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for MACI and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product MACI (autologous cellularized scaffold). MACI is indicated for the repair of symptomatic, single or multiple full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee with or without bone involvement in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for MACI (U.S. Patent No. 8,029,992) from Vericel Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 19, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of MACI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MACI is 345 days. Of this time, 0 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 345 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for BEVYXXA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 29, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product BEVYXXA (betrixaban maleate), which is indicated for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness who are at risk for thromboembolic complications due to moderate or severe restricted mobility and other risk factors for VTE. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for BEVYXXA (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,376,515; 6,835,739; 7,598,276; and 8,518,977) from Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 5, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BEVYXXA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BEVYXXA is 4,244 days. Of this time, 4,001 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 243 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 821 days, 1,531 days, or 5 years of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; reopening of submission period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the submission period for the notice entitled “Modernizing Pharmaceutical Quality Systems; Studying Quality Metrics and Quality Culture; Quality Metrics Feedback Program” that published in the
FDA is reopening the submission period for the notice published on June 29, 2018 (83 FR 30748). Submit written
Tara Gooen Bizjak, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 6649, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–3257,
In the
To be considered for the program, a company should submit a statement of interest for participation to
Part A (Office of the Secretary), Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Chapter AE, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), as last amended at 76 FR 59399 on September 26, 2011. This notice better aligns office titles with program activities, consolidates key functions and clearly delineates ASPE's portfolio within three of its five components; Science and Data Policy (AEJ), Human Service Policy (AES), and Disability, Aging, and Long-Term Care Policy (AEW):
I. Under Section AE.20 Functions, delete the following sections in their entirety.
II. Under Section AE.20 Functions, insert the following sections:
A. The Division of Evidence, Evaluation, and Data Policy (AEJ1) is responsible for evidence and evaluation based policy activities in addition to data and information privacy policy, health information technology and interoperability and data standards; and convenes the Evaluation and Evidence Council to work with stakeholders to implement statutory evidence-building plan requirements.
B. The Division of Science and Public Health Policy (AEJ2) is responsible for supporting Health and Human Services science and public health agencies in areas related to policy coordination, long-range planning, legislative development, economic, program, and regulatory analysis.
C. The Division of Strategic Planning (AEJ3) is responsible for enterprise-wide reporting, implementation, and development of strategic plans related to critical health, public health, and human services programs.
D. The Division of Family and Community Policy (AES1) is responsible for human services policy and programs to improve the wellbeing and economic status of families and communities including economic mobility; social capital; program alignment and coordination at the federal, state, and local levels refugee resettlement; fatherhood; marriage; domestic violence issues; and promoting self-sufficiency and employment including the TANF and Child Support programs.
The Division of Children and Youth Policy (AES2) is responsible for promoting healthy development of children and youth including strategic coordination of national youth policy and positive youth development, child welfare and child protection, and child care and early childhood education.
The Division of Data and Technical Analysis (AES3) is responsible for providing data analytic capacity for policy development and program improvement on cross-cutting human services policy through data analysis, modeling, cost and impact analyses, and the enhancement of national, state, and local data sources for analyzing and managing issues. The division also is responsible for the annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines, and also maintains cognizance of data collection activities of the Federal statistical system and coordinates with the Office of Science and Data Policy (AEJ), as appropriate.
E. The Office of Behavioral Health, Disability, and Aging Policy (AEW) is responsible for the development, coordination, research and evaluation of HHS policies and programs that support the independence, productivity, health and wellbeing of children, working age adults, and older adults with mental health and substance use disorders (
The Division of Disability and Aging Policy (AEW1) is responsible for the policy development, coordination, research and evaluation of federal policies and programs that aim to address the needs of people with disabilities and older Americans. Areas of focus include the interaction between the health, disability, and economic well-being of persons of all ages with disabilities including the prevalence of disability and disabling conditions; describing the socio-demographic characteristics of relevant populations; determining service use, income, employment, and program participation patterns; and coordinating the development of disability and aging data and related policy.
F. The Division of Long-Term Services and Supports Policy (AEW3) is responsible for policy development and analysis related to disability, aging, and long-term services and supports components of Medicare, Medicaid, nursing facility services, community residential, personal, and home and health rehabilitation, and the integration of acute and post-acute care services, including for individuals dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
G. The Division of Behavioral Health Policy (AEW4) is responsible for the analysis, coordination, and research and evaluation of policies related to behavioral, mental, and substance use disorders. The division is the focal point for policy development and analysis related to the financing, access/delivery, organization, and quality of services for people with behavioral, mental, and substance use disorders, including those supported or financed by Medicaid, Medicare, and SAMHSA.
III. Delegations of Authority: All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational
44 U.S.C. 3101.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The HHS Office of the Secretary is hosting the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) Public Meeting in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2019. The purpose of the meeting is to gather information to develop expert advice provided by NBSB and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to HHS regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate.
The NBSB Public Meeting is being held on September 11, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Please visit the NBSB website (
CAPT Christopher Perdue, MD, MPH, Designated Federal Official, NBSB, ASPR, HHS; 202–401–5837;
Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act, HHS has established the NBSB to provide expert advice and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to HHS regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Robert M. Lembo, MD, Office of Clinical Research Training and Medical Education, NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Room 1N252C, Bethesda, MD 20892–1158, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496–2636, or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours 478.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the internet at
Charles LoDico, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N02C, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240–276–2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100–71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625–0049, Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG); without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before September 30, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2019–0353] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG–2019–0353], and must be received by September 30, 2019.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 27341, June 12, 2019) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comment. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625–0063, Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards for Benzene; without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before September 30, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2019–0354] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG–2019–0354], and must be received by September 30, 2019.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 27342, June 12, 2019) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comment. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625–0126, Requirements for Vessels that Perform Certain Aquaculture Support Operations; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before September 30, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2019–0352] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG–2019–0352], and must be received by September 30, 2019.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 27343, June 12, 2019) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than October 29, 2019) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651–0093 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, Telephone number 202–325–0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
When entry is made in a consignee's name by an agent who does not meet the qualifications in 19 CFR 141.19(b)(2), meaning that the agent does not have knowledge of the facts and/or is not authorized under a proper power of attorney by that consignee, a declaration from the consignee on CBP Form 3347A,
CBP Forms 3347 and 3347A are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1485 and are accessible at
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in Hidalgo County, Texas and Starr County, Texas.
This determination takes effect on August 30, 2019.
Important missions of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has mandated DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109–367, § 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104–208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C § 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109–13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109–367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol's (Border Patrol) Rio Grande Valley Sector is an area of high illegal entry. In fiscal year 2018 alone, the Border Patrol apprehended over 162,000 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States
Owing to the high levels of illegal entry within the Rio Grande Valley Sector, I must use my authority under section 102 of IIRIRA to install additional physical barriers and roads in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct barriers and roads. The areas in the vicinity of the border within which such construction will occur are more specifically described in Section 2 below. Such areas are not located within any of the areas identified in sections 231 and 232(c) of title II of division A of the Fiscal Year 2019 DHS Appropriations Act.
I determine that the following areas in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the State of Texas within the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, are areas of high illegal entry (the “project areas”):
• Starting approximately one-quarter (0.25) of a mile northwest of the intersection of South Conway Street (also known as La Lomita Boulevard) and the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee and extending southeast along the IBWC levee to the northwest boundary of the La Lomita Historical Park, which is also the intersection of East Chimney Road and the IBWC levee.
• Starting at the southeast boundary of the La Lomita Historical Park and extending southeast along the levee to the point where the levee ends at South Depot Road.
• Starting at a point that is approximately six hundred and twenty (620) feet northwest of the intersection of South Depot Road and State Highway 115, and extending south along the levee for approximately one (1) mile.
• Starting at a point on the IBWC levee that is approximately one-quarter (0.25) of a mile south and west of the point at which South 15th Street ends near Carlson Lake, and then extending east along the northern shore of Carlson Lake and continuing east along Doffin Canal Road to the western boundary of the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.
• Starting at the eastern boundary of the La Coma Tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and extending west along the IBWC levee for approximately one-tenth (0.10) of a mile.
• Starting outside the city limits of Rio Grande City, Texas, at a point approximately two hundred and fifteen (215) feet southeast of the location where the international bridge at the Rio Grande City port of entry begins to cross the Rio Grande River and extending south and east along the Rio Grande River for approximately sixth-tenths (0.60) of a mile.
• Starting outside the city limits of La Grulla, Texas, at a point approximately three hundred and forty (340) feet northwest of the intersection of Mission Street and West Private Lazaro Solis Street and extending northwest for approximately one (1) mile.
• Starting outside the city limits of La Grulla, Texas, at a point approximately two-tenths (0.20) of a mile southeast of the intersection of East Private Lazaro Solis Street and El Sol Drive and extending east for approximately two and four-tenth (2.40) miles.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas pursuant to sections 102(a) and 102(b) of IIRIRA. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads in the project areas, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project areas, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project areas, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede the previous waivers published in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and Response to Public Comments on the June 5, 2019
Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA), as amended by the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA), requires the Secretary to publish FMRs not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. This notice describes the methods used to calculate the FY 2020 FMRs and enumerates the procedures for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and other interested parties to request reevaluations of their FMRs as required by HOTMA. This notice also discusses the comments received on the Notice of Proposed Changes to the Methodology Used for Estimating Fair Market Rents (84 FR 26141).
HUD invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the FMRs and to request reevaluation of the FY 2020 FMRs to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0001. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments/Request for Reevaluation” section. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments or requests for reevaluation may be submitted by mail to 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 all federal agencies, however, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments or reevaluation requests, HUD recommends that comments or requests submitted by mail be submitted at least two weeks in advance of the deadline. HUD will make all comments or reevaluation requests received by mail available to the public at
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments or reevaluation requests electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
No Facsimile Comments or Reevaluation Requests. Facsimile (FAX) comments or requests for FMR reevaluation are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments and Reevaluation Requests. All properly submitted comments and reevaluation requests and communications regarding this notice submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments and reevaluation requests must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339 (toll-free number). Copies of all comments and reevaluation requests submitted are available for inspection and downloading at
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800–245–2691 or access the information on the HUD USER website
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn of the Program Parameters and Research Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research at HUD headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8208, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2409 (this is not a toll-free number), or they may be reached at
Electronic Data Availability. This
Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to aid lower-income families in renting safe and decent housing. Housing assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for different geographic areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for an assisted family. See 24 CFR 982.503. HUD also uses the FMRs to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, initial rents for housing assistance payment contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program, rent ceilings for rental units in both the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Emergency Solution Grants program, calculation of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care recipients and the maximum amount of rent a recipient may pay for property leased with Continuum of Care funds, and calculation of flat rents in Public Housing units. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities and is typically set at the 40th percentile of the distribution of gross rents. HUD's FMR calculations represent HUD's best effort to estimate the 40th percentile gross rent paid by recent movers into standard quality units in each FMR area. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet reasonable rent standards.
On November 16, 2016 (81 FR 80567), HUD published a Final Rule entitled “Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs” (Small Area FMR final rule), with an effective date of
The FMRs values published in Schedule B will be 40th percentile values for FY 2020 for the Bergen-Passaic, NJ HUD Metro FMR Area, San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA, and Spokane, WA HUD Metro FMR Area.
Section 8(c)(1) of the USHA, as amended by HOTMA (Pub. L. 114–201, approved July 29, 2016), requires the Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs not less than annually. Section 8(c)(1)(A) states that each FMR “shall be adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most recent available data trended so the rentals will be current for the year to which they apply. . .” Section 8(c)(1)(B) requires that HUD publish, not less than annually, new FMRs on the World Wide Web or in any other manner specified by the Secretary, and that HUD must also notify the public of when it publishes FMRs by
This section provides a brief overview of how HUD computes the FY 2020 FMRs. HUD is making changes to the estimation methodology for FMRs as discussed in the June 5, 2019
In conjunction with the use of 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data, HUD has implemented the following geography changes: Bedford City, VA is no longer an incorporated city in the Lynchburg, VA MSA, so it is not listed separately in either the Schedule B table or the EXCEL data files; it continues to receive the FMR for Lynchburg, VA MSA.
For FY 2020 FMRs, HUD uses the U.S. Census Bureau's 5-year ACS data collected between 2013 and 2017 (released in December of 2018) as the base rents for the FMR calculations. HUD pairs a “margin of error” test
For areas in which the 5-year ACS data for two-bedroom, standard quality gross rents do not pass the statistical reliability tests (
HUD has updated base rents each year based on new 5-year data since FY 2012, for which HUD used 2005–2009 ACS data. HUD is also updating base rents for Puerto Rico FMRs using data collected between 2013 and 2017 through the Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS); HUD first updated the Puerto Rico base rents in FY 2014 based on 2007–2011 PRCS data collected through the ACS program.
HUD historically based FMRs on gross rents for recent movers (those who have moved into their current residence in the last 24 months) measured directly. However, due to the way Census constructs the 5-year ACS data, HUD developed a new method for calculating recent-mover FMRs in FY 2012, which HUD continues to use in FY 2020: HUD assigns all areas a base rent, which is the two-bedroom standard quality 5-year gross rent estimate from the ACS; then, because HUD's regulations mandate that FMRs must be published as recent mover gross rents, HUD applies a recent mover factor to the base rents assigned from the 5-year ACS data.
Following the assignment of the standard quality two-bedroom rent described above, HUD applies a recent
The calculation of the recent mover factor for FY 2020 continues to use statistical reliability requirements that are similar to those for base rents. That is, for a recent mover gross rent estimate to be considered statistically reliable, the estimate must have a margin of error ratio that is less than 50 percent, and the estimate must be based on 100 or more observations.
When an FMR area does not have statistically reliable two-bedroom recent mover data, the “all-bedroom”
However, where statistically reliable “all-bedroom” data is not available, HUD will continue to base FMR areas' recent mover factors on larger geographic areas, following the same procedures used historically: HUD tests data from differently sized geographic areas in the following order (from small to large), and bases the recent mover factor on the first statistically reliable recent mover rent estimate in the geographic hierarchy listed below.
• For metropolitan areas that are subareas of larger metropolitan areas, the order is the FMR area, metropolitan area, aggregated metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
• For metropolitan areas that are not divided, the order is the FMR area, aggregated metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
• In non-metropolitan areas, the order is the FMR area, aggregated non-metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
The process for calculating each area's recent mover factor is detailed in the FY 2020 FMR documentation system available at:
HUD calculated base rents for the insular areas using the 2010 decennial census of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands beginning with the FY 2016 FMRs.
HUD does not use ACS data to establish the base rent or recent mover factor for 19 areas where the FY 2020 FMR was adjusted based on survey data:
• Survey data from 2017 is used to adjust the FMRs for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HMFA; Hood River County, OR; Wasco County, OR; Hawaii County, HI; Jonesboro, AR HMFA; Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA MSA; and Urban Honolulu, HI MSA.
• Survey data from 2018 is used to adjust the FMR for Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA; Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR–WA; Burlington-South Burlington, VT; Coos County, OR; Curry County, OR; Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; San Francisco, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA–NH HUD Metro FMR Area; Douglas County, OR; and San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA.
• Survey data from 2019 is used to adjust the FMRs for Kauai County, HI.
For larger metropolitan areas that have valid ACS one-year recent mover data, survey data may not be any older than the midpoint of the calendar year for the ACS one-year data. Since the ACS one-year data used for the FY 2020 FMRs is from 2017, larger areas may not use survey data collected before June 30, 2017 for the FY 2020 FMRs. Smaller areas without 1-year ACS data, may continue to use local survey data until the mid-point of the 5-year ACS data is more recent than the local survey.
HUD updates the ACS-based “as of” 2017 rent through the end of 2018 using the annual change in gross rents measured through the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2017 to 2018 (CPI update factor). As in previous years, HUD uses local CPI data coupled with Consumer Expenditure Survey data for FMR areas within Class A metropolitan areas covered by local CPI data. In 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the area definitions of its Class A metropolitan areas from the 1990 definition of Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSA) to smaller CBSA-based MSAs. In addition, BLS eliminated some areas from this Class A collection: Pittsburgh, PA MSA; Cleveland-Elyria, OH MSA; Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN MSA; Kansas City, MO–KS MSA; Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA; and Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR–WA MSA. HUD will estimate these areas' FMRs using regional CPI beginning with the FY 2020 FMRs. HUD uses CPI data aggregated at the Census region level for all Class B and C size metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Additionally, HUD uses CPI data collected locally in Puerto Rico as the basis for CPI adjustments from 2017 to 2018 for all Puerto Rico FMR areas.
Following the application of the appropriate CPI update factor, HUD trends the gross rent estimate from 2018 to FY 2020 using local and regional forecasts of the CPI gross rent data as proposed in the June 5, 2019
HUD updates the bedroom ratios used in the calculation of FMRs annually. The bedroom ratios which HUD used in the calculation of FY 2020 FMRs have been updated using average data from three five-year ACS data series (2011–2015, 2012–2016, and 2013–2017). The bedroom ratio methodology used in this update is unchanged from previous calculations using 2000 Census data. HUD only uses estimates with a margin of error ratio of less than 50 percent. If an area does not have reliable estimates in at least two of the previous three ACS releases, bedroom ratios for the area's larger parent geography are used.
HUD uses two-bedroom units for its primary calculation of FMR estimates. This is generally the most common size of rental unit and, therefore, the most reliable to survey and analyze. After estimating two-bedroom FMRs, HUD calculates bedroom ratios for each FMR area which relate the prices of smaller and larger units to the cost of two-bedroom units. To prevent illogical results in particular FMR areas, HUD establishes bedroom interval ranges which set upper and lower limits for bedroom ratios nationwide, based on an analysis of the range of such intervals for all areas with large enough samples to permit accurate bedroom ratio determinations.
In the calculation of FY 2020 FMR estimates, HUD set the bedroom interval ranges as follows: Efficiency FMRs are constrained to fall between 0.65 and 0.85 of the two-bedroom FMR; one-bedroom FMRs must be between 0.76 and 0.88 of the two-bedroom FMR; three-bedroom FMRs (prior to the adjustments described below) must be between 1.15 and 1.33 of the two-bedroom FMR; and four-bedroom FMRs (again, prior to adjustment) must be between 1.26 and 1.63 of the two-bedroom FMR. Given that these interval ranges partially overlap across unit bedroom counts, HUD further adjusts bedroom ratios for a given FMR area, if necessary, to ensure that higher bedroom-count units have higher rents than lower bedroom-count units within that area. The bedroom ratios for Puerto Rico follow these constraints.
HUD also further adjusts the rents for three-bedroom and larger units to reflect HUD's policy to set higher rents for these units.
HUD derives FMRs for units with more than four bedrooms by adding 15 percent to the four-bedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four-bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four-bedroom FMR. Similarly, HUD derives FMRs for single-room occupancy units by subtracting 25 percent from the zero-bedroom FMR (
Within the Small Area FMR final rule published on November 16, 2016, HUD amended 24 CFR 888.113 to include a limit on the amount that FMRs may annually decrease. The current year's FMRs resulting from the application of the bedroom ratios, as discussed in section (E) above, may be no less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs for units with the same number of bedrooms. Accordingly, if the current year's FMRs are less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs as calculated by the above methodology, HUD sets the current year's FMRs equal to 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs. For areas where use of Small Area FMRs in the administration of their voucher programs is required, the FY 2020 Small Area FMRs may be no less than 90 percent of the FY 2019 Small Area FMRs. For all other metropolitan areas, for which Small Area FMRs are calculated so that they may be used for other allowable purposes if desired (
All FMRs are subject to a state or national minimum. HUD calculates a population-weighted median two-bedroom 40th percentile rent across all non-metropolitan portions of each state, which, for the purposes of FMRs, is the state minimum rent. State-minimum rents for each FMR area are available in the FY 2020 FMR Documentation System, available at
As in prior years, Small Area FMRs are subject to a maximum limit. HUD limits each two-bedroom Small Area FMR to be no more than 150 percent of the two-bedroom FMR for the metropolitan area where the ZIP code is located.
HOTMA changed the manner in which vouchers are used to subsidize manufactured home units. Please see HUD's Notice from January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5458) for more detailed information concerning the use of vouchers for manufactured home units. Due to the nature of these changes, HUD will no longer be publishing exception rents for Manufactured Home Space pad rents.
PHAs operating the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program in the 24 metropolitan areas identified in the November 16, 2016
In the FY 2018 FMR
For ZCTAs without usable gross rent data by bedroom size, HUD will continue to calculate Small Area FMRs using the rent ratio method similar to that HUD has used in past Small Area FMR calculations. To calculate Small Area FMRs using a rent ratio, HUD divides the median gross rent across all bedrooms for the small area (a ZIP code) by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan area of the ZIP code. If a ZCTA does not have reliable rent data at the all bedroom level, HUD will then check to see if the ZCTA is bordered by ZCTAs that themselves have reliable rent data. If at least half of a ZCTA's “neighbors” have such data, the weighted average of those estimates will be used as the basis for the SAFMR rather than a county proxy, where the weight is the length of the shared boundary between the ZCTA and its neighbor. This is a new step, as proposed in the
HUD continues to use a rolling average of ACS data in calculating the Small Area FMR rent ratios. HUD believes coupling the most current data with previous year's data minimizes excessive year-to-year variability in Small Area FMR rent ratios due to sampling variance. Therefore, for FY 2020 Small Area FMRs, HUD has updated the rent ratios to use an average of the rent ratios calculated from the 2011–2015, 2012–2016, and 2013–2017 5-year ACS estimates.
In the next Section, HUD will respond to the comments on its proposed methodology changes, which have been incorporated in the use of more local trend factors and use of more local data for the Small Area FMRs. HUD will continue to accept public comments on the methods HUD uses to calculate FY 2020 FMRs, including Small Area FMRs, and the FMR levels for specific areas. Due to its current funding levels, HUD does not have sufficient resources to conduct local surveys of rents to address comments filed regarding the FMR levels for specific areas. PHAs may continue to fund such surveys independently, as specified below, using ongoing administrative fees or their administrative fee reserve if they so choose. HUD continually strives to calculate FMRs that meet the statutory requirement of using “the most recent available data” while also serving as an effective program parameter.
PHAs or other parties interested in requesting HUD's reevaluation of their area's FY 2020 FMRs, as provided for under section 8(c)(1)(B) of USHA, must follow the following procedures:
1. By the end of the comment period, such reevaluation requests must be submitted publicly through
2. In order for a reevaluation to occur, the requestor(s) must supply HUD with data more recent than the 2017 ACS data used in the calculation of the FY 2020 FMRs. HUD requires data on gross rents paid in the FMR area for standard quality rental housing units. The data delivered must be sufficient for HUD to calculate a 40th and 50th percentile two-bedroom rent.
3. On or about October 2, HUD will post a list, at
4. Data for reevaluations must be supplied to HUD no later than Friday January 10, 2020. On Monday January 13, 2020, HUD will post at
5. HUD will use the data delivered by January 10, 2020 to reevaluate the FMRs and following the reevaluation, will post revised FMRs with an accompanying
6. Any data supporting a change in FMRs supplied after January 10, 2020 will be incorporated into FY 2021 FMRs.
7. PHAs operating in areas where the calculated FMR is lower than the published FMR (
Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn of the Program Parameters and Research Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research at HUD headquarters, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8208, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2409 (this is not a toll-free number), or they may be reached at
For small metropolitan areas without one-year ACS data and non-metropolitan counties, HUD has developed a method using mail surveys that is discussed on the FMR web page:
While HUD has not developed a specific method for mail surveys in areas with 1-year ACS data or in areas not covered by ACS data, HUD would apply the standard established for Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone rent surveys. HUD will evaluate these survey results to determine whether they would establish a new FMR statistically different from the current FMR, which means that the survey confidence interval must not include the FMR. The survey should collect results based on 200 one-bedroom and two-bedroom eligible recent mover units to provide a small enough confidence interval for significant results in large market mail surveys. Areas with statistically reliable 1-year ACS data are not considered to be good candidates for local surveys due to the size and completeness of the ACS process.
Other survey methods are acceptable in providing data to support reevaluation requests if the survey method can provide statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of gross rents paid of the entire FMR area. In general, recommendations for FMR changes and supporting data must reflect the rent levels that exist within the entire FMR area and should be statistically reliable.
PHAs in non-metropolitan areas may survey three-bedroom units, in addition to one- and two-bedroom units and are only required to get 100 eligible survey responses. In certain circumstances, PHAs may conduct surveys of groups of non-metropolitan counties. HUD must approve all county-grouped surveys in advance. PHAs are cautioned that the resulting FMRs may not be identical for the counties surveyed; each individual FMR area will have a separate FMR based on the relationship of rents in that area to the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas. In addition, PHAs are advised that in counties where FMRs are based on the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas, HUD will not revise their FMRs unless the grouped survey results show a revised FMR statistically different from the combined rent level.
Survey samples should preferably be randomly drawn from a complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the selected sample must be drawn to be statistically representative of the entire rental housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys must include units at all rent levels and be representative by structure type (including single-family, duplex, and other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and geographic location. The current 5-year ACS data should be used as a means of verifying if a sample is representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock.
A PHA or contractor that cannot obtain the recommended number of sample responses after reasonable efforts should consult with HUD before abandoning its survey; in such situations, HUD may find it appropriate to relax normal sample size requirements, but in no case will fewer than 100 eligible cases be considered.
HUD has developed guidance on how to provide data-supported comments on Small Area FMRs using HUD's special tabulations of the distribution of gross rents by unit bedroom count for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. This guidance is available at
As stated earlier in this notice, HUD is required to use the most recent data available when calculating FMRs. Therefore, in order to reevaluate an area's FMR, HUD requires more current rental market data than the 2017 ACS. HUD encourages a PHA or other interested party that believes the FMR in their area is incorrect to file a comment even if they do not have the resources to provide market-wide rental data. In these instances, HUD will use the comments, should survey funding be restored, when determining the areas HUD will select for HUD-funded local area rent surveys.
HUD received 25 comments addressing the proposed changes to the methodology of calculating FMRs. There are three additional comments that appear to be mistakenly filed with this notice as they do not pertain to FMRs. There are two proposed methodology changes to the calculation of FMRs. The first concerns the use of local or regional trend factors in place of the national trend factor that has historically been used. The more local trend factors were proposed to improve FMR estimates to better reflect the rent inflation that occurs between the time that ACS data is collected and the fiscal year for which the FMRs are produced. HUD proposed to use metropolitan and regional Gross Rent Index forecasts to calculate and apply more locally based trend factors to address concerns of FMR accuracy. While several commenters were opposed to this change, primarily due to the belief that HUD did not provide enough information to evaluate the proposal, many of the comments that addressed this proposed change to the trend factor supported the change to more local trend factors. Consequently, HUD replaced the national trend factor with local and regional trend factors in the FY 2020 FMRs.
The second proposed methodology change concerns calculating Small Area FMRs. In calculating Small Area FMRs, HUD attempts to use ZIP Code level estimates where possible. In cases where ZIP Code level estimates are not available or are not sufficiently reliable, HUD's practice was to assign a Small Area FMRs based on the estimate of gross rent for the county of the ZIP Code. However, because metropolitan counties are often much larger than ZIP Codes, this approach has the potential to produce anomalous Small Area FMR values where the county based Small Area FMR is not an accurate proxy for neighborhood-level rents. HUD's new estimation method for a ZCTA without reliable rent data is to check to see if the ZCTA is bordered by ZCTAs that themselves have reliable rent data. If at
The following summaries of comments and responses also include responses to other comments regarding the calculation of FMRs that were not responsive to the specific methodology changes that were the subject of the notice. No response is provided to comments that did not address FMR estimation methodology.
This Notice involves the establishment of FMR schedules, which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be codified in 24 CFR part 888, are available at
a. Metropolitan Areas—Most FMRs are market-wide rent estimates that are intended to provide housing opportunities throughout the geographic area in which rental-housing units are in direct competition. HUD uses the metropolitan CBSAs, which are made up of one or more counties, as defined by OMB, with some modifications. HUD is generally assigning separate FMRs to the component counties of CBSA Micropolitan Areas.
b. Modifications to OMB Definitions—Following OMB guidance, the estimation procedure for the FY 2020 FMRs incorporates the OMB definitions of metropolitan areas based on the CBSA standards as implemented with 2000 Census data and updated by the 2010 Census in February 28, 2013, including incremental adjustments through July 15, 2015. The adjustments made to the 2000 definitions to separate subparts of these areas where FMRs or median incomes would otherwise change significantly are continued. To follow HUD's policy of providing FMRs at the smallest possible area of geography, no counties were added to existing metropolitan areas due to recent updates in metropolitan area definitions. All counties added to metropolitan areas by the CBSA will still be treated as separate counties for FMR calculations; that is, the rents from a county that is a sub-area will not be used in the remaining metropolitan sub-area rent determination. All metropolitan areas that have been subdivided by HUD will use ACS data which conforms to HUD's area definition if statistically reliable information exists. If statistically reliable data for the HUD defined area is not available, HUD uses information from larger encompassing geographies, as described elsewhere in this notice.
The specific counties and New England towns and cities within each state in MSAs and HMFAs were not changed by the July 15, 2015 OMB metropolitan area definitions. These areas are listed in Schedule B, available online at
Schedule B, available at
a. The FMR areas in the online Schedule B are listed alphabetically by metropolitan FMR area and by non-metropolitan county within each state and are available at
b. The constituent counties (and New England towns and cities) included in each metropolitan FMR area are listed immediately following the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a metropolitan FMR area that are in more than one state can be identified by consulting the listings for each applicable state.
c. Two non-metropolitan counties are listed alphabetically on each line of the non-metropolitan county listings.
d. The New England towns and cities included in a non-metropolitan county are listed immediately following the county name.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation and survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on this application. Before issuing the requested permit, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before September 30, 2019.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Regional Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231–6131 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an application for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit request are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing this permit. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to this application. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue a permit to the applicant listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting (via teleconference).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) will meet as indicated below.
The virtual meeting will be held on Monday, September 30, 2019, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
Dr. Michael Blanpied, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 905, Reston, VA 20192; by email at
The NEPEC provides advice and recommendations to the Director of the USGS on earthquake predictions and related scientific research.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ambler Road and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. The BLM is also announcing that it will be holding public meetings on the Draft EIS and subsistence-related hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIS and the project's potential to impact subsistence resources and activities.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments related to the Ambler Road Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tina McMaster-Goering, Ambler Road EIS Project Manager, telephone: 907–271–1310; address: 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. You may also request to be added to the mailing list for the EIS. Documents pertaining to the Draft EIS may be examined at
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Bureau of Land Management has prepared the Ambler Road Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is in response to an application for an industrial road right-of-way (ROW) in north-central Alaska across federal public lands and other lands. The road would run from the existing Dalton Highway to the Ambler Mining District. The area involved lies south of the Brooks Range, north of the Yukon River, west of the Dalton Highway and east of the Purcell Mountains. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), a public corporation of the State of Alaska, is the applicant.
The purpose of the public comment period is to inform the public of the availability of the Draft EIS and solicit comments from the public. Information received during the public comment period will be used to develop the Final EIS.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, be advised that your entire comment, including your identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The BLM has worked with interested parties to develop a proposed action and alternatives consistent with the following criteria:
• The proposed project submitted by the applicant, AIDEA;
• Issues identified during public scoping, impacts and potential alternatives to be addressed; and
• Subsistence resources and users, as well as potential actions to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence in accordance with section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Section 810 of ANILCA requires the BLM to evaluate the effects of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS on subsistence activities, and to hold public hearings if it finds that any alternatives may significantly restrict subsistence users. The preliminary evaluation of subsistence impact indicates that certain alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS and the associated cumulative impacts may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Therefore, the BLM will hold public hearings on subsistence resources and activities in conjunction with the public meeting on the Draft EIS in Alatna, Allakaket, Ambler, Anaktuvuk Pass, Bettles, Buckland, Coldfoot, Evansville, Hughes, Huslia, Kiana, Kobuk, Kotzebue, Noatak, Noorvik, Selawik, Shungnak, Stevens Village, Tanana, and Wiseman, Alaska.
40 CFR 1506.6(b).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Utah RAC is scheduled to meet on October 29–30, 2019. The meeting will take place from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on October 29th and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 30th.
The meeting will be held at the John Wesley Powell River History Museum, 765 E Main Street, Green River, Utah 84525.
Lola Bird, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; phone (801) 539–4033; or email
The Utah RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public lands issues. Agenda topics will include BLM updates; BLM Utah FY 2019 accomplishments; statewide planning updates; Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Kanab Field Office administrative changes; John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act implementation; recreation fee proposals, and other issues as appropriate. Final agenda will be posted online at
The meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals. The meeting will offer a 30-minute public comment period. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM Utah State Office at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Detailed meeting minutes for the Utah RAC meetings will be maintained in the BLM Utah State Office and will
43 CFR 1784.4–2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. The BLM is also announcing that it will be holding public meetings on the Willow MDP Draft EIS and a subsistence-related hearing to receive comments on the Willow MDP Draft EIS and the proposed project's potential to impact subsistence resources and activities.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Willow MDP Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments related to the Willow MDP Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Racheal Jones, Willow EIS Project Manager, telephone: 907–290–0307; address: 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. You may also request to be added to the mailing list for the EIS. Documents pertaining to the Draft EIS may be examined at
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Bureau of Land Management prepared the Willow MDP Draft EIS in response to a letter submitted by ConocoPhillips on May 10, 2018. ConocoPhillips requested the development of the Willow prospect through a MDP EIS. The letter, available on the project website, includes a description of the foreseeable infrastructure and activity associated with the proposed Willow prospect development. Analyzing the entire proposed Willow development in a single MDP EIS allows the BLM to make determinations of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) adequacy when individual applications for permits to drill or rights-of-way are submitted. The MDP includes up to five drill sites, a central processing facility, an operations center pad, up to 38.2 miles of gravel roads, up to 924.2 miles of ice roads during construction and up to 215.6 total miles of resupply ice roads during operations, 1 to 2 airstrips, up to 337 miles of pipelines, and a gravel mine site. In addition, the Proponent would submit applications to the State of Alaska for a module transfer island on State submerged lands to support module delivery via sealift barges.
Actions on both state and federal lands are considered in the Draft EIS. The Willow MDP would have a peak production of up to 130,000 barrels of oil per day over its 30-year life (producing approximately 590 million barrels of oil) and would help offset declines in production from the North Slope oil fields and contribute to the local, state, and national economies.
The purpose of the public comment period is to inform the public of the availability of the Willow MDP Draft EIS and solicit comments from the public. Information received during the public comment period will be used to develop the Final EIS. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, be advised that your entire comment, including your identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The BLM has worked with interested parties to develop a proposed action and alternatives consistent with the following criteria:
• The proposed project submitted by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.;
• Issues identified during public scoping, impacts and potential alternatives to be addressed; and
• Subsistence resources and users, as well as potential actions to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence in accordance with section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Section 810 of ANILCA requires the BLM to evaluate the effects of the alternatives presented in the Willow MDP Draft EIS on subsistence activities, and to hold public hearings if it finds that any alternatives may significantly restrict subsistence users. The preliminary evaluation of subsistence impact indicates that the alternatives analyzed in the Willow MDP Draft EIS and the associated cumulative impacts may significantly restrict subsistence uses for the community of Nuiqsut. Therefore, the BLM will hold a public hearing on subsistence resources and activities in Nuiqsut, Alaska.
40 CFR 1506.6(b).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined certain public lands in Clark County, Nevada, and has found them suitable for classification for lease or conveyance to Clark County School District under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, Sec. 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, and Executive Order No. 6910. Clark County School District proposes to use the land as an elementary school. The lands consist of 15 acres and must conform to the official plat of survey.
Submit written comments regarding this classification (serialized N–95306) on or before October 15, 2019. Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to the BLM office address below, or faxed to 702–515–5010. The BLM will not consider comments received via telephone calls or email.
Mail written comments to the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, Assistant Field Manager, Division of Lands, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Detailed information including, but not limited to a development and management plan and documentation relating to compliance with applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, is available for review during business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, except during Federal holidays, at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.
Sheryl May, Realty Specialist, by telephone at 702–515–5196. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Clark County School District has not applied for more than the 6,400-acre limitation for recreation uses in a year (or 640 acres if a nonprofit corporation or association), nor more than 640 acres for each of the programs involving public resources other than recreation.
Clark County School District has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43 CFR 2741.4(b). Clark County School District proposes to use the land as an elementary school.
The area described contains 15-acres in the southwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada. Clark County School District has filed an application to develop the below-described land for five school buildings, parking for school staff, public parking, busing with pick-up and drop-off points for students, classrooms, botanical learning areas, and a fenced play area. There will also be areas for basketball courts, ball fields, bike racks, shaded rest areas, turf play area, playgrounds, and a tetherball court. Additional information pertaining to this publication, plan of development, and site plan is located in casefile N–95306, which is available for review at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the address below. Offsite improvements will be developed as required by governing agencies. The lands are not needed for any other Federal purposes. The lands examined and identified as suitable for lease or conveyance under the R&PP Act are legally described as:
The area described contains 15 acres.
Lease or conveyance of the lands for R&PP use is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan dated October 5, 1998, and would be of public interest.
All interested parties will receive a copy of this Notice once it is published in the
Upon publication of this Notice in the
The lease or conveyance of the land, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. A rights-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945).
2. Provisions of the R&PP Act and to all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.
3. All mineral deposits in the land so patented, and the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations as established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights.
4. Lease or conveyance of the parcel is subject to valid existing rights.
5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessees/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
6. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal lands and interests therein.
Interested persons may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for development of an elementary school. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with state and Federal programs.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the specific use proposal in the application and plan of development and management, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the lands for an elementary school.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective on October 29, 2019. The lands will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any comment, be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
43 CFR 2741.5
September 5, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701–TA–455 and 731–TA–1149 (Second Review)(Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by September 19, 2019.
5.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Transmittal for Unemployment Insurance Materials,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 30, 2019.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202–693–8073, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Transmittal for Unemployment Insurance Materials. The Social Security Act (SSA) section 303(a)(6) requires as a condition of a State receiving an administrative grant, that State laws contains a provision for the making of such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time require and compliance with such provisions as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. Regulations 20 CFR 601.3, in part, implement this requirement by requiring submission of all relevant State materials, such as statutes, executive and administrative orders, legal opinions, rules, regulations, interpretations, court opinions, etc. In addition, the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Civilian Employees program regulations at 20 CFR 609.1(d)(1) and the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Service Members program regulations at 20 CFR 614.1(d)(1) require submission of certain documents to ensure States properly administer these programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance (which includes Trade Readjustment Allowances) program regulations provide similar requirements at 20 CFR 617.52(c)(1). Form MA–8–7 is the mechanism for implementing these submittal requirements. Form MA–8–7 also provides the Secretary with sufficient information to determine if (a) Employers in a State qualify for tax credits under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act; (b) the State meets the requirements for obtaining administrative grants under SSA Title III; and (c) the State is fulfilling its obligations under Federal unemployment compensation programs. This information collection is a revision, because the Short Time Compensation (STC) Policies and Review of State Self-Employment Assistance (SEA) Policies were removed as ETA is only seeking information on state legislation and policies relating to work search at this time. Social Security Act of 1935 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB, under the PRA, approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “American Time Use Survey,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 30, 2019.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202–693–8073, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the American Time Use Survey. The ATUS is the Nation's only federally administered, continuous survey on time use in the United States. It measures, for example, time spent with children, working, providing eldercare, sleeping or doing leisure activities. In the United States, several existing Federal surveys collect income and wage data for individuals and families, and analysts often use such measures of material prosperity as proxies for quality of life. Time-use data substantially augment these quality-of-life measures. The data also can be used in conjunction with wage data to evaluate the contribution of non-market work to national economies. This enables comparisons of production between nations that have different mixes of market and non-market activities. The ATUS supports the mission of the Bureau of Labor Statistics by providing data on when, where, and how much employed Americans work. Individuals aged 15 and up are selected from a nationally representative sample of approximately 2,060 sample households each month for the ATUS. There are no changes to the ATUS interview. However, BLS is requesting approval for an incentive study during the extension period: BLS is proposing a study to test the effectiveness of using $0, $5, and $10 cash incentives on survey response. The study will test the effectiveness of using cash incentives instead of a prepaid debit card. It will also test whether a $5 or $10 cash incentive can boost survey response among certain underrepresented populations. 29 U.S.C. 1 and 13 U.S.C. 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Standard Job Corps Contractor and Grantee Information Gathering,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 30, 2019.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202–693–8073, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Standard Job Corps Contractor and Grantee Information Gathering. These operating and/or reporting forms are standard for the operation of a Job Corps Center. They are Federal information collection requirements for operators of such centers. Job Corps has automated the following Employment and Training Administration (ETA) forms: 2110, 2181, 6–131A, 6–131B, 6–131C, 640, 661, and 328. This ICR covers standard operating and/or reporting forms a Job Corps Center uses. This information collection is a revision, because this ICR includes an additional collection form for demonstration grants and an additional form determined to be a part of this collection. The Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), Section 116(b)(2)(A)(i), Section 159(c), and Section 156(a) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB, under the PRA, approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Endowment for the Arts (Arts Endowment) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Interested persons are invited to submit comments within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
Written comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (T) 202–395–7316.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Could help minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of electronic submission of responses through
The National Endowment for the Arts requests the review of its funding application guidelines and requirements. Application guidelines elicit relevant information from individuals, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies that apply for funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. This information is necessary for the accurate, fair, and thorough consideration of competing proposals in the review process. This request is issued by the National Endowment for the Arts and contains the following information: (1) The title of the form; (2) how often the required information will be collected; (3) who will be required or asked to use the form; (4) what the form will be used for; (5) an estimate of the number of responses; (6) the average burden hours per response; (7) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the form. This entry is not subject to 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Advisory Committee for Integrative Activities—NSF 2026 Idea Machine Blue Ribbon Panel (#1373).
September 16, 2019; 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
Lin He, Acting Deputy Division Director, Room E9316; National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Contact Information: 703–292–4956/
To provide advice and recommendations to the NSF as part of the selection process for NSF 2026 Idea Machine Grand Prize awardees.
To review and evaluate competition materials as part of the selection process for awardees.
The materials being reviewed include information of a
Weeks of September 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, October 7, 2019.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 2, 2019.
10:00 a.m. NRC All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) Marriott Bethesda North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852.
10:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed—Ex. 1 & 9).
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 16, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 23, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 30, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 7, 2019.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend and move certain current Rules in connection with end-of-month and end-of-day indicative values from the Exchange's currently effective Rulebook (“current Rulebook”) to the shell structure for the Exchange's Rulebook that will become effective upon the migration of the Exchange's trading platform to the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges (as defined below) (“shell Rulebook”). The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is also the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), acquired Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “EDGX Options”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “BZX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and,
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 4.17 (in the shell Rulebook), which amends its current rules regarding end-of-month (“EOM”) and end-of-day (“EOD”) indicative values.
Current Rule 6.2.06(b) describes the Exchange's process for calculating EOD values. Specifically, it provides that following the close of trading of Regular Trading Hours on any trading day that is not the last business day of a calendar month, in addition to the Exchange's regular end-of-day quotations, the Exchange may determine, on a series-by-series basis, to disseminate two-sided indicative values in non-expiring series of SPX options in the interests of fair and orderly markets. The Exchange derives end-of-day indicative values for series of SPX options using an algorithm based on quotations and orders displayed in series of SPX options prior to the close of trading or, in the absence of sufficient quote and order data in a series, using generally accepted volatility and options pricing models as determined by the Exchange. EOD indicative values shall be clearly identified and disseminated via the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). This permits the Exchange to disseminate informational indicative values more reflective of actual options values in addition to final end-of-day displayed quotations when Users' systems issues or market conditions result in an absence of final quotes or extraordinarily wide final quotes without interfering in the markets or impeding any market functionalities that rely on accurate pricing or EOD quotes.
Upon migration, the Exchange will discontinue the dissemination of indicative values to OPRA,
The proposed rule does not present any new or novel functionality as the indicative value logic will function for all trading days in the same manner as it does today for EOD. The proposed change merely applies the same process to every trading day, including the last business day of the calendar month. This will provide a streamlined indicative price process for each trading day in which indicative prices may be published. In addition to streamlining the process for each trading day, the Exchange proposes to remove the theoretical fair value process for EOM for a number of other reasons. First, the migrated technology platform will no longer support the ability for LMMs or SMMs to quote after the close as the current rule provides. Second, the Exchange believes using an algorithm based on quotations and orders displayed will provide a more objective, static formulation for indicative prices as opposed to the current analysis conducted by LMMs or SMMs, which potentially varies across different LMMs or SMMs. Third, though CME currently provides for a EOM fair value procedure for many of its equities products (which differs from the 3:15 p.m. daily settlement process for such products), it may determine to have a 3:00 p.m. daily settlement process for all days, including the last trading day of the month, in its equities products as it currently has in place for other products, which could interfere with the current EOM process. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to mitigate any possibility that indicative values could not be calculated on the last day of the month by applying the current Exchange-generated EOD logic to all trading days.
The Exchange also proposes that, instead of a series-by-series basis, the Exchange may determine which indicative values will be provided on a class-by-class basis, which is consistent with the majority of Exchange determinations, where applicable, throughout the Exchange rules, as well as provides the Exchange with flexibility to potentially provide indicative prices for any and all of its options classes exclusively listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule does not present any new or novel functionality, as it will continue to use the EOD logic in the same manner for calculating indicative values as it does today for all trading days. The proposed change merely applies the current EOD logic to every trading day, including the last business day of the calendar month. As such, the proposed rule change will protect investors by fostering cooperation and coordination with market participants processing information with respect to securities and by removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by providing market participants with a streamlined indicative price process. The Exchange believes this will make the process itself easier to understand within the Exchange Rules, as well as provide easier access to such pricing. In addition to streamlining the process for each trading day, removing the theoretical fair value process for EOM will also remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by providing market participants with rules that will accurately reflect the manner in the Exchange's System will function upon migration, allow for a more objective, static formulation for indicative prices than the current LMM or SMM analysis, which potentially varies across different LMMs or SMMs, as well as mitigate any potential issues in deriving indicative values from CME's EOM fair value process, which is subject to change and, as a result, could interfere with the current EOM process. Additionally, by providing the Exchange with the flexibility to determine indicative values on a broader class-by-class basis, the proposed rule change will potentially provide more indicative pricing information, benefitting all market participants. Exchange determinations on a class-by-class basis are also consistent with the majority of Exchange determinations currently under the Rules. Moreover, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by making the indicative values publicly available and free for all participants to access, as opposed to the current dissemination of such prices to OPRA, for which market participants must pay a fee to access.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because the dissemination of EOD indicative values does not impact trading on the Exchange, but is intended merely to make indicative pricing information available to all market participants. Likewise, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition because the indicative values will be publicly available,
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c–3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based service and distribution fees, and early withdrawal charges (“EWCs”).
Hartford Schroders Opportunistic Income Fund (the “Initial Fund”) and Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on February 25, 2019 and amended on May 29, 2019 and July 29, 2019.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 23, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0–5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants: Hartford Schroders Opportunistic Income Fund and Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC, 690 Lee Road, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087.
Bradley Gude, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–5590, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Initial Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Initial Fund's investment objective will be to provide current income and long-term return consistent with preservation of capital.
2. The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser will serve as investment adviser to the Initial Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense structure, and to impose asset-based distribution and service fees, and EWCs.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously offered registered closed-end management investment company that has been previously organized or that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,
5. The Initial Fund will make a continuous public offering of its shares. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund may also offer additional classes of shares in the future, with each class having its own fee and expense structure.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Funds may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the initial class pursuant to and in compliance with rule 18f–3 under the Act.
8. Applicants state that the Initial Fund will adopt a fundamental policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares (no less than 5% and not more than 25%) at net asset value on a periodic basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c–3 under the Act.
9. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or distribution fees for each class of shares will comply with the provisions of FINRA Rule 2341 (“Sales Charge Rule”).
10. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to each Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
11. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that each of the Funds will apply the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d–1 under the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
12. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c–3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c–3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c–3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c–3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a–3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a–3. In complying with rule 11a–3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act makes it unlawful for a closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless certain requirements are met. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a registered closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security that is stock if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security that is stock. Section 18(g) of the Act defines “senior security” that is stock as “any stock of a class having priority over any other class as to distribution of assets or payment of dividends.” Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of a Fund proposed herein may result in Shares of a class having “priority over [another] class as to . . . payment of dividends,” and being deemed a “senior security,” because shareholders of different classes may pay different distribution fees, different shareholder services fees, and any other expense (as described elsewhere this Notice). Accordingly, applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of a Fund with different fees and expenses may be prohibited by section 18(c).
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its securities and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f–3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f–3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b)
2. Rule 23c–3 under the Act permits an interval fund to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c–3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase. A Fund will not impose a repurchase fee on investors who purchase and tender their shares.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c–3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c–10 under the Act. Rule 6c–10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c–10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed by the Funds will comply with rule 6c–10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed–end investment companies. The Funds will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N–1A concerning CDSLs.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d–1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d–3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b–1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-based service and distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b–1 and 17d–3 as if those rules applied to closed–end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based service and distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based service and distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c–10, 12b–1, 17d–3, 18f–3, 22d–1, and, where applicable, 11a–3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed–end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its fees schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with the Volume Incentive Program (“VIP”). The Exchange intends to implement the proposed change on August 1, 2019.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 20% of the market share.
For example, under VIP, the Exchange credits each TPH the per contract amount set forth in the VIP table for Public Customer (origin code “C”) orders transmitted by TPHs (with certain exceptions)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all TPHs.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed tier is reasonable because it continues to encourage TPHs to take the opportunity to receive credits on Customer orders by reaching the proposed volume thresholds. The Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges
The Exchange believes adjusting the VIP volume thresholds for Tiers 4 and 5 is reasonable because it adjusts for the current volume trends and is a reasonable means to continue to encourage TPHs to increase their overall order flow to the Exchange based on increasing their Customer, Professional Customer, Broker-Dealer, and JBO executed orders as a percentage of national customer volume. Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed threshold change is reasonable because it will encourage increased volume, thus a deeper, more liquid market, and an increase in transaction opportunities provided by the increased liquidity. In turn, these increases benefit all TPHs by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, providing greater execution incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor protection.
The proposed volume thresholds also do not represent a significant departure from the current required criteria under the Exchange's existing tiers and is therefore still reasonable based on the difficulty of satisfying the tiers' criteria and ensures the existing credit and proposed thresholds appropriately reflect the incremental difficulty to achieve the existing VIP tiers. For example, the volume threshold amount under existing Tier 3 is currently set as a range within a whole percentage point, between 2.00% up to 3.00%. The Exchange believes the proposed tiers are in line with this existing tier, as the natural next highest tier, both in required criteria and credits, is reasonable to also set as a range within a whole percentage point, between 3.00% and 4.00%, and then over 4.00%, as proposed. The Exchange also believes that a volume threshold increase of .25 percentage points is a reasonable increment to encourage overall order flow to the Exchange without so significantly increasing the difficulty in reach the tiers' criteria.
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all TPHs have the opportunity to meet the proposed tier thresholds. Given that TPHs change their trading strategies and patterns month-to-month to align with changing market trends and conditions, as well as pricing and functionality changes across other exchanges, and without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitively result in a shift of TPHs qualifying for the proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the rule change will impact Trading Permit Holders, the Exchange anticipates the impact of the proposed change to be minimal in at least one TPH will be able to reach proposed Tier 5. The Exchange notes that typically five or six firms compete to qualify across all of the VIP tiers and at least two such firms typically compete to qualify for the top two tiers. As stated, the Exchange believes that the proposed threshold increases do not represent a significant departure from the current required criteria, is still reasonable based on the difficulty of satisfying each tier's criteria, and is appropriately aligned with the incremental difficulty to achieve the existing VIP tiers. As such, the Exchange does not anticipate the proposed threshold change to impact the number of firms that compete across all tiers, including those that regularly compete across the top two tiers, but instead encourages competition by encouraging increase in order flow to meet the proposed tiers. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed tiers are unfairly discriminatory as it would not impact the range of typical competition across such tiers.
The Exchange also notes that the proposed tier will not adversely impact any TPH's pricing or ability to qualify for other credit tiers. Rather, should a TPH not meet the proposed criteria, the TPH will merely not receive the proffered credit.
The Exchange also notes that, while only certain orders would count towards the qualifying thresholds, specifically, Customer, Professional Customer, Broker-Dealer and JBO order, these market participants' orders are primarily executed by an agent and VIP is an incentive program for agency trading, whose order flow would bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange notes that incentive programs based on aggregate volume of certain agency
Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to only apply credits to Customer orders (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all TPHs. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed change applies to all TPHs submitting qualified orders equally, in that all TPHs submitting such orders are eligible for the proposed tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and will all receive the existing credit if such criteria is met. As described above, while only certain orders would count towards the qualifying thresholds, specifically, Customers, Professionals, Broker-Dealers and JBOs, these market participants' orders are primarily executed as agency orders, whose order flow would bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe the current application of the credit to Customer orders imposes any burden on intermarket competition because, as stated, preferential pricing to Customers is a long-standing options industry practice which serves to enhance Customer order flow, thereby attracting Marker-Makers to facilitate tight spreads and trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Overall, the proposed change is designed to encourage additional order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes benefits all market participants on the Exchange by providing more liquidity, thus trading opportunities, encouraging even more TPHs to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem to the benefit of all market participants.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 20% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 6, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On July 3, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to make certain changes to the investments of the First Trust TCW Unconstrained Plus Bond ETF (“Fund”), the shares (“Shares”) of which are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. According to the Exchange, the Shares of the Fund commenced trading on the Exchange on June 5, 2018 pursuant to the generic listing standards in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E.
The Shares are offered by First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIII (“Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
According to the Exchange, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek to maximize long-term total return. Under normal market conditions,
In managing the Fund's portfolio, TCW intends to employ a flexible approach that allocates the Fund's investments across a range of global investment opportunities and actively manage exposure to interest rates, credit sectors, and currencies. TCW seeks to utilize independent, bottom-up research to identify securities that are undervalued and that offer a superior risk/return profile. Pursuant to this investment strategy, the Fund may invest in the following Fixed Income Securities, which may be represented by derivatives relating to such securities, as discussed below:
• Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies, instrumentalities, or U.S. government-sponsored entities (“U.S. government securities”);
• Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS”);
• the following non-agency, non-government-sponsored entity (“GSE”), and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities: Residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”), asset-backed securities (“ABS”), and collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs” and, together with such RMBS, CMBS, and ABS, collectively, “Private ABS/MBS”);
• Agency RMBS, agency CMBS, and agency ABS;
• domestic corporate bonds;
• Fixed Income Securities issued by non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. governments;
• bank loans, including first lien senior secured floating rate bank loans (“Senior Loans”), secured and unsecured loans, second lien or more junior loans, and bridge loans;
• fixed income convertible securities;
• fixed income preferred securities; and
• municipal bonds.
In addition, the Fund may invest in agency RMBS and CMBS by investing in to-be-announced transactions. The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents,
The Fund may utilize exchange-listed and over-the-counter (“OTC”) traded derivatives instruments for duration/yield curve management and/or hedging purposes, for risk management purposes, or as part of its investment strategies. The Fund will use derivative instruments primarily to hedge interest rate risk, actively manage interest rate exposure, hedge foreign currency risk, and actively manage foreign currency exposure. The Fund may also use derivative instruments to enhance returns, as a substitute for, or to gain exposure to, a position in an underlying asset, to reduce transaction costs, to maintain full market exposure, to manage cash flows, or to preserve capital. Derivatives may also be used to hedge risks associated with the Fund's other portfolio investments. The Fund will not use derivative instruments to gain exposure to Private ABS/MBS, and derivative instruments linked to such securities will be used for hedging purposes only. Derivatives that the Fund may enter into are the following: Futures on interest rates, currencies, Fixed Income Securities, and fixed income indices; exchange-traded and OTC options on interest rates, currencies, Fixed Income Securities, and fixed income indices; swap agreements on interest rates, currencies, Fixed Income Securities, and fixed income indices; credit default swaps; and currency forward contracts.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, invests at least 80% of its net assets in the Principal Investments described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in the following “Non-Principal Investments.”
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded common stock, exchange-traded preferred stock, exchange-traded real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and securities of other investment companies registered under the 1940 Act, including money market funds, exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), open-end funds (other than money market funds and other ETFs), and U.S. exchange-traded closed-end funds.
As stated in the Notice, the Fund proposes to not invest more than 2% of its total assets in any one Fixed Income Security (excluding U.S. government securities and TIPS) on a per CUSIP basis. The Fund's holdings in derivative instruments for hedging purposes would be excluded from the determination of compliance with this 2% limitation. The total gross notional value of the Fund's holdings in derivative instruments used to gain exposure to a specific asset is limited to 2% of the Fund's total assets.
Additionally, the Fund proposes to invest up to 50% of its total assets in the aggregate in Private ABS/MBS, provided that the Fund (1) may not invest more than 30% of its total assets in non-agency RMBS; (2) may not invest more than 25% of its total assets in non-agency CMBS and CLOs; and (3) may not invest more than 25% of its total assets in non-agency ABS.
With respect to the Fund's investments in up to 30% of its total assets in Private ABS/MBS that exceed the 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio that may be invested in Private ABS/
• Non-agency RMBS shall have an average loan maturity of 84 months or more;
• Non-agency CMBS and CLOs shall have an average loan maturity of 60 months or more; and
• Non-agency ABS shall have an average loan maturity of 12 months or more.
The Exchange proposes that up to 25% of the Fund's assets may be invested in OTC derivatives that are used to reduce currency, interest rate, or credit risk arising from the Fund's investments. The Fund's investments in OTC derivatives other than OTC derivatives used to hedge the Fund's portfolio against currency, interest rate, or credit risk will be limited to 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio. For purposes of these percentage limitations on OTC derivatives, the weight of such OTC derivatives will be calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives.
The Fund's holdings of bank loans will not exceed 15% of the Fund's total assets, and the Fund's holdings of bank loans other than Senior Loans will not exceed 5% of the Fund's total assets.
The Fund's holdings in fixed income convertible securities and in equity securities issued upon conversion of such convertible securities will not exceed 10% of the Fund's total assets.
The Fund's holdings in Work Out Securities will not exceed 5% of the Fund's total assets.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
According to the Exchange, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser believe there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the Fund's use of derivatives and Private ABS/MBS. The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser understand that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives and Private ABS/MBS as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser believe that the price at which Shares of the Fund trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem Shares of the Fund at their net asset value (“NAV”), which should ensure that Shares of the Fund will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Adviser and Sub-Adviser do not believe there will be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives and Private ABS/MBS.
The Exchange represents, among other things, that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(1) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. Instead, the Exchange proposes that components that in the aggregate account for at least 50% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $50 million or more. As noted above, the Fund may not invest more than 2% of its total assets in any one Fixed Income Security (excluding U.S. government securities and TIPS) on a per CUSIP basis. In addition, at least 50% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio would continue to be subject to a substantial minimum (
The Exchange also represents that the Fund will not comply with the requirements in Commentary .01(b)(4) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E that component securities that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio meet one of the criteria specified in Commentary .01(b)(4), because certain Private ABS/MBS cannot satisfy the criteria in Commentary .01(b)(4).
Finally, the Exchange represents that the Fund will not comply with the requirement in Commentary .01(b)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E that Private ABS/MBS in the Fund's portfolio account, in the aggregate, for no more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange notes that, other than the exceptions proposed in the Notice, the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
If the listing rules for the Shares were amended as proposed, including the average loan maturity thresholds for Private ABS/MBS, would the listing rule continue to ensure that a substantial portion of the Fund's portfolio consists of Fixed Income Securities for which information is publicly available? If not, are there reasons why it may not be necessary that information be publicly available for Private ABS/MBS (as distinguished from other types of Fixed Income Securities)?
Has the Exchange adequately supported the use of the proposed average loan maturity thresholds for Private ABS/MBS? Why or why not? What further information regarding these thresholds would be useful to market participants?
Does the Fund's proposal to not invest more than 2% of its total assets in any one Fixed Income Security on a per CUSIP basis mitigate concerns that the Fund's investment in such securities would be readily susceptible to market manipulation. Why or why not?
Would the proposed increased investments in Private ABS/MBS by the Fund increase the susceptibility of the Shares to manipulation? If so, why; if not, why not? If the Fund's permitted investments were expanded to the extent proposed, would any other restrictions on the Fund's permitted investments be appropriate in order for the proposed rule change to be consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act?
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by September 20, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by October 4, 2019. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Athenee Hotel in New York, New York. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2019, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
Athenee Hotel, 37 E 64th Street, New York, NY 10065.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, 571–313–8843,
Youngstown & Southeastern Railroad Co. (YSRR), a Class III carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Mule Sidetracks, LLC (MSLLC), and to continue to operate approximately 35.7 miles of rail line between milepost 0.0 in Youngstown, Ohio, and milepost 35.7 in Darlington, Pa. (the Line), together with MSLLC's rights over three miles of contiguous track segments, including incidental trackage rights, running from east of milepost 0.0 and connecting the Line to interchange with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT).
YSRR states that it has been operating the Line and connecting track since 2006, first pursuant to a lease with the previous owner, CCPA,
YSRR certifies that, following this transaction, YSRR's annual revenues will be less than $5 million annually, and it will remain a Class III carrier. YSRR also certifies that the proposed acquisition does not involve an interchange commitment.
This transaction may be consummated on or after September 14, 2019, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than September 6, 2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36342, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on YSRR's representatives, Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and Sloane S. Carlough, Clark Hill PLC, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1300 South, Washington, DC 20004.
According to YSRR, this action is excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c), and from historic reporting under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Alabama Export Railroad, Inc. (ALE), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate approximately 12.1 miles of railroad line in downtown Mobile, Ala., owned by the Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC). The rail line extends between Belt Junction at milepost 6.6 and the State Docks at milepost 0.0 on IC's Beaumont Subdivision, and between Belt Junction at milepost 6.6 and Frascati Junction at milepost 1.1 on IC's Frascati Lead (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
ALE states that it and IC are negotiating track lease and switching agreements under which IC, in addition to continuing to own the Line, would also be the Line's lessor, and ALE would be the lessee and operator.
According to ALE, the proposed agreements between ALE and IC do not contain an interchange commitment.
ALE certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is September 15, 2019.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than September 6, 2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36321, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on ALE's representatives: Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and Sloane S. Carlough, Clark Hill PLC, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1300 South, Washington, DC 20004.
According to ALE, this action is excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Mississippi Export Railroad Company (MSE), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Alabama Export Railroad, Inc. (ALE), upon ALE's becoming a Class III rail carrier. ALE is a newly formed noncarrier entity that is wholly owned by MSE.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is September 15, 2019, the effective date of the exemption.
According to MSE, it currently owns and operates a 42-mile short line railroad between Evanston and Pascagoula, Miss. In its verified notice and supplement, MSE represents that: (1) The Line to be operated by ALE does not connect with the lines of MSE, and the railroads would not connect with any railroads in their corporate family; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect these railroads with each other or with any railroad in their corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because only Class III carriers are involved.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than September 6, 2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36320, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on MSE's representative: Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and Sloane S. Carlough, Clark Hill PLC, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1300 South, Washington, DC 20004.
According to MSE, this action is excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of modification of action.
In accordance with the specific direction of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to modify the action being taken in this Section 301 investigation by increasing the rate of additional duty from 10 to 15 percent for the products of China covered by the $300 billion tariff action published on August 20, 2019.
For products covered by Annex A of the August 20, 2019 notice (84 FR 43304), the rate of additional duty will be 15 percent on the current effective date of September 1, 2019. For products covered by Annex C of the August 20 notice, the rate of additional duty will be 15 percent on the current effective date of December 15, 2019.
For questions about this action, contact Associate General Counsel Arthur Tsao or Assistant General Counsel Megan Grimball, or Director of Industrial Goods Justin Hoffmann at (202) 395–5725. For questions on customs classification or implementation of additional duties on products identified in the Annexes to this notice, contact
On August 18, 2017, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation into certain acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. 82 FR 40213 (August 23, 2017). In April 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative published a notice of a determination that the acts, policies, and practices of China under investigation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act). 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018).
Up through early May 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative, at the direction of the President, determined to take actions resulting in the imposition of an additional 25 percent
The U.S. Trade Representative imposed these additional duties in three tranches. Tranche 1 covered 818 tariff subheadings, with an approximate annual trade value of $34 billion.
As of mid-May 2019, China's statements and conduct indicated that action at a $250 billion level was insufficient to obtain the elimination of China's unfair and harmful policies. Accordingly, the President directed the U.S. Trade Representative to consider a possible modification of the action being taken in the form of additional duties of up to 25 percent on products of China with an annual aggregate trade value of approximately $300 billion. In a notice published on May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22564), the Office of the United States Trade Representative invited public comments and announced a public hearing with regard to the possible imposition of additional duties of up to 25 percent on a specific list of tariff subheadings with an approximate annual trade value of $300 billion. The notice and comment process concluded in early July 2019.
In August 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative, at the direction of the President, determined to modify the action being taken in the investigation by imposing an additional 10 percent
The Section 301 statute (set out in Sections 301 to 308 of the Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2411–2418) includes authority for the U.S. Trade Representative to modify the action being taken in an investigation. In particular, Section 307(a)(1) authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to modify or terminate any action taken under Section 301, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President, if the burden or restriction on United States commerce of the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of the action has increased or decreased, or the action is being taken under Section 301(b) and is no longer appropriate.
The burden or restriction on United States commerce of the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of the Section 301 action continues to increase. China's unfair acts, policies, and practices include not just its technology transfer and IP polices referenced in the notice of initiation in the investigation, but also China's subsequent defensive actions taken to maintain those unfair acts, policies, and practices as determined in that investigation. China has determined to impose tariffs on a substantial majority of U.S. goods exported to China, with the goal of pressuring the United States to cease its efforts to obtain the elimination of China's unfair policies. China has further taken or threatened to take additional countermeasures, including non-tariff measures, against commerce of the United States. For example, China has taken concrete steps to devalue its currency.
China's most recent response of announcing a new tariff increase on U.S. goods has shown that the current action being taken is no longer appropriate. The United States is engaging with China with the goal of obtaining the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices covered in the investigation. The leaders of the United States and China met on December 1, 2018, and agreed to hold negotiations on a range of issues, including those covered in this Section 301 investigation.
For these reasons, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to modify the action being taken in the investigation by increasing the rate of additional duty from 10 percent
As noted above, the May 17, 2019 notice invited public comments on duties of up to 25 percent on the products covered by the proposed $300 billion action. The current modification in the rate of additional duty takes into account the public comments and testimony, as well as advice from advisory committees and the interagency Section 301 committee, concerning the action proposed in the May 17 notice.
The Annex to this notice amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide that the rate of additional duties for the products covered in Annex A and Annex C of the August 20 notice will be 15 percent. This increase in the rate of duty does not change the effective date of Annex A (September 1, 2019) or of Annex C (December 15, 2019).
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 1, 2019, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified:
1. By amending U.S. Note 20(r) to subchapter III of chapter 99, as established by the U.S. Trade Representative in a determination contained in 84
2. by amending the Rates of Duty 1-General column of heading 9903.88.15, as established by the U.S. Trade Representative in a determination contained in 84
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on December 15, 2019, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified:
1. By amending U.S. Note 20(t) to subchapter III of chapter 99, as established by the U.S. Trade Representative in a determination contained in 84
2. by amending the Rates of Duty 1-General column of heading 9903.88.16, as established by the U.S. Trade Representative in a determination contained in 84
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final. The action relates to the proposed project to increase the capacity of Interstate Route 10 (I–10) by constructing a new six-lane bridge across the Mobile River and replacing the existing four-lane I–10 bridges across Mobile Bay with eight lanes above the 100-year storm elevation. The proposed project is located in Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama. Those actions grant approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Mark D. Bartlett, Division Administrator, FHWA Alabama Division, 9500 Wynlakes Place, Montgomery, Alabama 36117–8515, Telephone: (334) 274–6350, Email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401–7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 1536]; Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 1361–1423h]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–
7. Noise: 23 U.S.C. 109(i).
8. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species; E.O. 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 29, 2019.
Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to either: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130–0526,” (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is listed below) and should also include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to 202–493–6216 or 202–493–6497, or emailed to Ms. Wells at
Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–0440) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NHTSA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Eric Chaney, Office of Emergency Medical Services (NPD–400), Room W44–318, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Chaney's telephone number is (202) 366–0257. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Respondents include one representative from each State, populated Territory and the District of Columbia.
The Individual Burden for each of the 56 respondents is 18 hours per year. It is estimated that each respondent will spend an additional 1.5 hours per month ensuring a subset of data from the existing State Dataset is transmitted to the National Dataset.
Total burden hours are estimated based upon ongoing electronic submissions from each respondent, with machine to machine transmittal. NHTSA estimates that this information collection will involve 56 respondents spending approximately 18 hours providing information for NEMSIS. Therefore, the total annual burden estimate is 1,008 hours.
NHTSA estimated the total annual burden cost using the total average compensation costs for State, Territorial and local government workers of $50.55 per hour as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December 2018. Therefore, the total cost associated with the 1,008 burden hours is $50,954. There are no additional anticipated costs to respondents or record keepers, beyond what they have already set up to meet their own State needs for this information.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Request for public comment on a proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA–2019–0051 using any of the following methods:
Kathy Sifrit, Ph.D., Contracting Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD–320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W46–472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is 202–366–0868, and her email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comment on the following proposed collection of information:
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before September 30, 2019.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel (NCC–0100), Room W41–229, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202.366.2992.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following collection of information:
This collection covers the information collection requirements found within various statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. 30101,
Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers are obligated to notify, and then provide various information and documents to, NHTSA in the event a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS is identified in products they manufactured.
Manufacturers are also required to file with NHTSA a plan explaining how they intend to reimburse owners and purchasers who paid to have their products remedied before being notified of the safety defect or noncompliance, and explain that plan in the notifications they issue to owners and purchasers about the safety defect or noncompliance.
The Act and Part 573 also contain numerous information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns. These requirements relate to the proper disposal of recalled tires, including a requirement that the manufacturer conducting the tire recall submit a plan and provide specific instructions to certain persons (such as dealers and distributors) addressing that disposal, and a requirement that those persons report back to the manufacturer certain deviations from the plan.
49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation found at 49 CFR 573.10 mandate that anyone who knowingly and willfully sells or leases for use on a motor vehicle a defective tire or a tire that is not compliant with FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that the tire manufacturer has notified its dealers of the defect or noncompliance as required under the Act, is required to report that sale or lease to NHTSA no more than five working days after the person to whom the tire was sold or leased takes possession of it.
Pursuant to its safety authorities, NHTSA is continuing its oversight of recalls of unprecedented complexity involving Takata air bag inflators.
Based on current information, we estimate 249 distinct manufacturers filing an average of 988 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 963 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports filed by 274 manufacturers each year. In addition, with reference to the metric associated with NHTSA's Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Look-up Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15, we continue to estimate it takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers (those that produce more than 25,000 vehicles annually) additional burden hours to complete these Reports to NHTSA, as explored in more detail below.
We continue to estimate that maintenance of the required owner, purchaser, dealer, and distributors lists requires 8 hours a year per manufacturer. We also continue to
We continue to estimate that an additional 40 hours will be needed to account for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adding details to Part 573 Safety Recall Reports relating to the intended schedule for notifying its dealers and distributors, and tailoring its notifications to dealers and distributors in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 577.13. An additional 2 hours will be needed to account for this obligation in other manufacturers' Safety Recall Reports. This burden is estimated at 13,984 hours annually (672 notices × 2 hours/notification) + (316 notices × 40 hours/notification).
49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires manufacturers to provide to the Agency copies of all communications regarding defects and noncompliances sent to owners, purchasers, and dealerships. Manufacturers must index these communications by the year, make, and model of the vehicle as well as provide a concise summary of the subject of the communication. We continue to estimate this burden requires 3 hours for each vehicle recall for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers, and 30 minutes for all other manufacturers for each vehicle recall. This totals an estimated 1,284 hours annually (316 recalls × 3 hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (672 recalls × .5 for all other manufacturers).
In the event a manufacturer supplied the defective or noncompliant product to independent dealers through independent distributors, that manufacturer is required to include in its notifications to those distributors an instruction that the distributors are then to provide copies of the manufacturer's notification of the defect or noncompliance to all known distributors or retail outlets further down the distribution chain within five working days.
As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification remedies, we continue to estimate that the preparation of a reimbursement plan takes approximately 4 hours annually. We also continue to estimate that an additional 1.5 hours per year is spent by the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adapting the plan to particular defect and noncompliance notifications to NHTSA and adding tailored language about the plan to a particular safety recall's owner notification letters, while an additional .5 hours per year is spent on this task by all other manufacturers. And we continue to estimate that an additional 12 hours annually is spent disseminating plan information, for a total of 4,794 annual burden hours ((249 MFRs × 4 hours to prepare plan) + (316 recalls × 1.5 hours tailoring plan for each recall) + (672 recalls × .5 hours) + (249 MFRs × 12 hours to disseminate plan information)).
The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 also contain numerous information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns, as well as a statutory and regulatory reporting requirement that anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or leases a defective or noncompliant tire notify NHTSA of that activity.
Manufacturers are required to include specific information related to tire disposal in the notifications they provide NHTSA concerning identification of a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS in their tires, as well as in the notifications they issue to their dealers or other tire outlets participating in the recall campaign.
Manufacturer-owned or controlled dealers are required to notify the manufacturer and provide certain information should they deviate from the manufacturer's disposal plan. Consistent with our previous analysis, we continue to ascribe zero burden hours to this requirement since to date no such reports have been provided, and our original expectation that dealers would comply with manufacturers' plans has proven accurate.
Accordingly, we estimate 22 burden hours a year will be spent complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9).
The agency continues to estimate 1 burden hour annually will be spent preparing and submitting reports of a defective or noncompliant tire being intentionally sold or leased under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 573.10.
We continue to expect that nine vehicle manufacturers, who did not operate VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior to August 2013, incur certain recurring burdens on an annual basis. We continue to estimate that 100 burden hours will be spent on system and database administrator support. These 100 burden hours include: Backup data management and monitoring; database management, updates, and log management; and data transfer, archiving, quality assurance, and cleanup procedures. We continue to estimate another 100 burden hours will be incurred on web/application developer support. These burdens include: Operating system and security patch management; application/web server management; and application server system and log files management. We continue to estimate these burdens will total 1,800 hours each year (9 MFRs × 200 hours). We also continue to estimate the recurring costs of these burden hours will be $30,000 per
Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 required 27 manufacturers to update each recalled vehicle's repair status no less than every 7 days, for 15 years from the date the VIN is known to be included in the recall. This ongoing requirement to update the status of a VIN for 15 years continues to add a recurring burden on top of the one-time burden to implement and operate these online search tools. We continue to estimate that 8 affected motorcycle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 affected passenger-vehicle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for an average of 8 recalls each year. We believe it will take no more than 1 hour, and potentially less with automated systems, to update the VIN status of vehicles that have been remedied under the manufacturer's remedy program. We continue to estimate this will require 8,736 burden hours per year (1 hour × 2 recalls × 52 weeks × 8 MFRs + 1 hour × 8 recalls × 52 weeks × 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the recalls completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for 15 years.
As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent years, so has the number of quarterly reports that track the completion of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 4,498 quarterly reports received annually is now revised upwards to 5,512 quarter reports received annually. We continue to estimate it takes manufacturers 1 hour to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report, and 10 additional hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers to submit electronic reports. We therefore now estimate that the quarterly reporting burden pursuant to Part 573 totals 5,682 hours ((5,512 quarterly reports × 1 hour/report) + (17 MFRs × 10 hours for electronic submission)).
We continue to estimate a small burden of 2 hours annually in order to set up a manufacturer's online recalls portal account with the pertinent contact information and maintaining/updating their account information as needed. We estimate this will require a total of 498 hours annually (2 hours × 249 MFRs).
We continue to estimate that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will involve a change or addition regarding recall components, and that at two hours per amended report, this totals 396 burden hours per year (988 recalls × .20 = 193 recalls; 198 × 2 = 396 hours).
As to the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA in the event of a bankruptcy, we expect this notification to take an estimated 2 hours to draft and submit to NHTSA. We continue to estimate that only 10 manufacturers might submit such a notice to NHTSA each year, so we calculate the total burden at 20 hours (10 MFRs × 2 hours).
We continue to estimate that it takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers an average of 11 hours to draft their notification letters, submit them to NHTSA for review, and then finalize them for mailing to their affected owners and purchasers. We also continue to estimate it takes 8 hours for all other manufacturers to perform this task. Accordingly, we estimate that the 49 CFR part 577 requirements result in 8,852 burden hours annually (11 hours per recall × 316 recalls per year) + (8 hours per recall × 672 recalls per year).
The burden estimate associated with the regulation that requires interim owner notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety Recall Report must be revised upward. We previously calculated that about 12 percent of past recalls require an interim notification mailing, but recent trends show that 13 percent of recalls require an interim owner notification mailing. We continue to estimate the preparation of an interim notification can take up to 10 hours. We therefore estimate that 1,250 burden hours are associated with the 60-day interim notification requirement (963 recalls × .13 = 125 recalls; 125 recalls times 10 hours per recall = 1,250 hours).
As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of recalls, to reflect an increase in postage rates, we are revising our estimate of the cost of first-class mail notification to $1.53 per notification, on average. This cost estimate includes the costs of printing and mailing, as well as the costs vehicle manufacturers may pay to third-party vendors to acquire the names and addresses of the current registered owners from state and territory departments of motor vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we determined that an estimated 51.4 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $78,642,000 ($1.53 per letter × 51,400,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part 577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60 days would add an additional $10,223,460 (51,400,000 letters × .13 requiring interim owner notifications = 6,682,000 letters; 6,682,000 × $1.53 = $10,023,000). In total, we estimate that the current 49 CFR part 577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $88,865,460 annually ($78,642,000 for owner notification letters + $10,223,460 for interim notification letters = $88,865,460).
As discussed above, to address the scope and complexity of the Takata recalls, NHTSA issued the ACRO, which requires affected vehicle manufacturers to conduct supplemental owner notification efforts in coordination with NHTSA and the Independent Monitor of Takata. On December 23, 2016, the Monitor, in consultation with NHTSA, issued Coordinated Communications Recommendations for vehicle owner outreach (“CCRs”), which includes a recommendation that vehicle manufacturers provide at least one form of consumer outreach per month for vehicles in a launched recall campaign (
As noted above, two comments were submitted in response to the 60-day notice of this information collection. One of those comments appears to have been placed on the incorrect docket. The other comment, filed by The Alliance (which also attached two previously filed comments regarding this collection), responded to several facets of the notice that touch on two primary issues: (1) The extent to which various provisions of the ACRO are subject to the PRA (and whether the investigatory exception applies to the PRA in this context); and (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate. The Alliance commented that it believes that NHTSA should account for additional cost burdens under the
As to the extent to which various provision of the ACRO in addition to the CCRs described above are subject to the PRA, The Alliance previously commented that the investigatory exception to the PRA applies “ `only after a case file or equivalent is opened with respect to a particular party . . . and only with respect to `an administrative action, investigation or audit involving an agency against specific individuals or entities.' ” Comments (Jan. 22, 2018) at 2 (quoting 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c)). The Alliance's position is that “if there is any relevant investigation,” it is an investigation against Takata—not the affected automakers, because they “are not the target” of the investigation.
NHTSA is not persuaded that it should deviate from its approach. The plain meaning of the statute specifically exempts collections of information “during the conduct of . . . an administrative action, investigation, or audit involving an agency
Thus, contrary to Alliance and Global's suggestion, these orders are not generalized so as to apply broadly “to a category of individuals or entities, such as a class of licensees or an industry” under the PRA.
In sum, NHTSA is conducting an ongoing administrative action and investigation into particular parties—both Takata and the specifically enumerated affected vehicle manufacturers—as governed by the Takata Coordinated Remedy Program. The Program is constructed and implemented through various Agency orders (principally the Coordinated Remedy Order and amendments) directed specifically at a discrete, finite number of entities, including only those vehicle manufacturers affected by the Takata recalls. Accordingly, NHTSA's responses to comments and its burden estimates are limited to the monthly-outreach recommendation in the CCRs.
Furthermore, to the burden estimate, NHTSA acknowledges the “wide variety of outreach methods contemplated by the ACRO,” and agrees with the Alliance's recognition that estimating per-VIN outreach cost is a difficult task given that outreach populations change and, with those changes, the methods necessary to engage those populations also changes.
The CCR provisions recommend “[e]ngaging in outreach specific to the Takata airbag recall employing
NHTSA recognizes that as vehicles are repaired, the harder-to-reach owners comprise a larger portion of the remaining unrepaired population, and that as manufacturers adopt more intensive outreach methods, outreach may prove more expensive. NHTSA also notes, however, that while certain forms of non-traditional outreach may be more expensive than others (such as
As to the effectiveness and “practical utility” of outreach under the CCRs, this is in part reflected in the 2017
Maintaining such momentum—through mechanisms such as monthly outreach—is vital to the success of the recalls. And this is a goal in which Congress continues to take significant interest, including at a hearing on the issue on March 20, 2018. The Takata Monitor testified at that hearing: “Vehicle manufacturers using frequent, multi-channel outreach have seen completion percentages nearly twice as high as rates for vehicle manufacturers using traditional letter outreach, when targeting similarly situated vehicles over the same period of time.”
As to accounting for Monitor-conducted surveys and other activities, as a general matter, monitors are “an independent third-party, not an employee or agent of the corporation or of the Government.”
As to discounting our cost estimates based on vehicle manufacturers' settlement agreements in multi-district litigation proceedings, The Alliance's position is essentially that the ACRO predates the MDL settlement, and that “[t]he settling companies would have set aside more than $1Billion to comply with [the] ACRO, even if there had been no MDL settlement.”
At present, settling vehicle manufacturers have already chosen to enter into these settlement agreements, and looking forward, these vehicle manufacturers must comply with its terms—including provisions for enhanced outreach efforts. It is appropriate that NHTSA's burden estimate discounts for enhanced outreach that will occur regardless of the ACRO. In fact, the Agency's view is that outreach conducted under the settlements appear to satisfy the minimum recommendations of the ACRO and CCRs. The Alliance's comments that costs associated with the ACRO were considered when executing the settlement agreements, or that manufacturers would have set aside those funds to comply with the ACRO in the absence of a settlement, do not affect this. But for NHTSA's ACRO, as NHTSA is presently submitting its information-collection renewal, settling
To account for the progression of the recalls since its last notice, NHTSA is revising its previous estimates associated with this part of the collection. NHTSA continues to estimate a yearly average of 19 manufacturers will be issuing monthly supplemental communications over the next three years pursuant to the ACRO and the CCRs. Manufacturers may satisfy the CCRs through third-party vendors (which have been utilized by many manufacturers), in-house strategies, or some combination thereof. NHTSA estimates the cost for supplemental communications at $10.00 per VIN per month.
The volume of outreach required by the ACRO and the CCRs (and the costs associated with that outreach) is a function of the number of unrepaired vehicles that are in a launched campaign and are not otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise unreachable. The schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO delineates the expected remedy completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles in a launched remedy campaign.
Utilizing these variables, we now estimate an initial annualized cost over the next three years of $1,018,882,470 per year, with an annualized discount of $541,833,140 to account for outreach conducted pursuant to the MDL settlement agreements by seven vehicle manufacturers, for a net annualized cost of $477,049,330. NHTSA estimates that manufacturers will take an average of 10 hours each month drafting or customizing supplemental recall communications utilizing non-traditional means, submitting them to NHTSA for review, and finalizing them to send to affected owners and purchasers. NHTSA therefore estimates that 2280 burden hours annually are associated with issuing these supplemental recall communications, with an annualized discount of 840 hours to account for outreach conducted pursuant to the MDL settlement agreements by seven vehicle manufacturers, for a net annualized burden of 1440 hours.
Because of the forgoing burden estimates, we are revising the burden estimate associated with this collection. The 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in today's notice will require 66,004 hours each year. NHTSA estimates the labor cost for compiling and submitting the required information under 49 CFR parts 573 and 577 to be $33.98 per hour using the Bureau of Labor's mean hourly wage estimate for technical writers in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational Classification # 27–3042).
The burden estimate in this collection contemplated for conducting supplemental recall communications under administrative order to achieve completion of the Takata recalls is 1440 hours each year. That administrative order contemplates impacted manufacturers incurring an annual cost estimated at $477,049,330. NHTSA also estimates the labor cost for compiling and submitting the required information to be $35.28 per hour using the Bureau of Labor's mean hourly wage estimate for Media and Communications Workers in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational Classification #27–3000).
Therefore, in total, we estimate the burden associated with this collection to be 67,444 hours each year, with a recurring annual cost estimated at $569,456,715.47.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning transitional guidance under sections 162(f) and 6050X with respect to certain fines, penalties, and other amounts.
Written comments should be received on or before October 29, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
Section 13306 of “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,” Public Law 115–97 (the “Act”), which was signed into law on December 22, 2017, amended section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) and added new section 6050X to the Code. The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) intend to publish proposed regulations under sections 162(f) and 6050X.
This submission is being made to extend the current approval as required in the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for September 18, 2019.
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or dial in to listen to the meeting at (866) 564–9287/Access Code: 62956028.
Interested persons should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354–7502 for the latest update on meeting time and room location.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by email to
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Members of the public interested in attending the meeting in person will be admitted into the meeting room on a first-come, first-serve basis as space is limited. Conference Room A&B can accommodate up to 50 members of the public at any one time. In addition, all persons entering a United States Mint facility must adhere to building security protocol. This means they must consent to the search of their persons and objects in their possession while on government grounds and when they enter and leave the facility, and are prohibited from bringing into the facility weapons of any type, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, or contraband.
The United States Mint Police Officer conducting the screening will evaluate whether an item may enter into or exit from a facility based upon Federal law, Treasury policy, United States Mint Policy, and local operating procedure; and all prohibited and unauthorized items will be subject to confiscation and disposal.
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354–7200.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This notice allocates $6.875 billion in Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG–MIT) funds to grantees recovering from qualifying 2015, 2016, and 2017 disasters. Funds allocated by this notice were made available by the Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018 (approved February 9, 2018) (the “Appropriations Act”). This notice describes grant requirements and procedures, including waivers and alternative requirements, applicable to CDBG–MIT funds only. The Department acknowledges the governance and financial management challenges of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the on-going capacity considerations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Accordingly, the allocation of funds to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for mitigation and electrical power system improvements shall be governed by subsequent notices in order to provide additional time to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to work with the Department to address these issues.
Jessie Handforth Kome, Acting Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Community Planning and Development, 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 $28 billion in Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG–DR) funds, and directed HUD to allocate not less than $12 billion for mitigation activities proportional to the amounts that CDBG–DR grantees received for qualifying disasters in 2015, 2016, and 2017. This notice accordingly allocates $6,875,044,000 in CDBG–MIT funds for mitigation activities consistent with the Appropriations Act.
CDBG–MIT funds represent a unique and significant opportunity for grantees to use this assistance in areas impacted by recent disasters to carry out strategic and high-impact activities to mitigate disaster risks and reduce future losses. While it is impossible to eliminate all risks, CDBG–MIT funds will enable grantees to mitigate against disaster risks, while at the same time allowing grantees the opportunity to transform State and local planning.
Through this allocation for mitigation, HUD seeks to:
• Support data-informed investments in high-impact projects that will reduce risks attributable to natural disasters, with particular focus on repetitive loss of property and critical infrastructure;
• Build the capacity of States and local governments to comprehensively analyze disaster risks and to update hazard mitigation plans through the use of data and meaningful community engagement;
• Support the adoption of policies that reflect local and regional priorities that will have long-lasting effects on community risk reduction, to include the risk reduction to community lifelines such as Safety and Security, Communications, Food, Water, Sheltering, Transportation, Health and Medical, Hazardous Material (management) and Energy (Power & Fuel); and future disaster costs (
• Maximize the impact of available funds by encouraging leverage, private-public partnerships, and coordination with other Federal programs.
The guiding structure and objectives established for CDBG–MIT funds bear similarities to other federal programs that address hazard mitigation, particularly FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Accordingly, HUD has structured this notice and its requirements to complement HMGP policies and processes where possible. For example, both CDBG–MIT funds and FEMA HMGP funds require grantees to conduct a multi-hazard risk assessment to inform projects and programs. Additionally, grantee use of CDBG–MIT funds will be focused on effectively addressing risks to indispensable services that enable the continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and that are critical to the protection of human health and safety, or economic security, as described in section V.A.2.a.(1) of this notice.
The Appropriations Act provides CDBG–MIT funds as a supplemental appropriation to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Accordingly, the alignment of CDBG–MIT funds with other federal mitigation programs must also occur within the basic CDBG framework. The national objectives of the CDBG program are: (a) Providing benefit to low- and moderate-income persons; (b) preventing or eliminating slum and blighting conditions; or (c) addressing a severe and recently arising urgent community welfare or health need. Unlike other forms of Federal disaster recovery assistance, CDBG–DR and CDBG–MIT grants have a statutory focus on benefiting vulnerable lower-income people and communities and targeting the most impacted and distressed areas.
The Appropriations Act requires that prior to the obligation of CDBG–DR funds by the Secretary, a grantee shall submit a plan to HUD for approval detailing the proposed use of all funds including the criteria for eligibility and how the use of these funds will address
The notice also balances the goals of aligning mitigation policies across federally-funded programs, maximizing efficiencies, and preserving critical aspects of the CDBG structure. As discussed in section V.A. of this notice, Grant Administration and Action Plan Requirements, grantees are encouraged to use CDBG–MIT planning funds to update the FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMP) and are required to reference the applicable FEMA HMP in their action plan and describe how the HMP has informed the CDBG–MIT action plan. Grantees may also use these funds for planning activities, including but not limited to regional mitigation planning, the integration of mitigation plans with other planning initiatives, activities related to FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM, to be renamed Building Resilient and Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) as part of implementation of section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which amended section 203 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5133)) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), modernizing building codes and regional land-use plans, and upgrading mapping, data, and other capabilities to better understand evolving disaster risks. For example, in wildland fire risk areas, grantees may use these funds to develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Additionally, State grantees are encouraged to use CDBG–MIT planning funds to meet the additional requirements for an
HUD recognizes that this first-time appropriation of mitigation-only CDBG funds may pose challenges to grantees in aligning their mitigation strategies and activities with their obligation to use most of their CDBG–MIT funds to benefit low- and moderate-income persons and to use the funds in the MID areas resulting from a disaster. Accordingly, this notice provides grantees with flexibility on the percentages related to a CDBG–MIT grant's overall benefit requirement and MID expenditure requirement. As with CDBG–DR, HUD encourages CDBG–MIT grantees to consider a wide range of community development objectives related to recovery and economic resilience. This notice provides a waiver and establishes an alternative requirement to include new urgent need national objective criteria that are applicable to CDBG–MIT funds only, as described in section V.A.13. of this notice. This urgent need mitigation (UNM) national objective requires activities funded with the CDBG–MIT grant to result in measurable and verifiable reductions in the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters and yield community development benefits. The waiver and alternative requirement in section V.A.13. also explains that 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 mitigation activities.
CDBG–MIT funds are to be used for distinctly different purposes than CDBG–DR funds. The amount of funding provided through this CDBG–MIT allocation and the nature of the programs and projects that are likely to be funded requires that CDBG–MIT grantees and their subrecipients strengthen their program management capacity, financial management, and internal controls. Each grantee is required to strengthen its internal audit function, specify the criteria for subrecipient selection, increase subrecipient monitoring, and establish a process for promptly identifying and addressing conflicts under the grantee's conflict of interest policy. The Department also intends to establish special grant conditions for individual CDBG–MIT grants based upon 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 mitigation programs are implemented in a manner to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and that mitigation projects are effectively operated and maintained.
While CDBG–DR and CDBG–MIT funding are valuable resources for long-term recovery and mitigation in the wake of major disasters, HUD concurrently expects that grantees will take steps to set in place substantial governmental policies and infrastructure to enhance the impact of HUD-funded investments. In some instances, this goal may be achieved through the development and application of more stringent building and zoning codes which will help to limit damage from future severe weather events. It should be noted that these actions are eligible costs under CDBG–DR or CDBG–MIT funding.
Consistent with prior CDBG–DR notices, HUD restates that disaster recovery is a partnership between Federal, state, and local government and CDBG–MIT grantees should invest in their own recovery. To sustain CDBG–MIT physical investments in the future, it is imperative that grantees collect and apply sufficient revenues for operation and maintenance costs in the outyears. HUD expects grantees to contribute to their recovery through the use of reserve or “rainy day” funds, borrowing authority, or retargeting of existing resources. The ultimate value of this mitigation funding appropriation is not limited to the projects and activities implemented with the funds but will also encompass how state and local partners are motivated to improve many of their governmental functions to better position jurisdictions to be resilient in the face of future disasters. HUD will examine how grantees plan to achieve this broader benefit and will promote best practices to future CDBG–DR grantees.
It is the policy of the Administration that this first implementation of CDBG–MIT funding be implemented in a manner that mandates careful planning, adequate oversight, and increased reporting of anticipated and actual outcomes of the uses of the mitigation funds, to inform future Federal disaster mitigation efforts, to encourage private sector funding of mitigation projects, and to maximize the benefits of CDBG–MIT funding.
The Administration cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for grantees to fully and carefully evaluate the projects that will be assisted with CDBG–MIT funds. One of the goals of CDBG–MIT is to set a nationwide standard that will
One such lens could be a thorough consideration of projects and activities encompassed within the applicable FEMA HMP and a judgment of whether those projects/activities represent targeted strategic investments for the grantee based on current or foreseeable risks. This judgment would stand in contrast to the funding of projects/activities identified in such plans where, for example, there has been no recent review of the risk reduction value of the investment or the project/activity has been carried in the plan for years but has limited risk reduction value.
A second lens could be a consideration of the status of necessary planning and permitting efforts. To ensure that CDBG–MIT investments have the highest possible impact on long-term mitigation and resilience needs, each grantee should conduct a careful status review of planning and permitting actions for proposed projects/activities and identify those that can move forward quickly. Concurrently, this exercise can help to identify Federal regulatory relief that is critical to helping clear the path for these projects/activities. In this vein, the Administration expects that grantees will conduct a review of and make necessary changes and exceptions to their own permitting and related processes to expedite funded projects/activities. In undertaking this analysis, grantees should not succumb to the urge to select projects/activities solely because they are the most advanced in the planning and permitting process but should focus on high impact investments and a thorough understanding of what will be necessary to move those investments forward rapidly.
The notice includes several waivers and alternative requirements typically established in CDBG–DR
For purposes of this notice, HUD is using the terms CDBG–MIT programs and projects to refer to the means by which grantees implement CDBG eligible activities. This notice also references the general categories of infrastructure and public facilities, housing, planning and administration, public services, and economic development that grantees often use to group activities in an action plan, in the DRGR action plan, and in quarterly performance reports.
For the purposes of this notice, mitigation activities are defined as those activities that increase resilience to disasters and reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of loss of life, injury, damage to and loss of property, and suffering and hardship, by lessening the impact of future disasters.
Before the Secretary obligates CDBG–MIT funds to a grantee, the Appropriations Act requires the grantee to submit a plan to HUD for approval detailing the proposed use of all funds. All or a portion of an action plan or substantial amendment will be substantially incomplete if the plan does not include the elements required by this notice. A grantee's use of CDBG–MIT funds must be consistent with its action plan.
All CDBG–MIT activities must: (1) Meet the definition of mitigation activities above; (2) address the current and future risks as identified in the grantee's Mitigation Needs Assessment of most impacted and distressed areas (described below); (3) be CDBG-eligible activities under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA) or otherwise eligible pursuant to a waiver or alternative requirement; and (4) meet a national objective, including additional criteria for mitigation activities and Covered Projects. The action plan must describe how funded activities satisfy these requirements.
As mentioned above, the action plan must include a risk-based Mitigation Needs Assessment that identifies and analyzes all significant current and future disaster risks and provides a substantive basis for the activities proposed. To complete this assessment, grantees must consult with other jurisdictions, the private sector and other government agencies, including State and local emergency management agencies that have primary responsibility for the administration of FEMA mitigation funds, including the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO), for HMGP alignment. Grantees must also use the most recent risk assessment completed or currently being updated through the FEMA HMP process to inform the use of CDBG–MIT funds. Therefore, the grantee must use the risks identified in the FEMA approved HMP as the starting point for its Mitigation Needs Assessment unless the jurisdiction is in the process of updating the HMP. If a jurisdiction is currently updating an expired HMP, the grantee administering the CDBG–MIT funds must consult with the agency administering the HMP update to identify the risks that will be included in the Mitigation Needs Assessment. The action plan must describe proposed allocations of CDBG–MIT funds that meet all of the requirements listed above in this section.
To maximize the impact of all available funds, grantees must coordinate and align these CDBG–MIT funds with other mitigation projects funded by FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies as appropriate. For example, in wildland fire prone areas, this would include federal and state forestry and fire agencies that carry out activities related to fire risk reduction.
Grantees must describe in their action plan how they have coordinated and will continue to coordinate with other partners who manage FEMA and USACE funds and describe the actions that they have taken to align their planned CDBG–MIT activities with other federal, state, and local mitigation projects and planning processes.
To allow for a more detailed review of larger projects, this notice requires that infrastructure projects that also meet the definition of a Covered Project be included in an action plan or a substantial action plan amendment. For purposes of this notice, a Covered Project is defined as an infrastructure project having a total project cost of $100 million or more, with at least $50 million of CDBG funds (regardless of source (CDBG–DR, CDBG-National Disaster Resilience (NDR), CDBG–MIT, or CDBG)). For grantees that are considered by HUD to have “unmitigated high risks” that impact
As described in section V.A.2.h. below, when a grantee proposes a Covered Project, the action plan or substantial amendment must include a description of the project and the information required for other CDBG–MIT activities (how it meets the definition of a mitigation activity, consistency with the Mitigation Needs Assessment provided in the grantee's action plan, eligibility under section 105(a) of the HCDA or a waiver or alternative requirement, and national objective, including additional criteria for mitigation activities). Additionally, the action plan must describe how the Covered Project meets additional criteria for national objectives for Covered Projects (described in V.A.13. below) including: Consistency with other mitigation activities in the same MID area; demonstrated long-term efficacy and sustainability of the project including its operations and maintenance; and a demonstration that the benefits of the Covered Project outweigh the costs (through the methods described in V.A.2.h.).
The Appropriations Act made CDBG–MIT funds available for eligible activities related to the mitigation of risks within the MID areas. This notice lists the HUD-identified MID areas for each CDBG–DR grantee receiving an allocation of CDBG–MIT funds. The HUD-identified MID areas for each CDBG–MIT grant are those identified by HUD in the following
•
•
•
The amount of CDBG–MIT funding grantees must expend to mitigate risks within the HUD-identified MID areas is listed in Table 1. In some instances, HUD previously identified the entire jurisdiction of a grantee as the MID area. For all other CDBG–MIT grantees, HUD is requiring that at least 50 percent of all CDBG–MIT funds must be used for mitigation activities that address identified risks within the HUD-identified MID areas. HUD will include 50 percent of a grantee's expenditures for grant administration in its determination that 50 percent of the total award has been expended in the HUD identified MID areas. Additionally, expenditures for planning activities may be counted towards a grantee's 50 percent MID expenditure requirement, provided that the grantee describes in its action plan how those planning activities benefit the HUD identified MID areas.
HUD may approve a grantee's request to add other areas to the HUD-identified MID areas based upon the grantee's submission of a data-driven analysis that illustrates the basis for designating the additional area as most impacted and distressed as a result of the qualifying disaster. As the HUD-identified MID areas for CDBG–MIT funds are the same as those identified for each grantee in the Prior Notices, a grantee seeking to amend its HUD-identified MID area for purposes of its CDBG–MIT grant, must also amend the HUD-identified MID area for its corresponding 2015, 2016, or 2017 CDBG–DR grant. Grantees proposing to add to the HUD-identified MID area for their existing CDBG–DR grant shall do so through a substantial amendment that includes a consideration of unmet housing recovery needs. The grantee must also undertake a substantial amendment to its CDBG–MIT action plan so that the HUD-identified MID areas are the same across both grants. The grantee may submit the substantial amendments for both grants simultaneously.
Grantees may determine where to use the remaining 50 percent of the CDBG–MIT grant (the grantee-identified MID areas), but that portion of the grant must be used for mitigation activities that address identified risks within those areas that the grantee determines are most impacted and distressed resulting from the major disasters identified by the disaster numbers listed in Table 1. The grantee-identified MID areas must be determined through the use of quantifiable and verifiable data.
Grantee expenditures for eligible mitigation activities outside of the HUD-identified or grantee-identified MID area may be counted toward the MID area expenditure requirements provided that the grantee can demonstrate how the expenditure of CDBG–MIT funds outside of this area will measurably mitigate risks identified within the HUD-identified or grantee-identified MID area (
In accordance with the Appropriations Act, HUD's allocation of CDBG–MIT funds is based on each grantee's proportional share of total
The grant process outlined below aligns with the typical order employed for CDBG–DR grants. However, the Department recognizes the potentially broad range of mitigation activities that may be funded pursuant to this notice and the critical importance of coordinating those investments across multiple jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Department is providing extended time frames and mechanisms for on-going citizen participation in the development and implementation of plans for mitigation activities funded pursuant to this notice.
To begin expending CDBG–MIT funds, the following steps are necessary:
• Grantee develops or amends its citizen participation plan for disaster recovery per the requirements in section V.A.3 to provide for the mitigation funding.
• Grantee consults with stakeholders, including required consultation with affected local governments, Indian Tribes, and public housing authorities (as identified in section V.A.7.).
• In accordance with the requirements in section V.A.1.a., 60 days prior to the deadline for the submission of an action plan as prescribed in section V.A.2.e, the grantee submits documentation for the certification of financial controls and procurement processes, and adequate procedures for grant management.
• Grantee publishes its action plan for mitigation on the grantee's required public website for no less than 45 calendar days to solicit public comment and convenes the required amount of public hearings on the proposed plan.
• Pursuant to the date prescribed in section V.A.2.e., grantee responds to public comment and submits its action plan (which includes Standard Form 424 (SF–424) and certifications), its implementation plan and capacity assessment submissions in accordance with the requirements in section V.A.1.b., and projection of expenditures and outcomes to HUD.
• Grantee requests and receives Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system access (if the grantee does not already have DRGR access) and may enter activities into the 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 date of receipt) the action plan according to criteria identified for CDBG–MIT funds, and either approves or disapproves the plan. If the action plan is not approved, HUD will notify the grantee of the deficiencies. The grantee must then resubmit the action plan within 45 days of the notification.
• After the action plan is approved, HUD sends an action plan approval letter.
• Prior to transmittal of the grant agreement, HUD notifies grantees of its certification of the grantee's financial controls, procurement processes and grant management procedures and its acceptance of the implementation plan and capacity assessment.
• HUD sends the grant agreement to the grantee.
• Grantee signs and returns the grant agreement to HUD.
• Grantee posts the final HUD-approved action plan on its official website.
• HUD establishes the grantee's line of credit.
• 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).
• The grantee must publish (on its website) policies for programs and activities implemented by the grantee with CDBG–MIT funds.
• The grantee may draw down funds from the line of credit after the Responsible Entity completes applicable environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 or as authorized by the Appropriations Act and, as applicable, receives from HUD the Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF) form and certification.
• Substantial amendments are subject to a 30-day public comment period, including posting to grantee's website, followed by a 60-day review period for HUD.
This section of the notice describes requirements imposed by the Appropriations Act, as well as waivers and alternative requirements that apply to the CDBG–MIT funds provided in the Appropriations Act. The waivers and alternative requirements provide flexibility in program design and implementation to support the prudent implementation of mitigation activities to lessen the impact of future disasters, while ensuring that statutory requirements are met. For each waiver and alternative requirement, the Secretary has determined that good cause exists, and the waiver or alternative requirement is 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 mitigation 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 the assigned CPD representative to request any additional waivers or alternative requirements from HUD headquarters. Except where noted, the waivers and alternative requirements described below apply only to the CDBG–MIT funds. Under the requirements of the Appropriations Act, waivers and alternative requirements must be published in the
Except as described for CDBG–MIT funds, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the State CDBG program apply to States receiving a CDBG–MIT grant, including but not limited to, the principle of maximum feasible deference as provided at 24 CFR 570.480. In addition, except as provided herein, the statutory and regulatory provisions governing the Entitlement CDBG program apply only to local governments receiving a CDBG–MIT grant. Statutory provisions (title I of the HCDA) can be found at 42 U.S.C. 5301
V.A.1.
The Administration intends to closely monitor all aspects of the CDBG–MIT effort. This approach fits with the view that the CDBG–MIT initiative will require a high level of interaction between HUD and grantees to ensure performance and compliance across the implementation spectrum. Consistent with this approach, HUD will place great focus on the question of whether grantees have developed and submitted CDBG–MIT plans consistent with the requirements for CDBG–MIT funds, with particular attention to implementation plans and capacity assessments. The Department encourages grantees to identify in their plan any management and administrative reforms that have or will be implemented to improve accountability and outcomes associated with the use of CDBG–MIT funds.
Consistent with 2 CFR part 200, HUD will use grant conditions to the fullest extent possible to effectuate grantee policies that will contribute not only to improved outcomes in the use of CDBG–MIT funding but also help strengthen grantee management practices and long-term resilience. The Department may, if warranted, restrict the availability of funds until such time as various grant conditions are met by individual grantees. Grantees are reminded that HUD may, at any time, add new grant conditions based on performance or lack thereof or may pursue remedies based on performance consistent with subpart O of the CDBG regulations (including corrective and remedial actions in 24 CFR 570.910, 570.911, and 570.913) or under subpart I of the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR part 570.
V.A.1.a.
For each of the items (1) through (6) below, the grantee must also provide a table that clearly indicates which agency and personnel are responsible for each task along with contact information. All grantees must certify to the accuracy of its documentation and must submit this certification with its action plan, as required in section VI.1.
(1) Proficient financial management controls. The grantee must submit information upon which HUD can make the determination of proficient financial controls. A grantee has proficient financial management controls if each of the following criteria is satisfied:
(a) Single audit report and consolidated annual financial report. The grantee submits its most recent single audit and consolidated annual financial report (CAFR), which indicates, in HUD's determination, that the grantee has no material weaknesses, deficiencies, or concerns that HUD considers to be relevant to the financial management of the grant. If the grantee's most recent single audit or CAFR identified material weaknesses or deficiencies, the grantee must provide documentation satisfactory to HUD showing how those weaknesses have been removed or are being addressed; and
(b) Grantee assessment of its financial standards and completed Public Law 115–123 Financial Management and Grant Compliance Certification and supporting documentation. The grantee has assessed its financial standards and has submitted a completed Public Law 115–123 Financial Management and Grant Compliance Certification (Compliance Certification) available on the HUD Exchange website at
(2) Procurement processes/standards. HUD will determine whether the overall effect of the grantee's procurement processes/standards upholds the principles of full and open competition and whether the procurement processes/standards require an evaluation of the cost or price of the property or service. A grantee must submit its procurement policies and procedures and must demonstrate that the grantee will comply with the procurement requirements in section V.A.25. of this notice. The grantee must also provide a legal opinion that it has proficient procurement policies and procedures.
A State has proficient procurement policies and processes if HUD determines that its procurement processes/standards uphold the principles of full and open competition and include an evaluation of the cost or price of the property or service, and if its procurement processes/standards either (a) adopted 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326; or (b) follows its own procurement policies and procedures and establishes requirements for procurement policies and procedures for local governments and subrecipients based on full and open competition pursuant to 24 CFR 570.489(g), and the requirements applicable to the State, its local governments, and subrecipients include evaluation of the cost or price of the product or service; or (c) adopted 2 CFR 200.317, meaning that it will follow its own State procurement policies and procedures and will evaluate the cost or price of the product or service, but impose 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326 on its subrecipients.
Local governments have proficient procurement policies and processes if those policies and processes are consistent with the specific applicable procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. When the grantee provides a copy of its procurement standards, it must indicate the sections of its procurement standards that incorporate these provisions.
(3) Duplication of benefits procedures. A grantee has adequate procedures to prevent the duplication of benefits if the grantee submits uniform processes that reflect the requirements of section V.A.24. of this notice, including: (a) Verifying all sources of assistance received by the grantee or applicant, as applicable, prior to the award of CDBG–MIT funds; (b) determining a grantee's or an applicant's remaining funding need(s) for CDBG–MIT assistance before committing funds or awarding assistance; and (c) requiring beneficiaries to enter into a signed agreement to repay any duplicative assistance if they later receive
Policies and procedures of the grantee submitted to support the certification must provide that prior to the award of assistance, the grantee will use the best, most recent available data from FEMA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), insurers, and any other sources of local, state and federal sources of funding to prevent the duplication of benefits. In developing these policies and procedures, grantees are directed to the
(4) Timely expenditures. A grantee has adequate procedures to determine timely expenditures if it submits procedures that indicate the following to HUD: How the grantee will track expenditures each month; how it will monitor expenditures of its subrecipients; how it will account for and manage program income; how it will reprogram funds in a timely manner for activities that are stalled; how it will ensure that contracts and bills that require payment will be timely paid; how it will project expenditures of all CDBG–MIT funds within the period provided for in section V.A.26. of this notice; how it will ensure that its actual and projected expenditure of funds is accurately reported to HUD in its DRGR Quarterly Performance Report (QPR. The grantee shall also identify the personnel or organizational unit responsible for ensuring timely expenditures.
(5) Comprehensive mitigation website linked to the grantee's disaster recovery website. A grantee has adequate procedures to maintain a comprehensive website regarding all disaster recovery and mitigation activities funded under the Prior Notices and this notice, if it submits procedures that indicate that the grantee will have a separate page dedicated to CDBG–MIT activities that includes the information described in section V.A.3.d. of this notice and any additional information subsequently required by HUD. The procedures must also indicate the frequency of website updates. At a minimum, a grantee must update its website monthly and must link its CDBG–MIT website with the website required for its CDBG–DR grant. Additionally, HUD may require grantees to publish additional reports or dashboards on the grantee's website.
(6) Procedures to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. A grantee has adequate procedures to detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse if it submits policies or procedures that enhance those previously certified by the Department for the grantee's CDBG–DR grant and if those policies or procedures include:
(i) The criteria to be used to evaluate the capacity of potential subrecipients;
(ii) The frequency with which the grantee will monitor other agencies of the grantee that will administer CDBG–MIT funds, how it will enhance its monitoring of subrecipients, contractors and other program participants, how and why monitoring is to be conducted and which items are to be monitored;
(iii) Enhancements to the internal auditor function established for the grantee's CDBG–DR grant; or if the CDBG–MIT grant is to be administered by an agency that does not administer the CDBG–DR grant, how the internal auditor function is to be established and resourced. The internal audit function must provide both programmatic and financial oversight of grantee activities and the submission must include a document signed by the internal auditor that describes his or her role in detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. Additionally, grantees may, as a special grant condition, be required to submit internal audit reports directly to HUD;
(iv) A conflict of interest policy and the process for promptly identifying and addressing such conflicts; and
(v) Information on how the grantee will verify the accuracy of information provided by applicants.
Instances of fraud, waste, and abuse should be referred to the HUD OIG Fraud Hotline (phone: 1–800–347–3735 or email:
V.A.1.b.
A grantee has sufficient management capacity if it submits documentation showing that each of the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) Timely information on application status. A grantee has adequate procedures to enable applicants to determine the status of their applications for mitigation 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 200.205(c), the grantee must submit an implementation plan to the Department. The plan must describe the grantee's capacity to carry out mitigation activities, how it will address any capacity gaps, and how agency staff that administer CDBG–DR and CDBG–MIT funds will work with their counterparts who manage the grantee's FEMA-funded mitigation activities. If a grantee chooses to designate the agency that administers its FEMA funds as the entity for administration of its CDBG–MIT funds, the implementation plan must indicate how that agency will coordinate its activities with the agency that administers its CDBG–DR grant and will ensure compliance with all generally applicable CDBG requirements. HUD will determine a plan is adequate to reduce risk if, at a minimum it adequately addresses (a) through (e) below:
(a) Capacity assessment. The grantee has assessed its capacity to carry out mitigation 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 findings and an update on the corrective actions undertaken to address each finding. HUD may include additional requirements in the grantee's grant terms and 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 mitigation programs particularly as it relates to activities in infrastructure, housing, and economic development (if applicable); are responsible for procurement/contract management, compliance with the regulations implementing Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (24 CFR part 135) (Section 3), fair housing compliance, and environmental compliance; and are responsible for monitoring and quality assurance, and financial management. An adequate plan must also describe the agency's internal audit function, 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 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 State and local departments and divisions involved in the design and implementation of mitigation planning and projects, including, but not limited to the following: Departments responsible for developing the HMP for applicable jurisdictions; departments implementing the HMGP; subrecipients responsible for implementing the grantee's action plan; and local and regional planning departments to ensure consistency and the integration of CDBG–MIT activities with those planning efforts.
(d) 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 gaps in knowledge or technical expertise required for successful and timely implementation where identified in the capacity assessment.
(e) Accountability. The grantee's plan identifies the lead agency responsible for implementation of the CDBG–MIT grant and indicates that the head of that agency will report directly to the chief executive officer of the jurisdiction.
During the course of the CDBG–MIT grant, HUD will continually monitor each grantee's use of funds to determine the grantee's adherence to and consistency with the plan, as well as meeting the performance and timeliness objectives therein. A material failure to comply with the grantee's implementation plan, as approved by HUD, will prompt HUD to exercise any of the corrective or remedial actions authorized pursuant to subpart O of the CDBG regulations (including corrective and remedial actions in 24 CFR 570.910, 570.911, and 570.913) or under subpart I of the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR part 570.
V.A.2.
V.A.2.a.
The action plan must describe the impacts of the use of CDBG–MIT funds geographically by type at the lowest level practicable (
Several resources are available to grantees to assist in the development of the Mitigation Needs Assessment and corresponding proposed activities required in the action plan, as appropriate, including: The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan Resources website:
Grantees that have a FEMA-approved standard State HMP pursuant to 44 CFR 201.4, an enhanced HMP in accordance with 44 CFR 201.5 or other FEMA-approved mitigation plan, are required to use those plans and each plan's risk assessment to inform its response to the action plan requirements below. Grantees must reference these plans and indicate how the risks identified in the Mitigation Needs Assessment have been informed by the risks identified in the FEMA mitigation plan.
Mitigation needs evolve over time and grantees are to amend the Mitigation Needs Assessment and action plan as conditions change, additional mitigation needs are identified, and additional resources become available.
In addition to the waiver and alternative requirement established for CDBG–MIT action plans in this section of the notice, HUD is establishing an alternative requirement that grantees shall implement CDBG–MIT programs and projects in accordance with their action plan and with the descriptions provided by the grantee in the action
(1) A Mitigation Needs Assessment. Each grantee must assess the characteristics and impacts of current and future hazards identified through its recovery from the qualified disaster and any other Presidentially-declared disaster. Mitigation solutions designed to be resilient only for threats and hazards related to a prior disaster can leave a community vulnerable to negative effects from future extreme events related to other threats or hazards. When risks are identified among other vulnerabilities during the framing and design of mitigation projects, implementation of those projects can enhance protection and save lives, maximize the utility of scarce resources, and benefit the community long after the projects are complete. Accordingly, each grantee receiving a CDBG–MIT allocation must conduct a risk-based assessment to inform the use of CDBG–MIT funds to meet its mitigation needs, considering identified current and future hazards.
Grantees must assess their mitigation needs in a manner that effectively addresses risks to indispensable services that enable continuous operation of critical business and government functions, and are critical to human health and safety, or economic security. The Mitigation Needs Assessment must quantitatively assess the significant potential impacts and risks of hazards affecting the following seven critical service areas, or community lifelines:
CDBG–MIT funds activities that ensure that these critical areas are made more resilient and are able to reliably function during future disasters, can reduce the risk of loss of life, injury, and property damage and accelerate recovery following a disaster.
In the Mitigation Needs Assessment, each grantee must cite data sources and must at a minimum, use the risks identified in the current FEMA-approved state or local HMP. If a jurisdiction is currently updating an expired HMP, the grantee's agency administering the CDBG–MIT funds must consult with the agency administering the HMP update to identify the risks that will be included in the Mitigation Needs Assessment. A grantee may identify additional risks that are not included in its jurisdiction's HMP but must at a minimum address the risks included in its jurisdiction's HMP. Grantees must include citations from the State or local HMP as evidence that the Mitigation Needs Assessment is consistent with such plan.
In responding to this action plan requirement and presenting the required information, grantees must review and certify to HUD that they have considered, at a minimum, the following resources, as appropriate: FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook:
(2) Long-term planning and risk mitigation considerations. The grantee must describe how it plans to: Promote local and regional long-term planning and implementation informed by its Mitigation Needs Assessment, including through the development and enforcement of building codes and standards (such as wildland urban interface; and flood and all hazards, including ASCE–24 and ASCE–7, as may be applicable), vertical flood elevation protection, and revised land use and zoning policies; coordinate with other planning efforts by local and regional entities to ensure alignment of CDBG–MIT activities with those plans; and support actions to promote an increase in hazard insurance coverage.
For flood mitigation efforts: Grantees must consider high wind and continued sea level rise and ensure responsible floodplain and wetland management based on the history of flood mitigation efforts and the frequency and intensity of precipitation events. For wildfire mitigation efforts: Grantees must consider land-use plans that address density and quantity of development, as well as emergency access, landscaping, and water supply considerations. For tornado mitigation efforts: Grantees must consider promoting the construction and use of safe rooms and require or encourage wind engineering measures and construction techniques into building codes. CDBG–MIT funds may be used to reimburse planning and administrative costs for developing the action plan, including the Mitigation Needs Assessment, for the preparation or update of a State, local or tribal FEMA HMPs, and for compliance with environmental review and citizen participation requirements.
(3) Connection of mitigation programs and projects to identified risks. For each proposed program or project in the action plan, the grantee must address how the program or project mitigates specific current and future risks identified in the Mitigation Needs Assessment.
(4) Low- and moderate-income priority. Proposed mitigation programs and projects must prioritize the protection of low-and-moderate income (LMI) individuals. Each grantee must describe in its action plan how it will prioritize programs and projects that will protect LMI persons in order to meet the overall benefit requirement pursuant to this notice.
Additionally, if the grantee's programs or projects will increase the resiliency of housing, the grantee must describe how the programs or projects will do so for housing that typically serves vulnerable populations, including the following housing: Transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, permanent housing serving individuals and families (including subpopulations) that are homeless and at-risk of homelessness, and public housing developments.
Grantees must also assess how the use of CDBG–MIT funds may affect members of protected classes under fair housing and civil rights laws, racially and ethnically concentrated areas, as well as concentrated areas of poverty; will promote more resilient affordable housing and will respond to natural hazard related impacts.
(5) Coordination of mitigation projects and leverage. Each grantee must propose mitigation programs or projects that advance long-term resilience to current and future hazards. Additionally, each grantee must align its CDBG–MIT programs or projects with other planned federal, state, regional, or local capital improvements. In order to meet these requirements, each grantee must describe how the proposed mitigation programs or projects will: (a) Advance long-term resilience; (b) align with other planned capital improvements; and (c) promote community-level and regional (
Additionally, each grantee must describe how it will leverage CDBG–MIT funds with other funding provided through public-private partnerships and by other Federal, State, local, private, and nonprofit sources to generate more effective and comprehensive mitigation outcomes. Examples of other Federal sources are additional funding provided by HUD, FEMA (specifically the Public Assistance Program, Individual Assistance Program, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program), SBA (specifically the Disaster Loans program), Economic Development Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture including the U.S. Forest Service's Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), Stewardship Contracts, and Wildfire Resilience Treatments. The grantee must describe how it will seek to maximize the outcomes of investments and the degree to which CDBG–MIT funds are effectively leveraged, including through public-private partnerships and a commitment of funding by the grantee. Grantees shall identify any leveraged funds for each activity in the DRGR system.
(6) Plans to minimize displacement and ensure accessibility. Each grantee must describe how it plans to minimize displacement of persons or entities, and assist any persons or entities displaced through its mitigation activities (except for mitigation through voluntary buyout activities that are designed to move households out of harm's way). 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. Grantees are reminded that they 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:
(7) Maximum award amounts, necessary, and reasonable assistance. For each mitigation program providing a direct benefit to a person, household or business, the action plan must specify the maximum amount of assistance available to a beneficiary under each of the grantee's mitigation programs. A grantee may find it necessary to provide exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the maximum amount of assistance and must describe the process it will use to make such exceptions in its action plan. At minimum, each grantee must indicate that it will adopt policies and procedures governing maximum award amounts, describe how it will communicate the maximum amounts and any exceptions, how it will analyze the circumstances under which an exception is needed and how it will demonstrate that cost of providing assistance is necessary and reasonable. Each grantee must also indicate that it will make exceptions to the maximum award amounts when necessary to comply with federal accessibility standards or to reasonably accommodate a person with disabilities.
(8) Natural infrastructure. Grantees are encouraged to develop a process to incorporate nature-based solutions and natural or green infrastructure in the selection and/or design of CDBG–MIT projects. Each grantee is encouraged to describe how it will consider natural infrastructure during the project selection process (
(9) Construction standards. Each grantee must describe how it will: (a) Emphasize quality, durability, energy efficiency, sustainability, and mold resistance, as applicable; (b) consider application of the Green Building Standards as amended from the Prior Notices and as explained in section V.B.1.a. of this notice; and (c) adhere to the advanced elevation requirements established in section V.B.1.d. of this notice, if applicable. For grantees addressing flood risks, the grantee must describe how it will document its decision to elevate structures and how it evaluated and determined the elevation to be cost reasonable relative to other alternatives or strategies, such as the demolition of substantially-damaged structures with reconstruction of an elevated structure on the same site, property buyouts, or infrastructure improvements to reduce the risk of loss of life and property.
(10) Operation and maintenance plans. Each grantee must plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of infrastructure and public facility projects funded with CDBG–MIT funds. The grantee must describe in its action plan how it will fund long-term operation and maintenance for CDBG–MIT projects. Funding options might include State or local resources, borrowing authority or retargeting of existing financial resources. If operations and maintenance plans are reliant on any proposed changes to existing taxation policies or tax collection practices, those changes and relevant milestones should be expressly included in the action plan. Additionally, the grantee must describe any State or local resources that have been identified for the operation and maintenance costs of projects assisted with CDBG–MIT funds.
(11) Cost verification. Each grantee must describe its controls for assuring that construction costs are reasonable and consistent with market costs at the time and place of construction. Grantees are encouraged to consider the use of an independent, qualified third-party architect, construction manager, or other professional (
(12) Building code and hazard mitigation planning. Grantees are encouraged to propose an allocation of CDBG–MIT funds for building code development and implementation, land use planning and/or hazard mitigation planning activities that may include but need not be limited to: (a) The development and implementation of modern and resilient building codes consistent with an identified model or standard, such as ASCE 24 and ASCE 7 as may be applicable, in order to mitigate against current and future hazards; (b) the development and implementation of land use plans to address natural hazards identified in the grantee's Mitigation Needs Assessment; (c) the update of State, local, or tribal FEMA HMPs, if necessary; (d) for states choosing to do so, the development of a FEMA-approved enhanced mitigation plan; or (e) the integration of mitigation plans with parallel CDBG–MIT planning efforts. If a grantee chooses to not allocate CDBG–MIT funds for these activities, the grantee must describe
V.A.2.b.
(1) How the Mitigation Needs Assessment will inform the grantee's funding determinations.
(2) The threshold factors and grant size limits that are to be applied.
(3) The projected uses for the CDBG–MIT funds, by responsible organization, activity, and geographic area, when the grantee carries out an activity directly.
(4) For each proposed mitigation activity carried out directly, its respective CDBG activity eligibility category (or categories) and associated national objective(s), including additional criteria.
(5) When funds are subgranted to local governments or Indian tribes, all criteria to be used to distribute funds to local governments or Indian tribes, including the relative importance of each criterion.
(6) When applications are solicited for programs to be carried out directly, all criteria used to select applications for funding, including the relative importance of each criterion.
V.A.2.c.
(1) Infrastructure. Typical infrastructure mitigation programs may include regional investments in risk reduction for flood, fire, wind and other hazards to develop disaster-resistant infrastructure; upgrading of water, sewer, solid waste, communications, energy, transportation, health and medical, and other public infrastructure to address specific, identified risks; financing multi-use infrastructure; and green or natural mitigation infrastructure development.
(2) Economic development. Examples of eligible programs include assistance to businesses for the installation of disaster mitigation improvements and technologies; financing to support the development of technologies, systems and other measures to mitigate future disaster impacts; “hardening” of commercial areas and facilities; and financing critical infrastructure sectors to allow continued commercial operations during and after disasters. Grantees are also strongly encouraged to leverage CDBG–MIT funds in economic development through coordination with Opportunity Zones established within the grantee's jurisdiction.
(3) Housing. Typical housing mitigation programs may include buyouts (potentially accompanied by additional housing or homeownership assistance for relocated families); elevation (which may be accompanied by rehabilitation, reconstruction, or new construction activities to support resilient housing); flood proofing; and wind, water, fire, earthquake retrofitting or “hardening” of single- and multi-family units to withstand future disasters.
(4) Planning, administration and public services. As noted in section V.A.2.a.(12) of this notice, CDBG–MIT funds may be used for the development of modernized and resilient building codes and land use plans, for the development and updating of FEMA-approved HMPs and for the development of State enhanced mitigation plans. Grantees may also use the CDBG–MIT funds for planning activities that include the integration of mitigation planning with other local and regional mitigation community development, land use and other plans. CDBG–MIT funds may also be used to upgrade mapping, data and other capabilities to better understand evolving potential disaster risks.
Grantees may also fund planning and public service activities necessary to reduce flood insurance premiums in the NFIP voluntary Community Rating System's (CRS) incentive program (
Additional public service activities may include education and outreach campaigns designed to alert communities and beneficiaries to opportunities to further mitigate identified risks through insurance, best practices and other strategies.
(5) Use of CDBG–MIT as match. As provided by the HCDA, CDBG–MIT funds may be used to meet a matching requirement, share, or contribution for any other Federal program when used to carry out an eligible CDBG–MIT activity. This includes mitigation grants administered by FEMA or USACE. By law, (codified in the HCDA as a note to 105(a)), the maximum amount of CDBG–MIT funds that may be contributed to a USACE project is $250,000. Note that the Appropriations Act prohibits the use of CDBG–MIT funds for any activity reimbursable by, or for which funds are also made available by FEMA or USACE. Grantees may only use CDBG–MIT funds to meet the match requirement of a program or project that meets the definition of a mitigation activity and other requirements of this notice and meet the eligibility requirements for a mitigation activity under the other federal program.
V.A.2.d.
V.A.2.e.
• State CDBG–MIT grantees that currently administer CDBG–DR grants provided in response to a 2015 or 2016 disaster shall submit no later than February 3, 2020: Florida; Louisiana; North Carolina, South Carolina; Texas; and West Virginia.
• Local government CDBG–MIT grantees shall submit on no later than March 2, 2020: Columbia, SC; Lexington County, SC; Richland County, SC; Houston, TX; and San Marcos, TX.
• State CDBG–MIT grantees that currently administer only a CDBG–DR grant provided in response to a 2017 disaster shall submit no later than ln April 6, 2020: California; Georgia; and Missouri.
HUD will review each action plan within 60 days from the date of receipt. HUD may disapprove an action plan as substantially incomplete if the action plan does not meet the requirements of this notice, including grant requirements imposed by applicable waivers and alternative requirements to address the Administration's policy priorities.
V.A.2.f.
Each activity must meet the applicable environmental requirements before any funds are committed to the activity, consistent with 24 CFR 58.22. The grantee may not draw down funds from the line of credit for an activity until after the Responsible Entity (usually the grantee):
(1) Completes required environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 or adopts the environmental review performed by another federal agency, as authorized by the Appropriations Act; and
(2) Receives from HUD or the Responsible Entity (as applicable) an approved Request for Release of Funds and certification.
V.A.2.g.
(1) Substantial amendment. The grantee must provide a 30-day public comment period and reasonable method(s) (including electronic submission) for receiving comments on substantial 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: The addition of a CDBG–MIT Covered Project; a change in program benefit or eligibility criteria; the addition or deletion of an activity; 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–MIT funds for the preparation and submission of an action plan, provided, however, that a substantial action plan amendment shall require a 30-day public comment period.
(2) Nonsubstantial 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. However, every amendment to the action plan (substantial and nonsubstantial) must be numbered sequentially and posted on the grantee's website. The Department will acknowledge receipt of the notification of nonsubstantial amendments via email within 5 business days. Nonsubstantial amendments shall be numbered in sequence with other nonsubstantial and substantial amendments and incorporated into the action plan.
V.A.2.h.
Large-scale infrastructure projects that meet the definition of Covered Projects must be included in an action plan or substantial amendment. A Covered Project is an infrastructure project (as defined in V.A.2.h.(1) below) having a total project cost of $100 million or more, with at least $50 million of CDBG funds (regardless of source (CDBG–DR, CDBG–NDR, CDBG–MIT, or CDBG)).
The Department recognizes that grantees may seek to use CDBG–MIT grants to implement large, transformative infrastructure projects that will provide long-term benefits and strengthen a community's resilience to future hazards. To support the successful implementation and operation of these large-scale projects, the Department is establishing alternative requirements that impose additional criteria for all CDBG–MIT Covered Projects. All CDBG–MIT Covered Projects must meet the additional criteria to meet a national objective.
(1) Definition of an infrastructure project. This section defines an infrastructure project as it relates to
(2) Covered Project action plan or substantial amendment requirements.
The following must be provided for each Covered Project proposed in an action plan or a substantial amendment:
(a) Project description and eligibility. A description of the Covered Project and how it meets the definition of a mitigation activity, including: Total project cost (including the CDBG–MIT grant as well as other federal resources for the project, such as funding provided by the Department of Transportation or FEMA); and CDBG eligibility under the HCDA or a waiver and alternative requirement (
(b) Consistency with the Mitigation Needs Assessment. A description of how the Covered Project addresses the current and future risks in the MID areas as identified in the grantee's Mitigation Needs Assessment.
(c) National objective, including additional criteria. The action plan must describe how the Covered Project will meet a national objective, including additional criteria for mitigation activities and Covered Projects. The national objectives for CDBG–MIT projects are described in section V.A.13. HUD has established additional criteria for Covered Projects that require a plan for long-term efficacy and fiscal sustainability, a demonstration that benefits of the project outweigh the costs, and a demonstration that the Covered Project is consistent with other mitigation activities in the same MID area, as described below in (i) through (iii):
(i) Long-term efficacy and fiscal sustainability. A description of how the grantee plans to monitor and evaluate the efficacy and sustainability of the Covered Project, including its operation and maintenance of the Covered Project, how it will maintain documentation for the measurable outcomes or reduction in risk as discussed in section V.A.2.i. of this notice, and how it will reflect changing environmental conditions (such as sea level rise or development patterns) with risk management tools, and/or alter funding sources if necessary.
(ii) Demonstration of benefits.
The action plan or substantial amendment must include a description of the methodology and the results of the BCA that has been conducted for the Covered Project. The grantee must indicate whether another Federal agency has rejected a BCA for the Covered Project (including any BCA for an earlier version of the current proposed Covered Project).
Grantees and subrecipients may use FEMA-approved methodologies and tools to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of their projects. FEMA has developed the BCA Toolkit to facilitate the process of preparing a BCA. Using the BCA Toolkit will ensure that the calculations are prepared in accordance with OMB Circular A–94 and FEMA's standardized methodologies. It is imperative to conduct a BCA early in the project development process to ensure the likelihood of meeting the cost-effectiveness eligibility requirement.
A non-FEMA BCA methodology may be used when: (1) A BCA has already been completed or is in progress pursuant to BCA guidelines issued by other Federal agencies such as the Army Corps or the Department of Transportation; (2) it addresses a non-correctable flaw in the FEMA-approved BCA methodology; or (3) it proposes a new approach that is unavailable using the FEMA BCA Toolkit. In order for HUD to accept any BCA completed or in progress pursuant to another Federal agency's requirements, that BCA must account for economic development, community development and other social/community benefits or costs and the CDBG–MIT project must be substantially the same as the project analyzed in the other agency's BCA.
The grantee shall include the BCA for a Covered Project, together with any qualitative description of benefits for projects benefitting low- and moderate-income persons and other persons that are less able to mitigate risks, or respond to and recover from disasters, as an appendix to the action plan or substantial amendment that proposes the project.
(iii) Consistency with other mitigation activities. The grantee's action plan must demonstrate that the project is consistent with the other mitigation activities that the grantee will carry out with CDBG–MIT funds in the MID area. To be consistent, the Covered Project must not increase the risk of loss of life or property in a way that undermines the benefits from other uses of CDBG–MIT funds in the MID.
(3) HUD review of action plans and substantial amendments for Covered Projects. HUD will determine that a portion of an action plan or substantial amendment that proposes a Covered Project to be substantially incomplete if it does not meet the above criteria. In the course of reviewing an action plan or substantial amendment, HUD will advise a grantee of each deficiency and the grantee must revise the plan or
(4) Implementation of Covered Projects. Prior to the grantee's execution of a contract for the construction, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of an approved Covered Project the grantee shall have:
(a) Engaged an independent, third-party entity (
(b) Secured the certification of a licensed design professional stating that the project design or redesign meets a nationally recognized design and performance standard applicable to the project, including, if applicable, criteria recognized by FEMA for a project of its type, pursuant to FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance Addendum; and
(c) Established a plan for financing the operation and maintenance of the project during its useful life.
V.A.2.i.
V.A.3.
V.A.3.a.
In addition to the above public hearings, before the grantee submits the action plan for this grant or any substantial amendment to the action plan to HUD, the grantee will publish the proposed 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 disaster mitigation 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–MIT programs, including persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Each grantee must ensure that mitigation program information is available in the appropriate languages for the geographic areas to be served (see HUD's LEP
V.A.3.b.
V.A.3.c.
Following approval of the action plan, each grantee shall form one or more citizen advisory committees that shall meet in an open forum not less than twice annually in order to provide increased transparency in the implementation of CDBG–MIT funds, to solicit and respond to public comment and input regarding the grantee's mitigation activities and to serve as an on-going public forum to continuously inform the grantee's CDBG–MIT projects and programs. The grantee may also choose to form one or more of these committees as part of its process for preparing the initial CDBG–MIT action plan submission to HUD.
V.A.3.d.
V.A.3.e.
When a grantee seeks to competitively award CDBG–MIT funds, the grantee must publish on its CDBG–MIT website the eligibility requirements for such funding, all criteria to be used by the grantee in its selection of applications for funding (including the relative importance of each criterion) and the time frame for consideration of applications. The grantee shall maintain documentation to demonstrate that each funded and unfunded application was reviewed and acted upon by the grantee in accordance with the published eligibility requirements and funding criteria.
V.A.3.f.
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), 24 CFR 91.520, and 24 CFR 1003.506. 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.
The action plan must also be entered into the DRGR system so that the grantee is able to draw its CDBG–MIT funds. The grantee may enter activities into the DRGR system before or after submission of the written action plan to HUD but will not be able to budget grant funds to these activities until after the grant agreement has been executed. To enter an activity into the DRGR system, the grantee must know the activity type, national objective, and the organization that will be responsible for the activity. In addition, a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number must be entered into the system for each Responsible Organization identified in DRGR as carrying out a CDBG–MIT funded activity.
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
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–MIT funds to be expended on each activity; beginning and actual completion dates of completed activities; achieved performance outcomes, such as number of housing units completed or number of low- and moderate-income persons served; and the race and ethnicity of persons assisted under direct-benefit activities. For all housing and economic development activities, the address of each CDBG–MIT assisted property must be recorded in the QPR. Grantees must not include such addresses in its public QPR; when entering addresses in the QPR, grantees 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. Each grantee must include a description of actions taken in that quarter to affirmatively further fair housing, within the section titled “Overall Progress Narrative” in the DRGR system.
V.A.5.
A State grantee may also carry out activities in tribal areas. The State shall coordinate with the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the tribal area when providing CDBG–MIT assistance to beneficiaries in tribal areas. A State grantee carrying out projects in tribal areas, either directly or through its employees, through procurement contracts, or through assistance provided under agreements with subrecipients, must obtain the consent of the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the tribal area to allow the State to carry out or to fund CDBG–MIT projects in the area. Indian tribes that receive CDBG–MIT funding from a State grantee must comply with applicable nondiscrimination requirements (see 24 CFR 1003.601).
For activities carried out by entities eligible under section 105(a)(15) of the HCDA, such entities will be subject to the description of a nonprofit under that section rather than the description located in 24 CFR 570.204, even in a case in which the entity is receiving assistance through a local government that is an entitlement grantee.
V.A.5.a.
V.A.5.b.
V.A.6.
V.A.7.
Grantees must consult with States, Indian tribes, local governments, Federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and other stakeholders and affected parties in the surrounding geographic area to ensure consistency of the action plan with applicable regional redevelopment plans. As provided in sections V.A.1.b.(c) and V.A.2.a.(5), agencies that administer CDBG–MIT funds are required to consult with any separate agency of the jurisdiction that is responsible for development of the FEMA HMP for the grantee's jurisdiction, including coordinating with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO).
Grantees are advised to maintain documentation of all consultations required by this paragraph to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
V.A.8.
V.A.8.a.
V.A.8.b.
(1)
V.A.9.
V.A.10.
State grantees are also encouraged to use CDBG–MIT planning funds to establish programs and policies that would allow them to perform at an enhanced level as defined by FEMA requirements, as well as to meet the documentation requirements for a FEMA Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Grantees may also partner with agency staff responsible for community floodplain management activities to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS), which is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes floodplain management activities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements. Exceeding these requirements can result in discounted flood insurance premium rates which reflect a community's reduced flood risk. Plans shall include the required Mitigation Needs Assessment of disaster risks, including anticipated effects of future extreme weather events and other hazards, as described in section V.A.2.a.(1) of this notice. Additional resources to assist in this process are available on the HUD exchange website:
V.A.11.
V.A.12.
V.A.13.a.
(i) Demonstrate the ability to operate for the useful life of the project. Each grantee must plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of infrastructure and public facility projects funded with CDBG–MIT funds. The grantee must have a plan to fund the long-term operation and maintenance for CDBG–MIT projects. Funding options might include State or local resources, borrowing authority, or retargeting of existing financial resources.
(ii) Be consistent with other mitigation activities. The CDBG–MIT activity must be consistent with the other mitigation activities that the grantee will carry out with CDBG–MIT funds in the MID area. To be consistent, the CDBG–MIT activity must not increase the risk of loss of life or property in a way that undermines the benefits from other uses of CDBG–MIT funds in the MID.
V.A.13.b.
(i) Demonstrate long-term efficacy and fiscal sustainability. The grantee must demonstrate the long-term efficacy and sustainability of the Covered Project by documenting measurable outcomes or reduction in risk as discussed in section V.A.2.i. of this notice, and documenting how the Covered Project will reflect changing environmental conditions (such as sea level rise or development patterns) with risk management tools, and alter funding sources if necessary. The grantee also must establish a plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of the Covered Project and include a description of this plan in its action plan, as required by V.A.2.a.(10) and the additional criteria applicable to all CDBG–MIT activities.
(ii) Demonstrably benefit the MID area. The benefits of the Covered Project must outweigh the costs of the Covered Project. Benefits outweigh costs if the BCA results in a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.0. Alternatively, for a Covered Project that serves low- and moderate-income persons or other persons that are less able to mitigate risks or respond to and recover from disasters, benefits outweigh costs if the grantee supplements its BCA with a qualitative description of benefits that cannot be quantified but sufficiently demonstrate unique and concrete benefits of the Covered Project for low- and moderate-income persons or other persons that are less able to mitigate risks, or respond to and recover from disasters. This qualitative description may include a description of how the Covered Project will provide benefits such as enhancing a community's economic development potential, improving public health and or expanding recreational opportunities. BCAs must be completed consistent with the requirements of paragraph V.A.2.h.(2)(c)(ii).
V.A.13
The Appropriations Act directs the Department to allocate CDBG–MIT funds to grantees that received CDBG–DR funds to assist in recovery from major federally declared disasters occurring in 2015, 2016 and 2017. To reflect the direction of the Appropriations Act to allocate funds to grantees recovering from recent disasters and to address the demonstrable need for significant mitigation improvements by those grantees, the Department is waiving the criteria for the urgent national objective as provided at 24 CFR 570.208(c) and 24 CFR 570.483(d) and is establishing an alternative requirement to include new urgent need national objective criteria for CDBG–MIT activities.
To meet the alternative criteria for the urgent need mitigation (UNM) national objective, each grantee must document that the activity: (i) Addresses the current and future risks as identified in the grantee's Mitigation Needs Assessment of most impacted and distressed areas; and (ii) will result in a measurable and verifiable reduction in the risk of loss of life and property.
To meet the UNM national objective criteria, grantees must reference in their action plan the risk identified in the Mitigation Needs Assessment that is addressed by the activity. Grantees must maintain documentation of the measurable and verifiable reduction in risk that will be achieved upon completion of the activity. Action plans must be amended, as necessary, to ensure that this information is included for each activity undertaken with CDBG–MIT funds.
V.A.13.d.
V.A.13.e. The UNM national objective and additional criteria for mitigation activities and Covered Projects shall be applicable only to funds allocated by this notice. Similarly, the alternative urgent need national objective criteria in the Prior Notices does not apply to CDBG–MIT funds.
V.A.13.f. Unless a grantee has received prior approval from HUD, CDBG–MIT activities 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 mitigation activities.
V.A.14.
V.A.15.
V.A.16.
V.A.17.
V.A.18.
Each CDBG–MIT grantee shall attend and require subrecipients to attend fraud related training provided by HUD OIG to assist in the proper management of CDBG–MIT grant funds. Additional information about this training will be posted on the HUD website.
V.A.19.
V.A.19.a.
(1) For purposes of this notice, “program income” is defined as gross income generated from the use of CDBG–MIT funds received by a State, local government, or a subrecipient of a State or local government, except as provided in subparagraph (d) of this paragraph. When income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG–MIT funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG–MIT funds used (
(a) Proceeds from the disposition by sale or long-term lease of real property purchased or improved with CDBG–MIT funds.
(b) Proceeds from the disposition of equipment purchased with CDBG–MIT funds.
(c) Gross income from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired by a State, local government, or subrecipient thereof with CDBG–MIT funds, less costs incidental to generation of the income (
(d) 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–MIT funds.
(e) Payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG–MIT funds.
(f) Proceeds from the sale of loans made with CDBG–MIT funds.
(g) Proceeds from the sale of obligations secured by loans made with CDBG–MIT funds.
(h) Interest earned on program income pending disposition of the income, including interest earned on funds held in a revolving fund account.
(i) 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–MIT portion of a public improvement.
(j) 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–MIT assistance.
(2) “Program income” does not include the following:
(a) 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.
(b) Amounts generated by activities eligible under section 105(a)(15) of the HCDA and carried out by an entity under the authority of section 105(a)(15) of the HCDA.
V.A.19.b.
V.A.19.c.
(1) Program income received (and retained, if applicable) before or after close out of the CDBG–MIT grant that generated the program income, and used to continue mitigation activities, is treated as additional CDBG–MIT funds subject to the requirements of this notice and must be used for mitigation activities in accordance with the grantee's action plan. 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 in sections V.A.19.d. and e.
(2) In addition to the regulations addressing program income found at 24 CFR 570.489(e) and 570.504, the following rules apply: A State grantee may transfer program income to its annual CDBG program before close out of the grant that generated the program income. In addition, a State grantee may transfer program income before close out to any annual CDBG-funded activities carried out by a local government within the State. Program income received by a grantee after close out of the grant that generated the program income, may also be transferred to a grantee's annual CDBG award. In all cases, any program income received that is
V.A.19.d.
Local government CDBG–MIT grantees may use program income to reimburse its agencies for the repair, operation and maintenance of publicly owned and operated projects funded with CDBG–MIT funds, provided that: (1) The agency that owns and operates the project has entered into a written agreement with the grantee that commits the agency to providing not less than fifty percent of funds necessary for the annual repair, operating and maintenance costs of the project; and (2) the grantee adopts policies and procedures to provide for the grantee's regular, on-site inspection of the project in order to ensure its proper repair, operation and maintenance. State grantees may request a waiver from the Department for the use of program income for this purpose.
V.A.19.e.
State grantees may also establish a revolving fund to distribute funds to local governments to carry out specific, identified mitigation activities. The same requirements, outlined above, apply to this type of revolving loan fund.
A revolving fund established by a grantee or local government
V.A.20.
Under the Prior Notices, grantees were permitted to charge to grants the pre-award and preapplication costs of homeowners, businesses, and other qualifying entities for certain eligible recovery costs they incurred within one year of a qualified disaster. Because the one-year period has passed for all grantees receiving an allocation pursuant to this notice and because CDBG–MIT funds are provided in order to reduce risks from future disasters, CDBG–MIT funds
V.A.21.
V.A.22.
V.A.22.a.
HUD is waiving the section 104(d) one-for-one replacement requirement for lower-income dwelling units that are damaged by the disaster and not suitable for rehabilitation because it does not account for the large, sudden changes that a major disaster may cause to the local housing stock, population, or economy. Further, the requirement may discourage grantees from converting or demolishing disaster-damaged housing when excessive costs would result from replacing all such units. Disaster-damaged housing structures that are not suitable for rehabilitation can pose a threat to public health and safety and to economic development. Grantees must reassess post-disaster population and housing needs to determine the appropriate type and amount of lower-income dwelling units to rehabilitate and/or rebuild. Grantees should note that the demolition and/or disposition of PHA-owned public housing units is covered by section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and 24 CFR part 970.
V.A.22.b.
V.A.22.c.
V.A.22.d.
V.A.22.e.
V.A.22.f.
(1) The waiver will simplify the administration of mitigation programs and projects 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.
(2) This waiver does not apply with respect to persons that meet the occupancy requirements to receive a replacement housing payment under the URA nor does it apply to persons displaced or relocated temporarily by other HUD-funded programs or projects. Such persons' eligibility for relocation assistance and payments under the URA is not impacted by this waiver.
V.A.23.
V.A.23.a.
V.A.23.b.
V.A.23.c.
V.A.23.d.
V.A.23.e.
V.A.23.f.
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. An 8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplains and Wetlands, including early and final public notices can be completed on a county-wide basis for single-family housing programs funded with CDBG–MIT funds. 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, unless there are unanticipated impacts or impacts not adequately addressed in the prior review, eliminating the need for publication at the site-specific level. However, funds cannot be spent or committed on a specific site or activity until the site-specific review have been completed for the site.
V.A.23.g.
V.A.24.
Accordingly, grantees must comply with the requirements of the 2019 DOB Notice. Requirements on CDBG–DR funds and CDBG–DR grants in the 2019
The 2019 DOB Notice also implements requirements resulting from recent amendments to section 312 of the Stafford Act that only apply to CDBG–MIT grantees receiving an allocation as a result of disasters occurring in 2016 and 2017. FEMA, the agency that administers the Stafford Act, has advised that pursuant to recent amendments to Section 312 of the Stafford Act in the DRRA, 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. The most common source of loans for physical and economic disaster recovery losses and related mitigation measures that have historically constituted a duplication of benefits are loans offered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). CDBG–MIT grantees receiving an allocation as a result of a 2015 disaster are not subject to the provisions of DRRA.
V.A.25.
Local government grantees in direct receipt of CDBG–MIT funds must comply with the specific applicable procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326 (subject to 2 CFR 200.110, as applicable).
HUD may request periodic updates from any grantee that uses contractors. A contractor is a third-party person or organization from which the grantee acquires goods or services through a procurement process, consistent with the procurement requirements in the CDBG program regulations. HUD is establishing an additional alternative requirement for
• The grantee (or procuring entity) is required to clearly state the period of performance or date of completion in all contracts;
• The grantee (or procuring entity) must incorporate performance requirements and liquidated damages or, for administrative and consultant contracts, penalties, into each procured contract. Contracts that describe work performed by general management consulting services need not adhere to this requirement; and
• The grantee (or procuring entity) may contract for administrative support but may not delegate or contract to any other party any inherently governmental responsibilities related to management of the grant, such as oversight, policy development, monitoring, internal auditing, and financial management.
Technical assistance resources for procurement are available to grantees either through HUD staff or through technical assistance providers engaged by HUD or a grantee.
V.A.26.
V.A.27.
V.A.28.
V.A.29.
The Department may also establish special grant conditions for individual CDBG–MIT 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 mitigation programs are implemented in a manner to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and that mitigation projects are effectively operated and maintained.
V.A.30.
Prior to a reduction, withdrawal, or adjustment of a CDBG–MIT grant, or other actions taken pursuant to this section, the recipient shall be notified of the proposed action and be given an opportunity for an informal consultation. Consistent with the procedures described for CDBG–MIT funds, the Department may adjust, reduce, or withdraw the CDBG–MIT grant or take other actions as appropriate, except for funds that have been expended for eligible, approved activities.
V.A.31.
The following portion of the notice details the waivers and alternative requirements typically established in CDBG–DR
V.B.1.
Therefore, 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(24)(A) and (D) is waived to the extent necessary to allow: (1) Homeownership assistance for households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income; and (2) down payment assistance for up to 100 percent of the down payment. While homeownership assistance may be provided to households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income, only those funds used for households with up to 80 percent of the area median income may qualify as meeting the low- and moderate-income person benefit national objective.
In addition, 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) and 24 CFR 570.207(b)(3) is waived and alternative requirements adopted to the extent necessary to permit new housing construction that addresses disaster risks identified in the grantee's Mitigation Needs Assessment and to require the following construction standards on structures constructed, reconstructed, or rehabilitated with CDBG–MIT funds as part of activities eligible under 42 U.S.C. 5305(a). All references to “substantial damage” and “substantial improvement” shall be as defined in 44 CFR 59.1 unless otherwise noted.
V.B.1.a.
V.B.1.b.
V.B.1.c.
V.B.1.d.
All Critical Actions, as defined at 24 CFR 55.2(b)(3), within the 500-year (0.2 percent annual chance) floodplain must be elevated or floodproofed (in accordance with the FEMA standards) to the higher of the 500-year floodplain elevation or three feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. If the 500-year floodplain is unavailable, and the Critical Action is in the 100-year floodplain, then the structure must be elevated or floodproofed at least three feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Critical Actions are defined as an “activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great, because such flooding might result in loss of life, injury to persons or damage to property.” For example, Critical Actions include hospitals, nursing homes, police stations, fire stations and principal utility lines.
For elevation activities, grantees are reminded that the elevation of structures must comply with all applicable federal accessibility standards outlined in section V.A.31.
Applicable State, local, and tribal codes and standards for floodplain management that exceed these requirements, including elevation, setbacks, and cumulative substantial damage requirements, must be followed.
V.B.1.e.
V.B.2.
Therefore, 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) and associated regulations are waived to the extent necessary to allow the provision of housing incentives. Each grantee must maintain documentation, at least at a programmatic level, describing how the amount of assistance was determined to be necessary and reasonable, and the incentives must be in accordance with the grantee's approved action plan and published program design(s). This waiver does not permit a compensation program. Additionally, a grantee may require the housing incentive to be used for a particular purpose by the household receiving the assistance.
In undertaking a large-scale migration or relocation recovery effort that is intended to move households out of high-risk areas, the grantee must consider how it can protect and sustain the impacted community and its assets. Grantees must also weigh the benefits and costs, including anticipated insurance costs, of redeveloping high-risk areas that were impacted by a disaster. Accordingly, grantees are prohibited from offering incentives to return households to disaster-impacted floodplains.
When undertaking housing incentive activities, to demonstrate that an incentive meets the low- and moderate-income housing national objective and the LMI national objective, grantees must meet all requirements of the HCDA and the criteria for the Low/Mod Housing Incentive (LMHI) national objectives for the use of housing incentives as described in section V.B.5. of this notice.
V.B.3.
V.B.4.
Grantees are encouraged to use buyouts strategically, as a means of acquiring contiguous parcels of land for uses compatible with open space, recreational, natural floodplain functions, other ecosystem restoration, or wetlands management practices. To the maximum extent practicable, a grantee should avoid circumstances in which parcels that could not be acquired through a buyout remain alongside parcels that have been acquired through the grantee's buyout program. Grantees are reminded that real property acquisition with CDBG–MIT funding, including buyout, is subject to the URA, including the real property acquisitions requirements at 49 CFR part 24, subpart B, as modified at section V.A.22.b. of this notice.
V.B.4.a.
Grantees that choose to undertake a buyout program have the discretion to determine the appropriate valuation method, including paying either pre-disaster or post-disaster fair market value (FMV). In most cases, a program that provides pre-disaster FMV to buyout applicants provides compensation at an amount greater than the post-disaster FMV. When the purchase price exceeds the current FMV, any CDBG–MIT funds in excess of the FMV are considered assistance to the seller, thus making the seller a beneficiary of CDBG–MIT assistance. If the seller receives assistance as part of the purchase price, this may have implications for duplication of benefits calculations or for demonstrating national objective criteria, as discussed below. However, a program that provides
Regardless of purchase price, all buyout activities are a type of acquisition of real property (as permitted by 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(1)). However, only acquisitions that meet the definition of a “buyout” are subject to the post-acquisition land use restrictions imposed by this notice (section V.B.4.b. below). The key factor in determining whether the acquisition is a buyout is whether the intent of the purchase is to reduce risk of property damage in a floodplain or a Disaster Risk Reduction Area. To conduct a buyout in a Disaster Risk Reduction Area, the grantee must establish criteria in its policies and procedures to designate the area subject to the buyout, pursuant to the following requirements: (1) The hazard must have been caused or exacerbated by the Presidentially declared disaster for which the grantee received its CDBG–MIT allocation; (2) the hazard must be a predictable environmental threat to the safety and well-being of program beneficiaries, as evidenced by best available data (
Real property acquisitions, including buyouts, undertaken with CDBG–DR and CDBG–MIT funds (even if funds are used only for acquisition costs other than the purchase price) are generally subject to the requirements in URA regulations at 49 CFR part 24, subpart B, unless they satisfy an exception at 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)–(5). For acquiring entities with eminent domain authority, the most relevant exception is commonly 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1), which requires that the acquisition satisfy a four-part test. HUD is clarifying how the four-part test applies to buyouts conducted with CDBG–DR and CDBG–MIT funds. With respect to the buyout of properties, an “intended, planned, or designated project area,” as referenced at 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)(ii), shall be an area for which a clearly defined end use has been determined at the time that the property is acquired, in which all or substantially all of the properties within the area must be acquired within an established time period as determined by the grantee or acquiring entity for the project to move forward. Where moving forward with a project does not depend upon acquiring specific sites within established timeframes for a clearly defined end use, there is not an “intended, planned or designated project area.” To illustrate this point, a grantee or acquiring entity's buyout would satisfy the criteria in 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)(ii) with respect to the acquisition of property in the following examples: (1) A broad buyout eligibility area is identified by the need to reduce risk, but no specific property must be acquired or (2) a clearly defined end use (
Grantees are reminded that the distinction between buyouts and other types of acquisitions is important, because grantees may only redevelop an acquired property if the property is
V.B.4.b.
(1) Any property acquired, accepted, or from which a structure will be removed pursuant to the project will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space, recreational, or floodplain and wetlands management practices.
(2) No new structure will be erected on property acquired, accepted, or from which a structure was removed under the acquisition or relocation program other than: (a) A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a designated open space (
(3) After receipt of the assistance, with respect to any property acquired, accepted, or from which a structure was removed under the acquisition or relocation program, no subsequent application for additional disaster assistance for any purpose or to repair damage or make improvements of any sort will be made by the owner of the buyout property (including subsequent owners) to any Federal entity in perpetuity.
The entity acquiring the property may lease it to adjacent property owners or other parties, including nonprofit land conservation organizations, for compatible uses in return for a maintenance agreement. Although Federal policy encourages leasing rather than selling such property, the property may also be sold.
In all cases, a deed restriction or covenant running with the property must require that the buyout property be dedicated and maintained for compatible uses in perpetuity.
(4) Grantees have the discretion to determine an appropriate valuation method (including the use of pre-flood value or post-flood value as a basis for property value). However, in using CDBG–MIT funds for buyouts, the grantee must uniformly apply the valuation method it chooses.
(5) All buyout activities must be classified using the “buyout” activity type in the DRGR system.
(6) Any State grantee implementing a buyout program or activity must consult with affected local governments.
(7) When undertaking buyout activities, to demonstrate that a buyout meets the low- and moderate-income housing national objective, grantees must meet all requirements of the HCDA, and applicable regulatory criteria described below. Grantees are encouraged to consult with HUD prior to undertaking a buyout program with the intent of using the low- and moderate-income housing (LMH) national objective. 42 U.S.C. 5305(c)(3) provides that any assisted activity that involves the acquisition or rehabilitation of property to provide housing shall be considered to benefit persons of low- and moderate-income only to the extent such housing will, upon completion, be occupied by such persons. In addition, the State CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570.483(b)(3), entitlement CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3), and Indian CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 1003.208(c) apply the LMH national objective to an eligible activity carried out for the purpose of providing or improving permanent residential structures that, upon completion, will be occupied by low- and moderate-income households. Therefore, a buyout program that merely pays homeowners to leave their existing homes does not result in a low- and moderate-income household occupying a residential structure and, thus, cannot meet the requirements of the LMH national objective. Buyout programs that assist low- and moderate-income persons can be structured in one of the following ways:
(a) The buyout program combines the acquisition of properties with another direct benefit—Low- and Moderate-Income housing activity, such as down payment assistance—that results in occupancy and otherwise meets the applicable LMH national objective criteria;
(b) The program meets the low- and moderate-income area (LMA) benefit criteria as defined for CDBG–MIT funds, to demonstrate national objective compliance, provided that the grantee can document that the properties acquired through buyouts will be used in a way that benefits all of the residents in a particular area where at least 51 percent of the residents are low- and moderate-income persons. When using the area benefit approach, a grantee must define the service area based on the end use of the buyout properties; or
(c) The program meets the criteria for the low- and moderate-income limited clientele national objective (LMC) and does not provide benefits that are available to all residents of the area. A buyout program could meet the national objective criteria for the limited clientele national objective if it restricts buyout program eligibility to exclusively low- and moderate-income persons, and the buyout provides an actual benefit to the low- and moderate-income sellers by providing pre-disaster valuation uniformly to those who participate in the program.
(d) The program meets the criteria for the Low/Mod Buyout (LMB) or Low/Mod Housing Incentive (LMHI) national objectives for buyouts and the use of housing incentives as authorized in the Department's August 7, 2017
V.B.4.c.
(1) A grantee may redevelop an acquired property as part of a mitigation activity if the property is not acquired through a buyout program and the purchase price is based on the property's post-disaster value, consistent with applicable cost principles (the pre-disaster value may not be used). In addition to the purchase price, grantees may opt to provide relocation assistance or housing incentives to the owner of a property that will be redeveloped if the property is purchased by a grantee or subrecipient through voluntary acquisition, and the owner's need for additional assistance is documented.
(2) In carrying out acquisition activities, grantees must ensure they are in compliance with their long-term redevelopment plans and hazard mitigation plans.
V.B.5.
In addition to the existing criteria at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)–(4) and 570.483(b)(1)–(4), HUD is establishing an alternative requirement to include the two new LMI national objective criteria for buyouts (LMB) and housing incentives (LMHI) that benefit LMI households that use CDBG–MIT funding provided pursuant to CDBG–MIT requirements.
For a buyout award or housing incentive to meet the new LMB and LMHI national objectives, grantees must demonstrate the following:
(1) The CDBG–MIT funds have been provided for an eligible activity that benefits LMI households supporting their move from high risk areas. The following activities shall qualify under this criterion, and must also meet the eligibility criteria of the notices governing the use of the CDBG–MIT funds:
(a) Low/Mod buyout (LMB). When CDBG–MIT funds are used for a buyout award to acquire housing owned by a qualifying LMI household, where the award amount (including optional relocation assistance) is greater than the post-disaster (current) fair market value of that property.
(b) Low/Mod housing incentive (LMHI). When CDBG–MIT funds are used for a housing incentive award, tied to the voluntary buyout or other voluntary acquisition of housing owned by a qualifying LMI household, for which the housing incentive is for the purpose of moving outside of the affected floodplain or to a lower-risk area; or when the housing incentive is for the purpose of providing or
(2) Activities that meet the above criteria will be considered to benefit low and moderate-income persons unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Any activities that meet the newly established national objective criteria described above will count towards the calculation of a CDBG–MIT grantee's overall LMI benefit.
V.B.6.
V.B.7.
V.B.7.a.
V.B.7.b.
(1) Section 582 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5154a) prohibits flood disaster assistance in certain circumstances. In general, it provides that no Federal disaster relief assistance made available in a flood disaster area may be used to make a payment (including any loan assistance payment) to a person for “repair, replacement, or restoration” for damage to any personal, residential, or commercial property if that person at any time has received Federal flood disaster assistance that was conditioned on the person first having obtained flood insurance under applicable Federal law and the person has subsequently failed to obtain and maintain flood insurance as required under applicable Federal law on such property. This means that a grantee may not provide CDBG–MIT assistance for the repair, replacement, or restoration of a property to a person who has failed to meet this requirement and must implement a process to check and monitor for compliance.
(2) The Department is instituting an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(4) as follows: Grantees receiving CDBG–MIT funds are prohibited from providing CDBG–MIT assistance for the rehabilitation/reconstruction of a house, if (a) the combined household income is greater than 120 percent AMI or the national median, (b) the property was located in a floodplain at the time of the disaster, and (c) the property owner did not maintain flood insurance on the damaged property, even when the property owner was not required to obtain and maintain such insurance. When a homeowner located in the floodplain allows their flood insurance policy to lapse, it is assumed that the homeowner is unable to afford insurance and/or is accepting responsibility for future flood damage to the home. HUD is establishing this alternative requirement to ensure that adequate recovery resources are available to assist lower income homeowners who reside in a floodplain but who are unlikely to be able to afford flood insurance. Higher income homeowners who reside in a floodplain, but who failed to secure or decided to not maintain their flood insurance, should not be assisted at the expense of those lower income households. Therefore, a grantee may only provide assistance for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of a house located in a floodplain if: (a) The homeowner had flood insurance at the time of the qualifying disaster and still has unmet recovery needs; or (b) the household earns less than the greater of 120 percent AMI or the national median and has unmet recovery needs.
(3) Section 582 also imposes a responsibility on a grantee that receives CDBG–MIT funds or that designates annually appropriated CDBG funds for disaster recovery. That responsibility is to inform property owners receiving assistance that triggers the flood insurance purchase requirement that they have a statutory responsibility to notify any transferee of the requirement to obtain and maintain flood insurance in writing and to maintain such written notification in the documents evidencing the transfer of the property, and that the transferring owner may be liable if he or she fails to do so. These requirements are enumerated at
V.C.1.
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, local, and tribal codes and standards for floodplain management that exceed these requirements, including elevation, setbacks, and cumulative substantial damage requirements, will be followed.
V.C.2.
V.C.3.
V.C.4.
V.C.5.
V.D.1.
V.D.2.
This notice waives the public benefit standards at 42 U.S.C. 5305(e)(3), 24 CFR 570.482(f), 24 CFR 570.209(b) and (d), and 24 CFR 1003.302(c) for only those economic development activities designed to create or retain jobs or businesses (including, but not limited to, long-term, short-term, and
V.D.3.
V.D.4.
V.D.5.
V.D.6.
V.D.7.
VI.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 CDBG–MIT funding.
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 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–MIT 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 CDBG–MIT funds 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 CDBG–MIT funds.
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 or 91.105 (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 related to mitigation activities, as applicable, in the most impacted and distressed areas for which the President declared a major disaster in 2015, 2016, or 2017 pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121
(2) With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG–MIT funds, the relevant action plan has been developed to give priority to activities that will benefit low- and moderate-income families.
(3) The aggregate use of CDBG–MIT funds shall principally benefit low- and moderate-income families in a manner that ensures that at least 50 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–MIT 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) CDBG–MIT 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.
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 mitigation activities, as applicable, in a timely manner and that the grantee has reviewed the respective requirements of this notice. The grantee certifies to the accuracy of its Public Law 115–56 Financial Management and Grant Compliance certification checklist, or other recent certification submission, if approved by HUD, and related supporting documentation referenced at section V.A.1.a of this notice and its implementation plan and capacity assessment and related submissions to HUD referenced at section V.A.1.b.
l. The grantee certifies that it considered the following resources in the preparation of its action plan, as appropriate: FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook:
m. The grantee certifies that it will not use CDBG–MIT 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 government land use regulations and hazard mitigation plans and the latest-issued FEMA data or guidance, which includes advisory data (such as Advisory Base Flood Elevations) or preliminary and final Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
n. 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.
o. The grantee certifies that it will comply with environmental requirements at 24 CFR part 58.
p. The grantee certifies that it will comply with applicable laws.
This notice requires each grantee to expend fifty percent of its CDBG–MIT grant on eligible activities within six years of HUD's execution of the grant agreement and one hundred percent of its grant within twelve years of HUD's execution of the agreement absent a waiver and alternative requirement as requested by the grantee and approved by HUD.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the grants under this notice are as follows: 14.218 for Entitlement CDBG grantees and 14.228 for State CDBG grantees.
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 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).