Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
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.
In rule document 2019-14101 beginning on page 37059 in the issue of Wednesday, July 31, 2019, make the following correction:
c. Remove the dollar amount “$113,894” and add in its place “$116,766”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-19-11 for certain Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines. AD 2019-19-11 required initial and repetitive inspections of the low-pressure compressor (LPC) inlet guide vane (IGV) and the LPC rotor 1 (R1) and, depending on the results of the inspections, possible replacement of the LPC. This AD requires the same inspection of the LPC R1 for cracks or damage, removes the inspection of the LPC IGV for proper alignment, and expands the applicability to certain additional PW turbofan engines. This AD also reduces the compliance time for these inspections for certain PW turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by recent findings of cracks in the LPC R1 and an additional in-flight failure of the LPC R1. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 29, 2019.
The FAA must receive any comments on this AD by December 13, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The FAA issued AD 2019-19-11, Amendment 39-19747 (84 FR 50719,
Since the FAA issued AD 2019-19-11, another LPC R1 failure occurred that resulted in an IFSD of the engine and diversion of the airplane. This failure occurred on an engine with more than 300 flight cycles since new (CSN) accumulated but fewer than 300 flight cycles with a certain version (v2.11.7 or v2.11.8) of electronic engine control (EEC) software installed. In addition, the inspections required by AD 2019-19-11 led to cracks being discovered in the LPC R1 on two other affected engines. These cracks were found on LPC R1s installed on “zero time spare engines” (spare engines installed on airplanes already in service) with fewer than 50 flight CSN. Because of these additional findings, the FAA will continue to require inspection of the LPC R1 within 50 flight cycles for certain engines while reducing compliance time to 15 flight cycles for certain other affected engines.
In addition, inspections of the LPC IGV stem for proper alignment, required by AD 2019-19-11, have not detected any misalignment of the LPC IGV stem. The FAA agrees with the manufacturer's determination that alignment of the LPC IGV stem is not linked to the unsafe condition represented by this LPC R1 failure. The FAA is therefore not requiring inspection of the LPC IGV stem in this AD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0125-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated October 22, 2019, and PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0075-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated October 22, 2019. The SBs contain procedures for performing borescope inspections of the LPC R1 on engines that have less than 300 flight CSN or on engines that have less than 300 flight cycles since installation of the affected EEC software.
The FAA is issuing this AD because it 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 AD requires initial and repetitive borescope inspections of the LPC R1 and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacement of the LPC.
The FAA considers this AD interim action. The investigation into the failures on the PW PW1524G model turbofan engines is on-going and the FAA may pursue further rulemaking action at a later date.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than 30 days, upon a finding of good cause.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. In addition to two recent failures of the LPC R1 installed on PW1524G-3 model turbofan engines, an additional in-flight failure of the LPC occurred on October 15, 2019. LPC rotor failures can release high-energy debris from the engine and damage the airplane (see AC 39-8, “Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and Auxiliary Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes,” dated September 8, 2003).
The earlier failures of the LPC R1 occurred at low flight CSN (154 and 230 flight cycles). The most recent failure of the LPC R1 occurred at a higher flight CSN (1,654 flight cycles) but within 300 flight cycles of the installation of a certain version of EEC software. The manufacturer has recommended that the FAA continue to require inspections of the LPC R1 within the next 50 flight cycles for engines with low CSN and to add engines that have accumulated less than 300 flight cycles since installation of the affected software to the applicability of this AD. In addition to the failures of the LPC R1 in flight, inspections mandated by AD 2019-19-11 have found cracks in the LPC R1 on two zero time spare engines affected by that AD. Both engines also had accumulated less than 300 flight CSN. The manufacturer has recommended inspecting these engines within 15 flight cycles.
The FAA has adopted these recommendations. Based on current operational usage of the affected airplanes, 15 flight cycles equates to approximately 2 to 3 operating days and 50 flight cycles equates to approximately 7 to 10 operating days. Therefore, the FAA has determined that low flight cycle engines, as well as those with recently installed software, require inspections within the next 50 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, while zero time spare engines require inspection within 15 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD. Because of the need for operators to begin the required inspections within 15 or 50 flight cycles, the FAA has made this AD effective upon publication in the
The FAA considers the need for initial and repetitive inspections of the LPC R1 to be an urgent safety issue. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 18 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the borescope inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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 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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 29, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 2019-19-11, Amendment 39-19747 (84 FR 50719, September 26, 2019).
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Model PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines that have accumulated fewer than 300 flight cycles since new (CSN) or that have accumulated fewer than 300 flight cycles since installation of v2.11.7 or v2.11.8 electronic engine control (EEC) software.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a recent in-flight shutdown due to failure of the low-pressure compressor (LPC) rotor 1 (R1) and by findings of cracked LPC R1s during inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPC R1. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained release of the LPC R1, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except for those engines identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, borescope inspect the LPC R1 for damage and cracks at the locations in paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this AD as follows:
(i) For engines that have accumulated fewer than 300 flight cycles since new (CSN), inspect within 50 flight cycles from September 26, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-19-11).
(ii) For engines that have accumulated fewer than 300 flight cycles since installation of v2.11.7 or v2.11.8 electronic engine control (EEC) software, inspect within 50 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD.
(iii) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles until the engine accumulates 300 flight CSN or accumulates 300 flight cycles since the installation of v2.11.7 or v2.11.8 EEC software, whichever occurs later, repeat this borescope inspection for damage and cracks at the locations in paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this AD.
(iv) Perform the borescope inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD at the following locations:
(A) the blades tips;
(B) the leading edge;
(C) the leading edge fillet to rotor platform radius; and
(D) the airfoil convex side root fillet to rotor platform radius.
(2) For all affected PW model turbofan engines installed as a “zero time spare,” except for PW1519G, PW1521GA and PW1919G model turbofan engines, within 15 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 flight cycles until the engine accumulates 300 flight CSN, perform the borescope inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(3) As the result of the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, before further flight, remove and replace the LPC if:
(i) there is damage on an LPC R1 that exceeds serviceable limits; or
(ii) there is any crack in the LPC R1.
Guidance on determining serviceable limits can be found in PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0125-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated October 22, 2019, and PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0075-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 003, dated October 22, 2019.
For the purpose of this AD, a “zero time spare” is an engine that had zero flight hours time-in-service when it was installed on an airplane after the airplane had entered service.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
None.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the continuous glucose monitor data management system into class I (general controls). We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class I (general controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective October 29, 2019. The classification was applicable on August 19, 2014.
Ryan Lubert, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4545, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6357,
Upon request, FDA has classified the continuous glucose monitor data management system as class I (general controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On April 22, 2014, DEXCOM, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the STUDIO on the Cloud Data Management Software. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class I if general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class I. FDA has determined that general controls will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 19, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class I. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 862.2120. We have named the generic type of device continuous glucose monitor data management system, and it is identified as an electronic device intended to acquire, process, and correlate retrospective data from a continuous glucose monitoring device. This device is intended to be used by patients or their healthcare providers when determining therapeutic strategies. A continuous glucose monitor data management system is not a drug dose calculator and does not provide treatment recommendations.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device in table 1.
Section 510(l)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that a device within a type that has been classified into class I under section 513 of the FD&C Act is exempt from premarket notification under section 510(k), unless the device is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or presents a potentially unreasonable risk of illness or injury (21 U.S.C. 360(l)(1)). Devices within this type are exempt from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), subject to the limitations of exemptions in 21 CFR 862.9.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. 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 guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820, regarding the quality system regulation, including recordkeeping for design controls, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of Walan Point, Indian Island, WA. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards due to naval training operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on October 30, 2019, to 4 p.m. on October 31, 2019, and will be subject to enforcement each of these days from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Ellie Wu, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because issuing an NPRM is impracticable. The Coast Guard received notification of these naval training operations from the U.S. Navy on October 7, 2019, and we must take action by October 30, 2019, to protect the public from potential hazards implicated by these training operations. Delaying issuance of this temporary final rule to publish an NPRM and consider comments in response to the NPRM is impracticable, because the safety zone must be in place for the operation, which begins on October 30, 2019.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Puget Sound (COTP) has determined that potential hazards exist with this naval training operation. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone from potential hazards posed by the naval training operation.
This rule establishes a safety zone regulation from 10 a.m. on October 30, 2019, to 4 p.m. on October 31, 2019. This regulation will only be subject to enforcement for the following 8-hour period each of these 2 days: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The safety zone will cover navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of Walan Point, Indian Island.
The duration of this regulation is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while naval training operations are taking place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the waterway on the western side of U.S. Naval Magazine Indian Island. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 16 hours in total, which will prohibit entry within designated zone during naval training operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area (RNA) for the navigable waters in Saint Simons Sound, GA, as set out in the regulatory text at the end of this document. Entry of vessels greater than 500 gross tons into this area is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah. The RNA is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by salvage and pollution response operations taking place near the grounded freight vessel GOLDEN RAY.
This rule is effective without actual notice from October 29, 2019 through January 29, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 19, 2019 through October 29, 2019.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Lauren Bloch, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 912-652-4353, extension 232, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the freight vessel GOLDEN RAY capsized and grounded in Saint Simons Sound, GA on September 8, 2019. Immediate action is needed to aid in the directing of vessel traffic through the Port of Brunswick in the vicinity of the M/V GOLDEN RAY. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this RNA by September 19, 2019.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP Savannah has determined that an RNA is needed to allow vessels greater than 500 gross tons to transit safely through the area. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the RNA during salvage and pollution operations in response to the M/V GOLDEN RAY casualty.
This rule establishes an RNA on September 19, 2019. The RNA will cover all navigable waters in Saint Simons Sound, GA bounded by a line drawn from a point located at 31°07′48.84″ N, 081°23′30.67″ W, thence to 31°07′29.38″ N, 081°23′37.15″ W, thence to 31°07′51.43″ N, 081°16′23.57″ W, thence to 31°08′07.28″ N, 081°24′48.08″ W, thence to 31°07′22.87″ N, 081°24′38.78″ W, thence to 31°07′40″ N, 081°25′01″ W. No vessel greater than 500 gross tons may enter the RNA without the prior approval of the COTP Savannah. Upon approval from the COTP each vessel will be provided an authorized timeframe to transit the RNA. Only one-way traffic is allowed through the RNA at all times. When transiting through the RNA all vessels greater than 500 gross tons must have one assist tug, establish and maintain communications with the designated representative of the COTP via VHF-FM radio on channel 13, and not exceed a speed of 8 knots, unless greater speeds are required to maintain bare steerage. Any vessel unable to meet these operating limitations may, with good cause, seek authorization from the COTP Savannah to deviate from these requirements.
The RNA is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters and provide a safe working environment for personnel and vessels responding to the M/V GOLDEN RAY casualty.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the RNA size, location, notice, duration and provided exceptions. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through this RNA which would impact a small designated area of Saint Simons Sound, GA; the size and location of this RNA is limited to an area in the immediate vicinity of the grounded M/V GOLDEN RAY. The Coast Guard will provide mariners notice of the RNA through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM radio channel 16. Additionally, the RNA is limited in duration. It will remain in effect until the COTP Savannah determines the M/V GOLDEN RAY is no longer a hazard to the safety of persons and vessels transiting the area. Lastly, this RNA will allow vessels to seek permission from the COTP to enter the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the RNA may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an RNA for the navigable waters in Saint Simons Sound, GA bounded by a line drawn from a point located at 31°07′48.84″ N, 081°23′30.67″ W, thence to 31°07′29.38″ N, 081°23′37.15″ W, thence to 31°07′51.43″ N, 081°16′23.57″ W, thence to 31°08′07.28″ N, 081°24′48.08″ W, thence to 31°07′22.87″ N, 081°24′38.78″ W, thence to 31°07′40″ N, 081°25′01″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All vessels greater than 500 gross tons intending to transit through the RNA must seek prior approval from the COTP Savannah at least 24-hours in advance of the vessel's arrival to, or departure from, the Port of Brunswick. The COTP Savannah can be contacted via telephone at 614-943-5532. The COTP Savannah's designated representative can be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 13. Upon
(2) Only one-way traffic is authorized within the RNA at all times.
(3) All vessels greater than 500 gross tons must obtain one assist tug while transiting within the RNA.
(4) All vessels greater than 500 gross tons must check in with the designated representative via VHF-FM Channel 13 prior to transiting within the RNA and maintain communications with the designated representative while transiting through the RNA.
(5) While transiting within the RNA all vessels greater than 500 gross tons may not exceed a speed of 8 knots, unless greater speeds are required to maintain bare steerage.
(6) Any vessel unable to meet these operating limitations may, upon showing good cause, seek authorization from the COTP Savannah to deviate from the requirements in this section.
(7) The operator of any vessel transiting in RNA must comply with all lawful directions given by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(8) The inland navigation rules in 33 CFR subchapter E remain in effect within the RNA and must be followed at all times.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District (CCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns reporting of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule will be effective on November 29, 2019.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0147. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3848 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The CCAPCD is a “Marginal” nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas to require certified emission statements from stationary sources of VOC and NO
Rule 513 requires the owner or operator of any stationary source that emits or may emit VOC or NO
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period that closed on June 7, 2019. During this period, we received two comments. One comment supported the proposed action, and the EPA does not provide a response to this comment. The remaining comment is summarized below, with the EPA response:
However, unlike a rule that is prohibitory in nature,
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Calaveras County rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 30, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(28) * * *
(iv) * * *
(E) Previously approved on May 11, 1977 in paragraph (c)(28)(iv)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(527)(i)(A)(
(527) New regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on November 21, 2018 by the Governor's designee.
(i)
(
(
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) through a letter dated July 31, 2018. EPA is approving into the SIP a modification to Georgia's Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation. The SIP revision updates Georgia's air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule will be effective November 29, 2019.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0819. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO
Accordingly, in the July 31, 2018,
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 2, 2019 (84 FR 31540), EPA proposed to approve the revision to the Georgia air quality rules addressing Rule 391-3-1-.02(4),
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(4),
EPA is taking final action to approve the State of Georgia's July 31, 2018, SIP submission revising Rule 391-3-1-.02(4),
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule will be effective on November 29, 2019.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0422. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On August 2, 2019 (84 FR 37816), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action and related Technical Support Document (TSD) contain more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in our August 2, 2019 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve VCAPCD Rule 74.11 (Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters) as a revision to the Ventura County portion of the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the VCAPCD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 30, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(164) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(391) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is closing the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) because the fishery will reach the 2019 allocation limit for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This action is necessary to comply with regulations managing this fish stock.
Effective 12:01 a.m. local time November 4, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.
On July 17, 2019, NMFS specified a 2019 catch limit of 2,000 t of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI (84 FR 34321, July 18, 2019). NMFS also authorized each territory to allocate up to 1,000 t of its 2,000 t bigeye tuna limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). The limit is effective from July 17, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
On July 18, 2019, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), through its Executive Director, transmitted to NMFS a specified fishing agreement between the CNMI and the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) dated June 13, 2019. NMFS reviewed the agreement and determined that it was consistent with the requirements at 50 CFR 665.819, the FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws (84 FR 37592, August 1, 2019). The criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, followed the procedures in 50 CFR 665.819—Territorial catch and fishing effort limits.
In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(d) and 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9)(i), NMFS began attributing bigeye tuna caught in the WCPO by vessels identified in the CNMI/HLA agreement to the CNMI, beginning on July 20, 2019. NMFS monitored catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the CNMI longline fishery, including catches made by U.S. longline vessels operating under the CNMI/HLA agreement. Based on this monitoring, NMFS forecasted that the CNMI territorial allocation limit of 1,000 t will be reached by November 4, 2019, and is, as an accountability measure, prohibiting the catch and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the CNMI/HLA agreement.
Effective 12:01 a.m. local time November 4, 2019, through December 31, 2019, NMFS closes the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the WCPO as a result of the fishery reaching the 2019 allocation limit of 1,000 t for the CNMI.
During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel operating under the CNMI/HLA agreement may not retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the WCPO, except that any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed, provided that they are landed within 14
However, any vessel included in the CNMI/HLA agreement that is included in a valid specified fishing agreement with another U.S. territory, may continue to transship, retain, and land bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the WCPO. Additionally, if any such vessel is engaged in a longline fishing trip in the WCPO on November 4, 2019, that vessel would not need to return to port before November 18, 2019. NMFS would announce any subsequent valid specified fishing agreement in the
Additionally, during the effective period of the restrictions, longline-caught bigeye tuna may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed if the fish are caught by a vessel with a valid American Samoa longline permit; or if the fish are landed in the U.S. territories. In these cases, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The fish is not caught in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Hawaii;
(2) Other applicable laws and regulations are followed; and
(3) The vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this action, because it would be impracticable and contrary to public interest, as discussed below. This rule closes the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the WCPO as a result of reaching the bigeye tuna allocation limit established by the 2019 specification for catch and allocation limits of bigeye tuna for the CNMI, and the specified fishing agreement between the Government of the CNMI and HLA dated, June 13, 2019.
NMFS forecasted that the fishery would reach the 2019 CNMI allocation limit by November 4, 2019. Fishermen have been subject to longline bigeye tuna limits in the WCPO since 2009. They have received ongoing, updated information about the 2019 catch and progress of the fishery in reaching the U.S. bigeye tuna limit via the NMFS website, social media, and other means. The publication timing of this rule, moreover, provides longline fishermen with seven days' advance notice of the closure date, and allows two weeks to return to port and land their catch of bigeye tuna. This action is intended to comply with regulations managing this stock, and, accordingly NMFS finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to have prior notice and public comment.
For the reasons stated above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this temporary rule. NMFS must close the fishery to ensure that fishery does not exceed the allocation limit. NMFS implemented the catch and allocation limits for the CNMI consistent with management objectives to sustainably manage the bigeye tuna stock. Failure to close the fishery before the limit is reached would be inconsistent with bigeye tuna management objectives and in violation of Federal law.
This action is required by 50 CFR 665.819(d), 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 Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that easy removal of the portable oxygen bottle from its support bracket may not always be possible on certain installations. This proposed AD would require installation of a modified top bracket and new middle bracket on all affected portable oxygen bottle installations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; phone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7323; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2019-18, dated May 10, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Bombardier Inc. has discovered that easy removal of the portable oxygen bottle from its support bracket may not always be possible on some portable oxygen bottle installations due to the latch of the upper bracket assembly catching on the pressure gauge tube or on the pressure gauge bezel of the portable oxygen bottle. The portable oxygen bottle is required to be accessible for use by cabin crew members in emergency situations. This [Canadian] AD requires installation of a modified top bracket and new middle bracket on all affected portable oxygen bottle installations to improve portable oxygen bottle accessibility.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Bombardier has issued the following service information. The service information describes procedures for installation of a modified top bracket and new middle bracket on all affected portable oxygen bottle installations. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Service Bulletin 700-1A11-35-013, dated July 3, 2018.
• Service Bulletin 700-35-014, dated July 3, 2018.
• Service Bulletin 700-35-5003, Revision 01, dated November 23, 2018.
• Service Bulletin 700-35-6003, Revision 02, dated November 23, 2018.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 108 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 December 13, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to the following Bombardier, Inc., airplanes, certificated in any category.
(1) Model BD-700-1A10, serial numbers 9002, 9006 through 9010 inclusive, 9012, 9016, 9018 through 9023 inclusive, 9029 through 9031 inclusive, 9033, 9035 through 9037 inclusive, 9039 through 9048 inclusive, 9058, 9059, 9061, 9063, 9066 through 9068 inclusive, 9070, 9071, 9073 through 9075 inclusive, 9078, 9085, 9090, 9092, 9093, 9097, 9105, 9106, 9108, 9112, 9121, 9122, 9124, 9137, 9139, 9143, 9145, 9153, 9167, 9177, 9181, 9183, 9185, 9187, 9191, 9203, 9205, 9210, 9223, 9234, 9236, 9244, 9250, 9264, 9270, 9272, 9283, 9286, 9294, 9304, 9312, 9314, 9326, 9333, 9364, 9368, 9378, 9381, 9388, 9407, 9419, 9438, 9460, 9470, 9475, 9478, 9479, 9481, 9484, 9485, 9499, 9524, 9529, 9530, 9533, 9538, 9551, 9553, 9568, 9598, 9615, 9624, 9632, 9638, 9640, 9641, 9648, 9657, 9670, 9680, 9682, 9689, 9700, 9706, 9723, 9726, 9730, 9731, 9745, 9752, 9753, 9757, 9759, 9773, 9775, 9804, 9814, 9816, and 9817.
(2) Model BD-700-1A11, serial numbers 9176, 9178, 9182, 9207, 9212, 9216, 9217, 9227, 9255, 9285, 9376, 9389, 9401, 9427, 9480, 9483, 9498, 9513, 9531, 9536, 9555, 9558, 9569, 9581, 9589, 9592, 9597, 9613, 9618, 9660, 9710, 9722, 9732, 9734, 9737, 9768, 9777, and 9790.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report that easy removal of the portable oxygen bottle from its support bracket may not always be possible on certain installations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address inaccessible portable oxygen bottles, which may not be available to the flightcrew in emergency situations.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, an affected portable oxygen bottle installation is defined as one that is installed in any of the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a modified top bracket and new middle bracket on all affected portable oxygen bottle installations in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-5003, dated July 3, 2018; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6003, dated July 3, 2018; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-6003, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2018; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2019-18, dated May 10, 2019, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7323; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; phone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Extension of comment period.
On May 13, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) published in the
The comment period for the NPRM titled
You may submit comments, identified by “Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements” and RIN number 3038-AE32, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Benjamin DeMaria, Special Counsel, 202-418-5988,
On May 13, 2019, the Commission published in the
The comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on July 29, 2019. The Commission subsequently extended the comment period for the NPRM by an additional 90 days to October 28, 2019.
As stated in the NPRM,
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and Commissioners Quintenz, Behnam, Stump, and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
This document provides additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule published August 27, 2019, to amend the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining to disclosure of information regarding merchandise that was voluntarily abandoned. Based on a request from the public to provide additional time to prepare comments on the proposed rule, CBP is extending the comment period to November 15, 2019.
The comment period for the proposed rule published August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44790), is extended. Comments must be received on or before November, 15, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Alex Bamiagis, Intellectual Property Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-0415.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. If appropriate to a specific comment, the commenter should reference the specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
On August 27, 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a document in the
In response to the proposed rule published in the
National Park Service; Interior.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The National Park Service withdraws the proposed rule that would revise special regulations related to demonstrations and special events at certain national park units in the National Capital Region. The National Park Service no longer intends to prepare a final rule and has terminated the rulemaking process.
The August 15, 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 40460) is withdrawn as of October 29, 2019.
Brian D. Joyner, Chief of Staff, National Park Service, National Mall and Memorial Parks, (202) 245-4468,
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Proposed rule related to public broadcasters (radio).
The Copyright Royalty Judges are publishing for comment proposed regulations governing the rates and terms for the digital performances of sound recordings by certain public radio stations and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary to facilitate those transmissions for the period commencing January 1, 2021, and ending on December 31, 2025.
Comments and objections, if any, are due no later than November 19, 2019.
You may submit comments and proposals, identified by docket number 19-CRB-0005-WR (2021-2025), by any of the following methods:
Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-0078 or email at
On September 23, 2019, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a joint motion from SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”), National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (“CPB”) (together, the “Settling Parties”) to adopt a partial settlement of their interests related to Web V royalty rates and terms for 2021-2025
Section 114 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, provides a statutory license that allows for the public performance of sound recordings by means of a digital audio transmission by, among others, eligible nonsubscription transmission services. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). For purposes of the section 114 license, an “eligible nonsubscription transmission” is a noninteractive digital audio transmission that does not require a subscription for receiving the transmission. The transmission must also be made as part of a service that provides audio programming consisting in whole or in part of performances of sound recordings the purpose of which is to provide audio or other entertainment programming, but not to sell, advertise, or promote particular goods or services.
Services using the section 114 license may need to make one or more temporary or “ephemeral” copies of a sound recording to facilitate the transmission of that recording. The section 112 statutory license allows for the making of the necessary ephemeral reproductions. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Judges to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the sections 114 and 112 statutory licenses. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(3)(A). The current proceeding commenced in January 2019 for rates and terms that will become effective on January 1, 2021, and end on December 31, 2025. Pursuant to section 804(b)(3)(A), the Judges published in the
On September 23, 2019, the Settling Parties submitted to the Judges a joint motion to adopt a partial settlement of their interests in the proceeding. The parties requested that the Judges “endeavor to determine before the deadline for the filing of written rebuttal statements in this Proceeding (January 10, 2020) whether they will adopt the settlement.” Joint Motion at 1.
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt royalty rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. The Judges must provide “an opportunity to comment on the agreement” to participants and non-participants in the rate proceeding who “would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by any agreement. . . .” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). Participants in the proceeding may also “object to [the agreement's] adoption as a basis for statutory terms and rates.”
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii).
The Settlement continues the structure of previous settlements between the parties, while increasing the payment to be made by CPB. Joint Motion at 2. Because the Settlement applies to only a closed group of licensees, and has only a single payor (CPB), the Settlement is being submitted to the Judges for adoption as a statutory rate and terms only so that it will be binding on all artists and copyright owners, including those that are not members of SoundExchange. Joint Motion at 2-3. The parties have agreed to continue their prior reporting arrangements but have not included the details of those arrangements in the Settlement, which, they believe, is consistent with guidance that the Judges have provided. Joint Motion at 3 and n.1. The parties have styled their proposed regulations as a replacement subpart D to appear in the Judges' regulations at 37 CFR part 380 and have set forth in proposed new subpart D only regulatory provisions specific to Public Broadcasters, on the assumption that the generally applicable provisions in subpart A will apply to Public Broadcasters to the extent consistent with subpart D. Joint Motion at 6, Attachment A.
The public may comment and object to any or all of the proposed regulations contained in this document. Such comments and objections must be submitted no later than November 19, 2019.
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(1) Is licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission;
(2) Originates programming and is not solely a repeater station;
(3) Is a member or affiliate of NPR, American Public Media, Public Radio International, or Public Radio Exchange, a member of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, or another public radio station that is qualified to receive funding from CPB pursuant to its criteria;
(4) Qualifies as a “noncommercial webcaster” under 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(E)(i); and
(5) Either—
(i) Offers website Performances only as part of the mission that entitles it to be exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501); or
(ii) In the case of a governmental entity (including a Native American Tribal governmental entity), is operated exclusively for public purposes.
(a)
(1) 2021: 360,000,000;
(2) 2022: 370,000,000;
(3) 2023: 380,000,000;
(4) 2024: 390,000,000; and
(5) 2025: 400,000,000.
(b)
(1) An annual minimum fee for each Public Broadcaster for each year during the Term;
(2) Additional usage fees for certain Public Broadcasters; and
(3) A discount that reflects the administrative convenience to the Collective (for purposes of this subpart, the term “Collective” refers to SoundExchange, Inc.) of receiving annual lump sum payments that cover a large number of separate entities, as well as the protection from bad debt that arises from being paid in advance.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Obligate such third Person to provide all such services in accordance with all applicable provisions of the statutory licenses and this subpart;
(2) Specify that such third Person shall have no right to make website Performances or any other performances or Ephemeral Recordings on its own behalf or on behalf of any Person or entity other than a Public Broadcaster through the Public Broadcaster's Authorized website by virtue of its services for the Public Broadcaster, including in the case of Ephemeral Recordings, pre-encoding or otherwise establishing a library of sound recordings that it offers to a Public Broadcaster or others for purposes of making performances, but instead must obtain all necessary licenses from the Collective, the copyright owner or another duly authorized Person, as the case may be;
(3) Specify that such third Person shall have no right to grant any sublicenses under the statutory licenses; and
(4) Provide that the Collective is an intended third-party beneficiary of all such obligations with the right to enforce a breach thereof against such third Person.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) to approve updates to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) air quality regulations. The EFSEC regulations apply to major energy facilities in the State of Washington and establish permitting requirements and emissions standards for such facilities. The EFSEC regulations primarily adopt by reference the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) general air quality regulations for program implementation. We are proposing to approve EFSEC's updated adoption by reference to include certain changes to Ecology's general air quality regulations since EFSEC's last adoption by reference, consistent with prior approvals.
Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0568 at
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
By statute, EFSEC has jurisdiction for managing the air program with respect to major energy facilities in the State of Washington. See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The EFSEC air quality regulations are contained in Chapter 463-78 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
As discussed in our prior approval of the EFSEC regulations on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24531), EFSEC's adoption by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC is modified in several ways. First, references in Chapter 173-400 WAC regarding appeals are modified to reflect EFSEC's independent appeals process in WAC 463-78-140. Second, the cross references to fees under Chapter 173-455 WAC are modified to reflect EFSEC's independent fee structure set out in Chapter 80.50 RCW. Third, while EFSEC generally adopts most of the
EFSEC did not adopt by reference the enforcement and authority provisions contained in WAC 173-400-220 through 260. For these provisions, EFSEC relies on its own independent authorities, which are currently part of Washington's federally-approved SIP under WAC 463-78-135 through 230. In other cases, such as WAC 173-400-118
Lastly, many parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC contain provisions that are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA, or not changed since the EPA's last approval. For this reason, EFSEC's previous SIP revision, submitted on December 20, 2016, requested approval for only those parts of Chapter 173-400 WAC consistent with the EPA's October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653), November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66291), and April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721) approvals.
On September 30, 2019, Ecology submitted EFSEC's updated adoption by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC as an appendix to Ecology's SIP revision,
The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate by reference into the Washington SIP the revised EFSEC regulations listed in Table 1 and the corresponding updates to EFSEC's adoption by reference in Table 2.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulations listed in section III of this proposal. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). This plan was submitted to fulfill the requirements of the CAA and in
Written comments must be received on or before November 29, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0537 at
Cynthia Stahl, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2180. Ms. Stahl can also be reached via electronic mail at
On August 29, 2016, EPA finalized Standards of Performance for MSW landfills and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for MSW Landfills in 40 CFR part 60 subpart XXX and Cf, respectively. 81 FR 59332 and 81 FR 59313. These actions were taken under section 111 of the CAA.
Section 111(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish a procedure for a state to submit a plan to EPA which establishes standards of performance for any air pollutant: (1) For which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under CAA section 108 or emitted from a source category which is regulated under CAA section 112 but; (2) to which a standard of performance under CAA section 111 would apply if such existing source were a new source. EPA established these requirements for state plan submittal in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. State submittals under CAA sections 111(d) must be consistent with the relevant emission guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and part 62, subpart A.
On August 29, 2019, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted to EPA a formal section 111(d) plan for existing municipal solid waste landfills. The submitted section 111(d) plan was in response to the August 29, 2016 promulgation of Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines requirements for MSW landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (76 FR 15372).
EPA has reviewed the Virginia section 111(d) plan submittal in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and part 62, subpart A. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that the submitted section 111(d) plan meets the above-cited requirements. Included within the section 111(d) plan are regulations under the Virginia state rule 9VAC5 Chapter 40 Article 43.1, entitled “Emission Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” In this action, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference (IBR) Virginia state rule 9VAC5 Chapter 40 Article 43.1, which became effective in the Commonwealth of Virginia on February 22, 2017. A detailed explanation of the rationale behind this proposed approval is available in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia section 111(d) plan for MSW landfills submitted pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart XX to reflect this action. This approval is based on the rationale previously discussed and in further detail in the TSD associated with this action. The scope of the proposed approval of the section 111(d) plan is limited to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 62 for existing MSW landfills, as referenced in the emission guidelines, subpart Cf.
The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for approval of alternative methods to determine the nonmethane organic compound concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k), as stipulated in 40 CFR 60.30f(c), as well as in Part 1, “Discretionary Authority,” of Virginia's 111(d) plan submittal.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference of the state plan. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference VADEQ rules regarding MSW landfills discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0537, at
In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed approval of Virginia's state plan submittal for existing MSW landfills does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the state plan is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Landfills, Methane, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 30 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). For red grouper, this proposed rule would modify the spawning season closures for the commercial and recreational sectors in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off North Carolina and South Carolina and establish a commercial trip limit. Additionally, Regulatory Amendment 30 would revise the rebuilding schedule for red grouper. The purpose of this proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 30 is to modify the rebuilding schedule and extend protections for red grouper.
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by November 29, 2019.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0117,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 30 may be obtained from
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP and includes red grouper, among other snapper-grouper species. The Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
In 2010, a Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) benchmark assessment (SEDAR 19, 2010) was completed for South Atlantic red grouper. Based on the results of SEDAR 19, NMFS determined that red grouper was overfished and undergoing overfishing. Amendment 24 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP established a 10-year rebuilding plan that began in 2011, with an end date of 2020 (77 FR 34254; June 11, 2012). Management measures implemented through Amendment 24 modified red grouper commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs), and sector-specific accountability measures (AMs). Amendment 24 also removed the combined gag, black grouper, and red grouper commercial quota as well as the commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs.
A stock assessment update (SEDAR 53) for red grouper was completed in February 2017 using data through 2015. SEDAR 53 indicated the stock was still overfished and undergoing overfishing, and that stock rebuilding would not be possible by 2020, which is the terminal
Continued harvest at the levels specified in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 is expected to allow for rebuilding the red grouper stock within 10 years, but because the stock is not projected to fully rebuild by 2020 (SEDAR 53), the Council must revise the current rebuilding plan so the stock rebuilds in the timeframe mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulatory Amendment 30 addresses the proposed revision to the rebuilding plan and is discussed below.
The proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 30 would extend the red grouper spawning season prohibition for the commercial and recreational sectors in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina in response to stakeholder concerns that red grouper are often found in spawning condition past the January through April shallow-water grouper spawning season closure, particularly in May. The proposed rule also establishes a commercial trip limit for red grouper to help rebuild the stock and discourage direct fishing for the species.
For red grouper, this proposed rule would modify the spawning season closure for the commercial and recreational sectors in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina, and establish a commercial trip limit.
Currently, the commercial and recreational spawning season closure for shallow-water groupers, which includes red grouper, is January through April each year throughout the South Atlantic EEZ. In the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina, red grouper spawning occurs during February through June and peaks in April. This proposed rule would extend the January through April spawning season closure for red grouper through May in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina for both the commercial and recreational sectors.
This action was developed in response to stakeholder concerns that red grouper are often found in spawning condition past the January through April shallow-water grouper spawning season closure, particularly in May, in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina. The Council did not propose a similar May closure for the EEZ off Georgia or Florida in Regulatory Amendment 30 based on stakeholder feedback that red grouper spawn earlier in the year in the southern part of the Council's jurisdiction. Additionally, the Council noted that there are minimal landings of red grouper in Georgia, which would preclude the need to extend the closure past April in the EEZ off that state. This proposed rule would also extend the prohibition on commercial sale and purchase of red grouper in the EEZ off South Carolina and North Carolina from January through May as part of the revised spawning season closure.
There is currently no commercial trip limit for red grouper in the South Atlantic. This proposed rule would establish a commercial trip limit for red grouper harvested in the South Atlantic EEZ of 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight. The Council determined that the proposed trip limit would help to rebuild the red grouper stock by discouraging directed commercial fishing for the species. However, the proposed trip limit would likely not substantially reduce the current level of commercial harvest of red grouper as the majority of trips historically have landed less than 200 lb (91 kg) of red grouper. The trip limit would minimize adverse socio-economic effects by allowing fishers to retain red grouper caught incidentally when fishing for other snapper-grouper species. The Council selected a commercial trip limit that in combination with extending the spawning season closure for red grouper off North Carolina and South Carolina would constrain harvest to help rebuild the stock. Further, the Council chose a trip limit that was large enough to allow fishers for whom red grouper are an important species (such as those in South Florida and the Florida Keys) to maintain some trip profitability.
The Council selected a 10-year rebuilding plan for red grouper in Regulatory Amendment 30, which is the maximum allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and would begin in 2019 (Year 1) and end in 2028 (Year 10). The Council determined that a longer time period for red grouper to rebuild would better accommodate the uncertainty relative to recruitment and stock productivity. As described in Regulatory Amendment 30, the red grouper stock has been experiencing multiple years of low recruitment (as evidenced by the SEDAR 53 stock assessment), and the lack of stock rebuilding progress may largely be due to ecosystem-related factors.
Implementation of reduced total and sector ACLs beginning in 2018, which was specified in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1, is expected to end overfishing of South Atlantic red grouper. Given that poor recruitment appears to be the primary factor currently affecting stock rebuilding, and the projections upon which the rebuilding schedules alternatives in Regulatory Amendment 30 are based assumed long-term average recruitment, the Council selected the alternative for the longest rebuilding schedule (10 years) to account for the possibility that future recruitment might be lower than assumed in the projections.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed
The rule concerns commercial and recreational fishing for red grouper in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. It directly effects both anglers (recreational fishers) and commercial fishing businesses that harvest red grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ.
Anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private, or leased vessels. Therefore, neither estimates of the number of anglers nor the impacts on them are required or provided in this analysis.
Any business that operates a commercial fishing vessel that harvests red grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ must have a valid Federal snapper-grouper permit attached to that vessel.
From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of 225 commercially permitted vessels reported landings of red grouper. That annual average declined to 210 from 2015 through 2017. Those two annual averages are used to estimate the range of vessels. NMFS expects all of the businesses with the 210 to 225 vessels operate primarily in the commercial fishing industry. For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The average annual total revenue for a vessel that lands red grouper is substantially less than that. Moreover, none of the permitted vessels that landed red grouper had annual revenue close to or greater than $11 million. Hence, all of the businesses that operate permitted vessels that land red grouper are small.
This rule would not impose additional reporting or record-keeping requirements on small businesses. The action in Regulatory Amendment 30 to change the rebuilding schedule would have an indirect impact on small businesses but that impact is dependent on subsequent actions. The action to revise the seasonal closure for the recreational sector would have a direct impact on anglers, but as explained previously, anglers are not small entities.
The action to revise the seasonal closure for the commercial sector would add the month of May to the current January through April prohibition on fishing for and possession of red grouper in Federal waters off North Carolina and South Carolina. That additional month would eliminate from 6,956 lb (3,155 kg), gutted weight, to 12,477 lb (6,660 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper commercially landed in May, and the average annual loss per Carolina vessel that lands red grouper in May would range from 141 lb (64 kg), gutted weight, to 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight, and from $649 to $977 (2017 dollars). However, when differentiated by state, the action would reduce the average North Carolina vessel's annual revenue by $497 to $649 (2017 dollars) (1.3 percent to 1.8 percent) and reduce the average South Carolina vessel's annual revenue by $713 to $977 (2017 dollars) (0.6 percent to 0.7 percent).
Finally, the last action would establish a 200-lb (91 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in Federal waters of the South Atlantic in effect when fishing is allowed. From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of nine vessels landed more than 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper in North Carolina and South Carolina from June through December. Those nine vessels represent from 9.7 percent to 11.9 percent of the vessels that land red grouper annually in North Carolina and South Carolina. The proposed trip limit would reduce average landings by 107-117 lb (49-53 kg), gutted weight, per trip and average dockside revenue from $498 to $538 (2017 dollars). Those losses represent less than 1 percent of average annual revenues for North Carolina and South Carolina vessels.
An annual average of three vessels make seven trips that land more than 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper in Georgia and Florida from May through December. Those three Florida/Georgia vessels represent from 2.1 percent to 2.2 percent of permitted vessels that land red grouper in Georgia and Florida annually. NMFS estimates that each of the three vessels would lose from $3,441 to $3,471 (2017 dollars) in dockside revenue annually. Those figures represent from 6.5 percent to 6.6 percent of the average Florida/Georgia vessel's dockside revenue from all landings; however, the three vessels have annual revenues substantially greater than the average for the 134 to 143 Florida/Georgia vessels that land red grouper annually.
NMFS concludes this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses that operate federally permitted fishing vessels that harvest red grouper from the South Atlantic EEZ.
Four alternatives to adding May to the current 4-month January through April prohibition on fishing for or possessing red grouper in Federal waters off North Carolina and South Carolina were considered, but were not selected. The first alternative, the
Four alternatives to a 200-lb (91-kg), gutted weight, trip limit were considered, but were not selected. In addition to the
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Red grouper, Seasonal prohibition, South Atlantic, Trip limits.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1)
(a) * * *
(14)
(h) During January through April, no person may sell or purchase a gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, or coney harvested from or possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested or possessed by a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, harvested from the South Atlantic,
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by December 30, 2019.
Thomas P. Dickson, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team 2, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1522, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension of an existing collection. 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team 2, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1522, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Email:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Management Analyst, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulatory Team 2, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1522, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-7853. Email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Kubota North America Corporation (Kubota) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 18, 2019.
Kubota already has authority to produce agricultural and specialty vehicles within FTZ 26. The current request would add foreign status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Kubota from customs
The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Bonnet bands; radio kits; hour meters; and, air conditioning units (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that bonnet bands will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items. The request also indicates that certain components are subject to special duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere), located in Portland, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 16, 2019.
The applicant has submitted a separate application for FTZ designation at the Cheniere facility under FTZ 122. The facility will be used for liquified natural gas processing. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Cheniere from customs duty payments on the foreign-status gaseous natural gas (duty-free) used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status gaseous natural gas, Cheniere would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to liquified natural gas and stabilized gas condensate (duty rates are duty-free and 10.5 cents/barrel, respectively). Cheniere would be able to avoid duty on the foreign-status material which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The request indicates that gaseous natural gas is subject to special duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 29, 2019.
William Horn at (202) 482-4868 or Sergio Balbontin at (202) 482-6478, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On July 3, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of certain collated steel staples from the People's Republic of China.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On October 2, 2019, the petitioner
For the reason stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018 (POR).
Applicable October 29, 2019.
Gene H. Calvert, 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) 482-3586.
On February 8, 2019, Commerce published in the
On May 2, 2019, Suniva timely withdrew its request for the administrative review of all the companies for which it requested an administrative review;
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Shenzhen Technology and Suniva, the only interested parties that filed requests for an administrative review for this segment of the proceeding, each timely withdrew its respective request for all companies for which a review was requested. Accordingly, Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from China for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, in its entirety.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVD duties on all appropriate entries of solar products from China. CVD duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVD duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of CVD duties prior to liquidation of relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of CVD duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled CVD duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4.).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018.
Applicable October 29, 2019.
Manuel Rey or Brittany Bauer, 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) 482-5518 or (202) 482-3860, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from India. This review covers six producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd./Bay Seafood Pvt. Ltd./Elque & Co. (collectively, the Elque Group); and Magnum Sea Foods Limited/Magnum Estates Limited (collectively, Magnum). The producers/exporters which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.
On April 23, 2019, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the IDM. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the POR February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Magnum reported the entered value for all its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used, as the assessment rate, the cash deposit rate assigned to Magnum, in accordance with our practice.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Magnum for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that Norma (India) Limited (Norma) and R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. (Gupta), producers/exporters of finished carbon steel flanges (flanges) from India, sold subject merchandise at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) February 8, 2017 through July 31, 2018. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 29, 2019.
Heather Lui, Paul Walker, or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1646, (202) 482-0413, or (202) 482-2924, respectively.
On August 7, 2018, Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the federal government from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.
The merchandise covered by the
For companies not selected for individual examination in an administrative review, generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 8, 2017 through July 31, 2018:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, and must also be served on interested parties.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
If Norma and Gupta's calculated weighted-average dumping margin is above
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Norma and Gupta for which each company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Norma and Gupta will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the
Comments must be submitted on or before November 29, 2019.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of this notice's publication, by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0102.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) by any of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0102.”
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
A copy of the supporting statement for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Melissa D'Arcy, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5086; email:
On August 22, 2019, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 29, 2019.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0085.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) by any of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0085.”
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
A copy of the supporting statement for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Melissa D'Arcy, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5086; email:
The Commission adopted Commission regulation 39.6 to specify requirements for electing the End-User Exception, including the reporting of certain information to a registered swap data repository (“SDR”) or the Commission. Following the publication of Commission regulation 39.6, the Commission recodified it as Commission regulation 50.50 (17 CFR 50.50). The information reported and collected under Commission regulation 50.50 is necessary as part of the overall package of swap-related information that must generally be submitted by reporting counterparties to SDRs under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission uses this information to assess and monitor the market participants electing the End-User Exception to the swap clearing requirement in order to prevent evasion of the clearing requirement. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On August 22, 2019, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 5, 2019.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Examinations and enforcement matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Innovation Board (“the Board”) will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, October 31, 2019 from 09:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Georgetown University, Rafik B. Hariri Building, Lohrfink Auditorium,
Colleen Laughlin, (571) 372-0933 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the DoD and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Innovation Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on October 31, 2019, of the Defense Innovation Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 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 November 29, 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
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 13, 2019. A business meeting will be held the following month on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. The hearing and business meeting are open to the public and will take place at the Washington Crossing Historic Park Visitor Center, 1112 River Road, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania.
The list of projects scheduled for hearing, including project descriptions, and the text of the proposed resolution will be posted on the Commission's website,
Written comments on matters scheduled for hearing on November 13 will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on November 18.
The public is advised to check the Commission's website periodically prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is needed to complete the Commission's review, and items may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is also asked to be aware that the details of projects may change during the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
After all scheduled business has been completed and as time allows, the Business Meeting will be followed by up to one hour of Open Public Comment, an opportunity to address the Commission on any topic concerning management of the basin's water resources outside the context of a duly noticed, on-the-record public hearing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment for the record at the December 11 Business Meeting on items for which a hearing was completed on November 13 or a previous date. Commission consideration on December 11 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in approval of the item (by docket or resolution) as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already received without requesting further public input. Any deferred items will be considered for action at a public meeting of the Commission on a future date.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 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 Bonnie Carter, 202-401-3576.
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 November 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
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.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the U.S. Department of Education (Department) modifies the system of records entitled “Federal Student Aid Application File” (18-11-01).
The Federal Student Aid Application File system of records contains information provided by applicants for title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (HEA) program assistance, which is collected from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Among other purposes described in this notice, the information collected is maintained in order to: Determine an applicant's eligibility for the Federal student financial assistance programs authorized by title IV of the HEA; make a loan, grant, or scholarship; and verify the identity of the applicant.
Submit your comments on or before November 29, 2019.
This modified system of records will become applicable upon publication in the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from
Director Lisa DiCarlo, Application Processing Division, Customer Experience Group, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 500 West Madison Street, Room 1432/14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60616. Telephone: (312) 730-1600.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), at 1-800-877-8339.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “SECURITY CLASSIFICATION” by changing the classification from “none” to “unclassified.” The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION” by revising two locations and adding five locations. The Department is updating the address of the “SYSTEM MANAGER(S)” to reflect a change in location. The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM”, to include additional authority to collect Social Security numbers (SSNs) for use in this system.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM” to remove the reference to secondary school students about whom secondary schools, local educational agencies, and other local and State agencies had previously submitted information to the Department in order for the Department to provide these entities with the students' FAFSA completion filing status.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” to delete the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) Analysis (IA) Tools functionality and a description of the records post-secondary institutions were able to create with the IA Tools, because the IA Tools have been discontinued. The Department is also adding the Person Authentication System (PAS) to the Department systems that provide applicant information to this system of records.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES” to reflect changes due to the new mobile application. “MyStudentAid” is a mobile application used by students and their parents to submit their post-secondary applications for title IV student financial aid grants and loans as part of the FAFSA process. This is an alternative to completing the FAFSA application on paper or on the
The Department is substantially revising the section of the notice entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” to reflect changes in program operations. The Department is modifying routine use (1) entitled “Program Disclosures” to remove the purposes of verifying an applicant's spousal information and informing an applicant's spouse of information about the spouse from routine use disclosures (a) and (m). In routine use (1)(a) the change clarifies that the Department will not use this routine use to disclose information from this system of records for the purpose of verifying the identity of the applicant's spouse. In routine use (1)(m) the change clarifies that the Department will not use this routine use to disclose information from this system of records to an applicant's spouse for the purpose of informing the spouse of information about the spouse in an application for title IV, HEA funds.
The Department is modifying routine use (1)(e) to remove language indicating that the Department may disclose records to financial institutions participating in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Programs in order to facilitate assessments of title IV, HEA program compliance since new loans were not originated under FFEL after 2010.
The Department is deleting routine use (1)(p) because the Department is no longer disclosing the FAFSA filing status of a student to a Local Educational Agency (LEA), secondary school where the student is or was enrolled, or other State, local, or private entity designated by the Secretary, but rather is permitting State agencies to re-disclose the FAFSA filing status of a student under specified conditions.
The Department is deleting the former routine use (2) entitled “Disclosure for Use by Other Law Enforcement Agencies” because the component of FSA that maintains the system is not a law enforcement agency and, therefore, is renumbering the former routine use (3) entitled “Enforcement Disclosure” to the current routine use (2). The subsequent 12 routine use disclosures are, therefore, renumbered by a reduction factor of one in the current notice.
The Department is modifying routine use (3) entitled “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosure” to insert the word “person” in place of the word “individual” in subsection (c) in order to reduce public confusion that may have resulted from the Department's prior use of the word “individual,” given that the word “individual” is defined in the Privacy Act and the Department did not intend to incorporate the Privacy Act definition of this word.
The Department is modifying routine use (5) entitled “Contracting Disclosure” and routine use (11) entitled “Research Disclosure” to remove language that referenced safeguards required under the Privacy Act because this language was not clear and also limited the Department to making disclosures to contractors acting within the scope of subsection (m) of the Privacy Act. The Department's revised language clarifies that contractors and researchers to whom disclosures are made under these routine uses are required to agree to safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the records in the system and permits the Department to disclose records to contractors beyond the scope of subsection (m) of the Privacy Act. The Department also is modifying routine use (5) to clarify that an agreement with the contractor will be reached as part of the contract, rather than before entering into the contract.
The Department is modifying routine use (8) entitled “Employee Grievance, Complaint, or Conduct Disclosure” to include records of present or former employees and to allow disclosure to any party to a grievance, complaint, or action and to the party's counsel. These
The Department is updating routine use (12) formerly entitled “Disclosure to the OMB for Federal Credit Reform Act (CRA) Support” to add the Congressional Budget Office to the entities which may be provided with access to the Department's records relating to the development of more accurate data on historical performance of direct loan and loan guarantee programs and to improve estimates of costs of these programs.
Pursuant to the requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) M-17-12, the Department is modifying routine use (14) entitled “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” and adding routine use (15) entitled “Disclosure in Assisting another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data.”
The Department is adding routine use (16) entitled “Disclosure of Information to State and Federal Agencies” to permit disclosure of records for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments, as authorized pursuant to the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, Public Law 112-248, as amended, and to permit the Department to comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720B.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS” to more fully address the medium in which the records are stored in this system and to make other updates, including a change to the record storage location for paper applications.
The Department is updating the section of the notice entitled “POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS” to explain that the applicable Department records schedule is being amended, pending approval by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
The Department is revising the section of the notice entitled “ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS” to update the computer system safeguards used to protect the system from tampering.
The Department is modifying the sections of the notice entitled “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES”, “CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES”, and “NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES” to reflect the current process of requesting access, contesting, and notification of records.
Finally the Department is adding a new section entitled “HISTORY” to the notice to follow the required template in OMB Circular No. A-108.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of a modified system of records to read as follows:
Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01).
Unclassified.
Conduent 1084 South Laurel Road, Building 3, London, KY 40744. This site is the location where paper Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) applications and related paper documents are stored until sent to the Federal Records Center for long-term storage and disposal.
General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), 2450 Oakdale Boulevard, Coralville, IA 52241. This location hosts CPS/Student Aid internet Gateway (SAIG) help desk agents and Participation Management staff who provide technical assistance to postsecondary title IV institutions.
GDIT Image and Data Capture (IDC) Center, 1084 South Laurel Road, London, KY 40744. The IDC scans paper financial aid documents and correspondence, key-enters the data, and electronically transmits the data and related images to the CPS for processing.
GDIT Data Center, 9651 Hornbaker Road, Manassas, VA 20109. This site hosts some of the hardware and software components of the CPS system.
GDIT Customer Interaction Center (CPS/SAIG), 3833 Greenway Drive, Lawrence, KS 55046. CPS/SAIG is the help desk that provides customer service to postsecondary title IV institutions using the CPS and SAIG websites.
NGDC, 250 Burlington Drive, Clarksville, VA 23927. NGDC hosts the infrastructure that supports CPS applications.
Freedom Graphic Systems (FGS), 780 McClure Road, Aurora, IL 60502. This facility handles print and mail operations.
Director, Application Processing Division, Customer Experience Group, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 500 West Madison Street, Room 1432/14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60616.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070
The information contained in this system is maintained for the purposes of: (1) Assisting with the determination, correction, processing, tracking, and reporting of program eligibility and benefits for the Federal student financial assistance programs authorized by title IV of the HEA; (2) making a loan, grant, or scholarship; (3) verifying the identity of the applicant, and the parent(s) of a dependent applicant, and the accuracy of the information in this system; (4) reporting the results of the need analysis, Federal Pell Grant eligibility determination, and the results of duly authorized matching programs between the Department and other Federal agencies to applicants, postsecondary institutions, third-party servicers, State agencies designated by the applicant, and other Departmental and investigative components for use in
The Federal Student Aid Application File contains records on students who apply for Federal student financial assistance programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. This system also contains information on the parent(s) of a dependent applicant and the spouse of a married applicant.
This system of records contains information provided by applicants for title IV, HEA program assistance, on the FAFSA, including, but not limited to, the applicant's name, address, SSN, date of birth, telephone number, driver's license number, email address, citizenship status, marital status, legal residence, status as a veteran, educational status, and financial data. This system also contains information provided about the parent(s) of a dependent applicant, including, but not limited to, the parent's highest level of schooling completed, marital status, SSN, last name and first initial, date of birth, email address, number in household supported by the parent, and income and asset information. For an applicant who is married, this system of records also contains spousal income and asset information.
The system determines an applicant's expected family contribution (EFC). The EFC is used by IHEs to determine the student's eligibility for Federal and institutional program assistance, and by States to determine the student's eligibility for State grants. The Department notifies the applicant of the results of his or her application via the Student Aid Report (SAR). The Department provides the IHEs identified on the applicant's FAFSA with the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR), which indicates whether there are discrepant or insufficient data, school adjustments, or CPS assumptions that affect processing of the FAFSA. Other information in the system includes, but is not limited to: Secondary EFC (an EFC calculated from the full EFC formula and is printed in the financial aid administrator's (FAA) Information section of the ISIR), dependency status, Federal Pell Grant Eligibility, duplicate SSN (an indicator that is set to alert ISIR recipients that two applications were processed with the same SSN), selection for verification, Simplified Needs Test (SNT) or Automatic Zero EFC (used for extremely low family income), CPS processing comments, reject codes (explanation for applicant's FAFSA not computing EFC), assumptions made with regard to the student's data due to incomplete or inconsistent FAFSA data, FAA adjustments including dependency status overrides, and CPS record processing information (application receipt date, transaction number, transaction process date, SAR Serial Number, Compute Number, Data Release Number (DRN; a four-digit number assigned to each application), National Student Loan Database System (NSLDS) match results, a bar code, and transaction source).
Information from other Department systems, such as NSLDS, the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System, and the SAIG Participation Management System, is added to this system of records. The Appendix contains a more detailed description of the data added to this system of records as a result of the exchanges of data with other Department systems and the Department's matching programs with other Federal agencies.
Information in this system is obtained from applicants and the parents of dependent applicants for title IV, HEA program assistance, on the paper FAFSA, FAFSA on the Web, FAFSA by phone, mobile application, and the authorized employees or representatives of authorized entities as follows: Postsecondary educational institutions, institutional third-party servicers, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program lenders, FFEL Program guaranty agencies, Federal loan servicers, State grant agencies, other federal agencies, research agencies, and from other persons or entities from which data is obtained under the routine uses set forth below.
Postsecondary institutions designated by the applicant or third-party servicers designated by the postsecondary institution may correct the records in this system as a result of documentation provided by the applicant or by a dependent applicant's parents, such as Federal income return(s) (Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1040, IRS Form 1040A, or IRS Form 1040EZ), Social Security card(s), and Department of Homeland Security I-551 Resident Alien cards.
This system contains information added during CPS processing and information received from other Department systems, including the NSLDS, the COD System, and the SAIG Participation Management System. For more information about the information received from these other Department systems, see the Appendix.
The results of matching programs with the following Federal agencies are also added to the student's record during CPS processing: The Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Selective Service System (SSS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Defense (DoD). For more information about the information received from these matching programs, see the Appendix.
Information in this system also may be obtained from other persons or entities from which data is obtained under routine uses set forth below.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or pursuant to a matching agreement that
(1)
(a) To verify the identity of the applicant and the parent(s) of a dependent applicant; to determine the accuracy of the information contained in the record; to support compliance with title IV, HEA statutory and regulatory requirements; and to assist with the determination, correction, processing, tracking, and reporting of program eligibility and benefits, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL Programs, IHEs, third party servicers, and Federal and State agencies;
(b) To provide an applicant's financial aid history, including information about the applicant's title IV, HEA loan defaults and title IV, HEA grant program overpayments, the Department may disclose records to IHEs, guaranty and State agencies, financial institutions participating in the FFEL Programs, and third party servicers;
(c) To facilitate receiving and correcting application data, processing Federal Pell Grants and Direct Loans, and reporting Federal Perkins Loan Program expenditures to the Department's processing and reporting systems, the Department may disclose records to IHEs, State agencies, and third party servicers;
(d) To assist loan holders with the collection and servicing of title IV, HEA loans, to support pre-claims/supplemental pre-claims assistance, to assist in locating borrowers, and to assist in locating students who owe grant overpayments, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL Programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(e) To facilitate assessments of title IV, HEA program compliance, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(f) To assist in locating holders of loan(s), the Department may disclose records to student borrowers, guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL Programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(g) To assist in assessing the administration of title IV, HEA program funds by guaranty agencies, financial institutions, IHEs, and third-party servicers, the Department may disclose records to Federal and State agencies;
(h) To enforce the terms of a loan or grant or to assist in the collection of loan or grant overpayments, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(i) To assist borrowers in repayment, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL program, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(j) To initiate legal action against an individual involved in an illegal or unauthorized title IV, HEA program expenditure or activity, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(k) To initiate or support a limitation, suspension, or termination action, an emergency action, or a debarment or suspension action, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(l) To investigate complaints, update files, and correct errors, the Department may disclose records to guaranty agencies and financial institutions participating in the FFEL programs, IHEs, third-party servicers, and Federal, State, and local agencies;
(m) To inform the parent(s) of a dependent applicant of information about the parent(s) in an application for title IV, HEA funds, the Department may disclose records to the parent(s);
(n) To disclose to the parent(s) of a dependent applicant applying for a PLUS loan (to be used on behalf of a student), to identify the student as the correct beneficiary of the PLUS loan funds, and to allow the processing of the PLUS loan application and promissory note, the Department may disclose records to the parent(s) applying for the PLUS loan;
(o) To expedite the student application process, the Department may disclose information from this system, upon request by a third party, provided that the third party provides the Department with the applicant's first and last name, SSN, date of birth, and DRN;
(p) To enable an applicant, should the applicant wish to do so, to obtain information from other Federal agencies' records that will assist the applicant in completing the FAFSA online, the Department may disclose information from this system of records to other Federal agencies, such as the IRS; and
(q) To determine an applicant's eligibility for the award of State postsecondary education assistance and for the award of aid by eligible IHEs or other entities designated by the Secretary and to administer those awards, the Department may disclose information from this system of records to State agencies, eligible IHEs, and other entities designated by the Secretary.
(2)
(3)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components;
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (DOJ) agrees to or has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee;
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; and
(v) The United States, where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
(b)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): The Department may disclose the following information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a valid overdue claim of the Department: (1) The name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim; (2) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and (3) the program under which the claim arose. The Department may disclose the information specified in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in subsection 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to which these disclosures may be made is defined at 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
System records are paper-based and stored in locked rooms or electronic and stored on secured computer systems and in the cloud.
Paper applications are stored in standard Federal Records Center boxes in locked storage rooms at the contractor facility in London, Kentucky, and then moved to the Federal Records Center at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), where the records are stored until disposed.
Digitized paper applicant records, which include optically imaged documents, are stored on DADS (disks) in a virtual disk library, which is also electronic, in the computer facilities controlled by the Federal Student Aid Data Center.
Records are indexed and retrieved by the applicant's SSN, name, and the academic year in which the applicant applied for title IV, HEA program assistance.
Department of Education Records Schedule No. 072 (DAA-0441-2013-0002), FSA Application, Origination, and Disbursement Records (ED 072) is being amended, pending approval by NARA. Applicable Department records will not be destroyed until applicable NARA-approved amendments to ED 072 are in effect.
All users of the Federal Student Aid Application File system will have a unique user ID with a password. All physical access to the data housed at system locations is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building for his or her employee or visitor badge. The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention with firewalls, encryption, and password protection. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need-to-know” basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. All interactions by users of the Federal Student Aid Application File system are recorded.
If you wish to gain access to a record in this system, you must make a Privacy Act request through the U.S. Department of Education, FOIA Office at
If you wish to contest or change the content of a record about you in the system of records, provide the System Manager with your name, date of birth, SSN, and any other identifying information requested by the Department, while processing the request, to distinguish between individuals with the same name. Identify the specific items to be changed, and provide a justification for the change.
To contest the content of a FAFSA record for the current processing year (which begins on October 1 of the prior calendar year and continues for 21 months until June 30 of the following calendar year), send your request to the FOIA Office listed in the Notification Procedures section.
Requests to amend a record must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists about you in the system of records, you must make a Privacy Act request through the U.S. Department of Education, FOIA Office at
None.
The system of records was published in the
Data provided to the Department as a result of computer matching with other Federal agencies are added during CPS processing. The Department's present computer matches are with the SSA to verify the SSNs of applicants, and dependent applicants' parent(s), and to confirm the U.S. citizenship status of applicants as recorded in SSA records and date of death (if applicable) of applicants, and dependent applicants' parents, pursuant to sections 428B(f)(2), 483(a)(12), and 484(g) and (p) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1078-2(f)(2), 1090(a)(12), and 1091(g)and (p)); with the VA to verify the status of applicants who claim to be veterans, pursuant to section 480(c) and (d)(1)(D) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(c) and (d)(1)(D)); with the SSS to confirm the registration status of male applicants, pursuant to section 484(n) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1091(n)); with the DHS to confirm the immigration status of applicants for assistance as authorized by section 484(g) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1091(g)); with the DOJ to enforce any requirement imposed at the discretion of a court, pursuant to section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Public Law 100-690, as amended by section 1002(d) of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-647 (21 U.S.C. 862), denying Federal benefits under the programs established by title IV of the HEA to any individual convicted of a State or Federal offense for the distribution or possession of a controlled substance; and with the DoD to identify dependents of U.S. military personnel who died in service in Iraq and Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, to determine if they are eligible for increased amounts of title IV, HEA program assistance, pursuant to sections
During CPS processing, the Department's COD System sends information to this system for students who have received a Federal Pell Grant. The CPS uses this information for verification analysis and for end-of-year reporting. These data include, but are not limited to: Verification Selection and Status, Potential Over-award Project (POP) indicator, Institutional Cost of Attendance, Reporting and Attended Campus Pell ID and Enrollment Date, and Federal Pell Grant Program information (Scheduled Federal Pell Grant Award, Origination Award Amount, Total Accepted Disbursement Amount, Number of Disbursements Accepted, Percentage of Eligibility Used At This Attended Campus Institution, and Date of Last Activity from the Origination or Disbursement table).
The CPS also receives applicant data from the Department's NSLDS system each time an application is processed or corrected. This process assesses student aid eligibility, updates financial aid history, and ensures compliance with title IV, HEA regulations. Some of these data appear on the applicant's SAR and ISIR. Title IV, HEA award information is provided to NSLDS from several different sources. Federal Perkins Loan data and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) overpayment data are sent from postsecondary institutions or their third-party servicers; the Department's COD System provides Federal Pell Grant and Direct Loan data; and State and guaranty agencies provide data on FFEL loans received from lending institutions participating in the FFEL programs. Financial aid transcript data reported by NSLDS provides applicants, postsecondary institutions, and third-party servicers with information about the type(s), amount(s), dates, and overpayment status of prior and current title IV, HEA funds the applicant received. FFEL and William D. Ford Federal Direct Student Loan (DL) data reported by NSLDS include, but are not limited to: (1) Aggregate Loan Data, such as Subsidized, Unsubsidized; Combined Outstanding Principal Balances; Unallocated Consolidated Outstanding Principal Balances, Subsidized, Unsubsidized; Combined Pending Disbursements, Subsidized, Unsubsidized; Combined Totals; and Unallocated Consolidated Totals; (2) Detailed Loan Data, such as Loan Sequence Number; Loan Type Code; Loan Change Flag; Loan Program Code; Current Status Code and Date; Outstanding Principal Balance and Date; Net Loan Amount; Loan Begin and End Dates; Amount and Date of Last Disbursement; Guaranty Agency Code; School Code; Contact Code; and Institution Type and Grade Level; and (3) system flags for Additional Unsubsidized Loan; Capitalized Interest; Defaulted Loan Change; Discharged Loan Change; Loan Satisfactory Repayment Change; Active Bankruptcy Change; Overpayments Change; Aggregate Loan Change; Defaulted Loan; Discharged Loan; Loan Satisfactory Repayment; Active Bankruptcy; Additional Loans; DL Master Promissory Note; DL PLUS Loan Master Promissory Note; Subsidized Loan Limit; and the Combined Loan Limit. Federal Perkins Loan data reported by NSLDS include, but are not limited to: Cumulative and Current Year Disbursement Amounts; flags for Perkins Loan Change; Defaulted Loan; Discharged Loan; Loan Satisfactory Repayment; Active Bankruptcy; Additional Loans; and Perkins Overpayment Flag and Contact (School or Region). Federal Pell Grant payment data reported include, but are not limited to: Pell Sequence Number; Pell Attended School Code; Pell Transaction Number; Last Update Date; Scheduled Amount; Award Amount; Amount Paid to Date; Percent Scheduled Award Used; Pell Payment EFC; Flags for Pell Verification; and Pell Payment Change. Federal Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program data include, but are not limited to: TEACH Grant Overpayment Contact; TEACH Grant Overpayment Flag; TEACH Grant Loan Principal Balance; TEACH Grant Total; and Teach Grant Change Flag. Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants data include, but are not limited to: Total Award Amount. The Department obtains and exchanges information that is included in this system of records from postsecondary institutions, third-party servicers, and State agencies. These eligible entities register with the SAIG system to participate in the information exchanges specified for their business processes.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 30, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
Take notice that on October 18, 2019, Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, (SNG), 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, filed in Docket No. CP20-6-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and SNG's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-406-000. SNG proposes to abandon in place two compressor units at its Rankin Compressor Station, located in Rankin County, Mississippi, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to T. Brooks Henderson, Director—Rates & Regulatory, Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, by telephone at (205) 325-3843, or by fax at (205) 325-3787, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. On September 26, 2019, the applicant informed the Commission of its intent to convert its application for minor license filed on November 28, 2018 to an application for exemption from licensing and included additional information necessary to augment the license application and convert it to an application for exemption from licensing. Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.31(c)(2) (2019), an applicant for an exemption is required to have sufficient rights in any non-federal land required for the project prior to filing its application. On October 8, 2019, the applicant provided documentation that it had the property rights for the non-federal lands necessary to develop the project.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
m.
n. Due to the small size and location of this project, the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during preparation of the application, and studies completed during pre-filing consultation, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the licensing process. Based on a review of the application and resource agency consultation letters including comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation, and cultural and historic resources.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may register online at
p. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation of Methylene Chloride (MC). The purpose of the risk evaluation process under TSCA is to determine, upon issuance of a final risk evaluation, whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. EPA is also submitting the same document to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer review and is announcing that there will be an in-person public meeting of the TSCA SACC to consider and review the draft risk evaluation. Preceding the in-person meeting, there will be a preparatory virtual public meeting for the panel to consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the peer review.
For additional instructions, see Unit III. of the
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing and those interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to “determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors,
The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information on specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
The statute requires that the risk evaluation process last no longer than three years, with a possible additional six-month extension. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G). The statute also requires that the EPA allow for no less than a 30-day public comment period on the draft risk evaluation, prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(H).
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation of the chemical substances identified in Unit II. EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of the draft risk evaluation, including any preliminary conclusions, findings, and determinations, and the submission of any additional information that might be relevant to the draft risk evaluation, including the science underlying the draft risk evaluation and the outcome of the systematic review associated with the chemical substances. This 60-day comment period on the draft risk evaluation satisfies TSCA section 6(b)(4)(H), which requires EPA to “provide no less than 30 days public notice and an opportunity for comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk evaluation,” and 40 CFR 702.49(a), which states that “EPA will publish a draft risk evaluation in the
EPA is also submitting the draft risk evaluation and associated supporting documents to the TSCA SACC for peer review and announcing the meeting for the peer review panel. All comments submitted to the dockets on the draft risk evaluation by the deadline identified in the
1.
2.
The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing chemical process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk management. As these chemicals are part of the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation, these chemical substances were not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of risk evaluation is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors, use reasonably available information and approaches in a manner that is consistent with the requirements in TSCA for the use of the best available science, and ensure decisions are based on the weight-of-scientific-evidence.
The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA's website at
Methylene chloride (MC), also known as dichloromethane and DCM, is a volatile chemical used as a solvent in a wide range of industrial, commercial and consumer applications. The primary uses for methylene chloride are for paint removal, adhesives, pharmaceutical manufacturing, metal cleaning, aerosol solvents, chemical
Information about the problem formulation and scope phases of the TSCA risk evaluation for this chemical is available at
The TSCA SACC was established by EPA in 2016 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2
EPA's background documents, related supporting materials, and draft charge questions to the TSCA SACC are available on the TSCA SACC website and in the docket established for the specific chemical substances. In addition, EPA will provide additional background documents (
After the public meeting, the TSCA SACC will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to EPA. The meeting minutes will be posted on the TSCA SACC website and in the relevant docket.
The focus of the public meeting is to peer review EPA's draft risk evaluation. After the peer review process, EPA will consider peer reviewer comments and recommendations, and public comments, in finalizing the risk evaluation. The draft risk evaluation contains: Discussion of chemistry and physical-chemical properties; characterization of conditions of use; environmental fate and transport assessment; human health exposures; environmental hazard assessment; risk characterization; risk determination; and a detailed description of the systematic review process developed by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to search, screen, and evaluate scientific literature for use in the risk evaluation process.
You may participate in the public meetings by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify the corresponding docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your request.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
i.
ii.
iii.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB No. 3064-0029; -0030; -0070; -0104; -0204).
Comments must be submitted on or before December 30, 2019.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:
1.
2.
This information collection includes the following:
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The estimated number of respondents, as well as the estimated time per response and the frequency of response, is expected to remain the same.
3.
4.
12 CFR part 362 details the activities that state savings associations and/or their subsidiaries may engage in, under certain criteria and conditions, and identifies the information that banks must furnish to the FDIC in order to obtain the FDIC's approval or non-objection.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The estimated number of respondents has been revised upward based on the number of responses recorded over the last three years. The estimated time per response and the frequency of response, is expected to remain the same.
5.
The reporting requirements found in 12 CFR 349.1(d) refer to statutory provisions that set forth conditions for an exemption from clearing. Section 349.1(d)(1) provides an exemption for non-cleared swaps if one of the counterparties to the swap is not a financial entity, is using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, and notifies the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of how it generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps. Section 349.1(d)(2) provides an exemption for security-based swaps if the counterparty notifies the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of how it generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared security-based swaps. Section 349.2 defines terms used in part 349, including the definition of “eligible master netting agreement,” which provides that a covered swap entity that relies on the agreement for purpose of calculating the required margin must: (1) Conduct sufficient legal review of the agreement to conclude with a well-founded basis that the agreement meets specified criteria; and (2) establish and maintain written procedures for monitoring relevant changes in law and to ensure that the agreement continues to satisfy the requirements of this section. The term “eligible master netting agreement” is used elsewhere in part 349 to specify instances in which a covered swap entity may: (1) Calculate variation margin on an aggregate basis across multiple non-cleared swaps and security-based swaps and (2) calculate initial margin requirements under an initial margin model for one or more swaps and security-based swaps. Section 349.5(c)(2)(i) specifies that a covered swap entity shall not be deemed to have violated its obligation to collect or post margin from or to a counterparty if the covered swap entity has made the necessary efforts to collect or post the required margin, including the timely initiation and continued pursuit of formal dispute resolution mechanisms, or has otherwise demonstrated upon request to the satisfaction of the agency that it has made appropriate efforts to collect or post the required margin. Section 349.7 generally requires a covered swap entity to ensure that any initial margin collateral that it collects or posts is held at a third-party custodian. Section 349.7(c) requires the custodian to act pursuant to a custody agreement that: (1) Prohibits the custodian from rehypothecating, repledging, reusing, or otherwise transferring (through securities lending, securities borrowing, repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement or other means) the collateral held by the custodian, except that cash collateral may be held in a general deposit account with the custodian if the funds in the account are used to purchase an asset held in compliance with § 349.7, and such purchase takes place within a time period reasonably necessary to consummate such purchase after the cash collateral is posted as initial margin and (2) is a legal, valid, binding, and enforceable agreement under the laws of all relevant jurisdictions, including in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, or a similar proceeding. A custody agreement may permit the posting party to substitute or direct any reinvestment of posted collateral held by the custodian under certain conditions. With respect to collateral collected by a covered swap entity pursuant to § 349.3(a) or posted by a covered swap entity pursuant to § 349.3(b), the agreement must require the posting party to substitute only funds or other property that would qualify as eligible collateral under § 349.6 and for which the amount net of applicable discounts described in Appendix B would be sufficient to meet the requirements of § 349.3 and direct reinvestment of funds only in assets that would qualify as eligible collateral under § 349.6. Section 349.8 establishes standards for the use of initial margin models. These standards include: (1) A requirement that the covered swap entity receive prior approval from the relevant Agency based on demonstration that the initial margin model meets specific requirements (§§ 349.8(c)(1) and 349.8(c)(2)); (2) a requirement that a covered swap entity notify the relevant Agency in writing 60 days before extending use of the model to additional product types, making certain changes to the initial margin model, or making material changes to modeling assumptions (§ 349.8(c)(3)); and (3) a variety of quantitative requirements, including requirements that the covered swap entity validate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its process for modeling and measuring hedging benefits, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the relevant Agency that the omission of any risk factor from the calculation of its initial margin is appropriate, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the relevant Agency that incorporation of any proxy or approximation used to capture the risks of the covered swap entity's non-cleared swaps or noncleared security-based swaps is appropriate, periodically review and, as necessary, revise the data used to calibrate the initial margin model to ensure that the data incorporate an appropriate period of significant financial stress (§§ 349.8(d)(5), 349.8(d)(10), 349.8(d)(11), 349.8(d)(12), and 349.8(d)(13)). Also, if the validation process reveals any material problems with the initial margin model, the covered swap entity must promptly notify the Agency of the problems, describe to the Agency any remedial actions being taken, and adjust the initial margin model to ensure an appropriately conservative amount of required initial margin is being calculated (§ 349.8(f)(3)). Section 349.8 also establishes requirements for the ongoing review and documentation of initial margin models. These standards include: (1) A requirement that a covered swap entity review its initial margin model annually (§ 349.8(e)); (2) a requirement that the covered swap entity validate its initial margin model at the outset and on an ongoing basis, describe to the relevant Agency any remedial actions being taken, and report internal audit findings regarding the effectiveness of the initial margin model to the covered swap entity's board of directors or a committee thereof (§§ 349.8(f)(2), 349.8(f)(3), and 349.8(f)(4)); (3) a requirement that the covered swap entity adequately document all material aspects of its initial margin model (§ 349.8(g)); and (4) that the covered swap entity must adequately document internal authorization procedures, including escalation procedures, that require review and approval of any change to the initial margin calculation under the initial margin model, demonstrable analysis that any basis for any such change is consistent with the requirements of this section, and independent review of such demonstrable analysis and approval (§ 349.8(h)). Section 349.9 addresses the treatment of cross-border transactions and, in certain limited situations, will permit a covered swap entity to comply with a foreign regulatory framework for
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The FDIC currently does not supervise any institutions that are subject to this information collection but is reporting one respondent as a placeholder to preserve the burden estimates. For clarity, the burden presentation has been changed to correspond to the burden presentation made by the other agencies in their respective information collections. There is no change in the total estimated annual burden.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 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 paragraph 7 of the Act.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than November 7, 2019.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by December 30, 2019.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Trained nurse reviewers from the MAC would review the information from the ambulance supplier to determine if the beneficiary meets Medicare's requirements for the transport and if the beneficiary needs the level of care requested. The MAC would also use the information to determine if the number of trips requested is reasonable and necessary.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by December 30, 2019.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Collection of this information is mandated by statute under sections 1894(f) and 1934(f) of the Act and at 42 CFR part 460, subpart B, which addresses the PO application and waiver process. In general, PACE services are provided through a PO. An entity wishing to become a PO must submit an application to CMS that describes how the entity meets all the requirements in the PACE program. An entity's application must be accompanied by an assurance from the SAA of the State in which the PO is located.
CMS recently issued a final PACE rule (CMS-4168-F), effective August 2, 2019, which updates and modernizes the PACE program. This final rule codifies CMS' existing practice of relying on automated review systems for processing initial applications to become a PACE organization and expansion applications for existing PACE organizations. In addition, the final rule will modify the PACE regulations to eliminate the need for PACE organizations to request waivers for a number of the most commonly waived provisions. This latter change is expected to reduce burden and improve efficiency for POs, state administering agencies, and CMS.
In addition to codifying the current automated processes for the submission and review of both initial and service area expansion applications, this rule modifies existing regulatory provisions and requirements. As a result, certain attestations associated with the application are no longer applicable, and others need to be updated to reflect updated regulatory requirements. We are also making minor tweaks to certain document upload requirements for clarification purposes based on experience reviewing applications.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Type V DMFs for CDER-Led Combination Products Using Device Constituent Parts With Electronics or Software.” A drug master file (DMF) is a voluntary submission to FDA that may be used to provide confidential detailed information about facilities, processes, or articles used in the manufacturing, processing, packaging, and storing of one or more human drugs. This draft guidance explains when a Type V DMF may be used to submit information regarding a combination product for which the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has primary jurisdiction (
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 30, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Kimberly Peters, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 51, Rm. 4314, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6350.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Type V DMFs for CDER-Led Combination Products Using Device
Further, because of rapid advances in technology, the device constituent part of these types of combination products could be modified frequently. Knowledge of these modifications is important in determining whether they have any impact on the safety and effectiveness of the combination product or its indications for use. Amendments to the Type V DMF provide a regulatory pathway for the DMF holder to report device modifications and for FDA to be notified of and to review device modifications.
Once FDA reviews the Type V DMF device information for one CDER application, its review may be applicable to other CDER applications if the device information remains unchanged and is pertinent to products in other CDER applications that also incorporate the DMF by reference. FDA's ability to use previously completed scientific reviews for a DMF can contribute to an efficient FDA review process and help ensure consistency across CDER applications referencing the same information.
This draft guidance applies to Type V DMF submissions as described above for CDER-led combination products. Specifically, the information in this draft guidance may be appropriate for device constituent parts with electronics and/or software that meet the statutory definition of a device and perform functions such as the following:
• Facilitate drug delivery in a manner that may include patient input or analysis (
• Provide information that is used in making a decision regarding treatment, therapy, or drug delivery.
• Interface with other devices or systems to provide patient use or other information to the user or health care provider (
• Control or drive the features of the user interface.
This draft guidance addresses process and general content expectations for Type V DMFs for such device constituent parts. It does not address FDA premarket review standards or expectations for such constituent parts or the combination products that include them. This draft guidance is also not intended to suggest that a Type V DMF should be submitted to CDER if the sponsor has rights of reference to a device master file located in another center containing the same information.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Type V DMFs for CDER-Led Combination Products Using Device Constituent Parts With Electronics or Software.” 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 draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. 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 21 CFR 314.420 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR have been provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than November 29, 2019.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reductions Act (PRA) of 1995 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. This information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 29, 2019.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
November 4, 2019, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 101 Constitution Ave. NW, #900, Washington, DC 20001.
Meeting of the Board of Directors and Advisory Council, open to the public, portion closed to the public.
Nicole Stinson, Acting General Counsel, (202) 683-7117.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of comment period.
As required by the Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Act of 1934, as amended by the JOM Supplemental Indian Education Program Modernization Act, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is publishing a Preliminary Report that describes the number of eligible Indian students served or potentially served by each eligible entity, using the most applicable and accurate data from the fiscal year proceeding the fiscal year for which the initial determination is to be made. BIE is also seeking written comments from eligible entities to gain feedback about the preliminary report.
Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2019.
Send comments by email to
Ms. Angela Barnett, JOM Program Specialist, Bureau of Indian Education, telephone: (405) 605-6051, email:
The JOM Act of 1934 was passed to subsidize education, medical services, and other social services provided to Indians living within the borders of States and territories. Today, JOM funding is used to support programs designed to meet the specialized and unique educational and cultural needs of eligible Indian students, including programs that supplement existing school programming operational supports.
The JOM Supplemental Indian Education Program Modernization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-404, directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to publish a preliminary report describing the number of eligible Indian students served or potentially served by each eligible entity, using the most applicable and accurate data from the fiscal year proceeding the fiscal year for which the initial determination is to be made from the:
1. Bureau of the Census;
2. National Center for Education Statistics; or
3. Office of Indian Education of the Department of Education.
The preliminary report and additional information are at the BIE JOM web page at:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-631 and 731-TA-1463-1464 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of forged steel fittings from India and Korea, provided for in subheading 7307.92.30, 7307.92.90, 7307.93.30, 7307.93.60, 7307.93.90, 7307.99.10, 7307.99.30, and 7307.99.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of India. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by December 9, 2019. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by December 16, 2019.
October 23, 2019.
Christopher Watson (202.205.2684), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of EcoFactor, Inc. on October 23, 2019. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain smart thermostats, smart HVAC systems, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Ecobee Ltd. of Canada; Ecobee, Inc. of Canada; Google LLC of Mountain View, CA; Alarm.com Incorporated of Tysons, VA; Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. of Tysons, VA; Daikin Industries, Ltd. of Japan; Daikin America, Inc. of Orangeburg, NY; Daikin North America LLC of Houston, TX; Schneider Electric USA, Inc. of Andover, MA; Schneider Electric SE of France; and Vivint, Inc. of Provo, UT. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f)
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of change in statistical report format and publication frequency.
Following receipt of a request on October 3, 2019, from the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives (Committee) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) has changed the format and publication frequency of the statistical reports it provides under Investigation No. 332-501,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Information specific to this investigation may be obtained from Laura Thayn, Project Leader, Office of Analysis and Research Services (202-205-1852 or
Notice of the Commission's institution of this investigation was published in the
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended limited exclusion order against certain memory modules and components thereof, manufactured and imported by respondents SK hynix, Inc.; SK hynix America, Inc.; and SK hynix memory solutions, Inc. This notice is soliciting comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on October 21, 2019. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended limited exclusion order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion order are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended limited exclusion order;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended limited exclusion order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on November 25, 2019.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1089”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 15, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
In addition, HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Philips International B.V.-IP&S, Eindhoven, NETHERLANDS have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 22, 2019. A notice was published in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 30, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Chiwoniso S. Gurira, Senior Personnel Psychologist, Research and Analysis Staff, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) published a document in the
Robert Hoekstra by telephone at 202-693-3522 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
In the
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by November 24, 2019.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA) for expansion of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before November 13, 2019.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that TUVRNA is applying for expansion of the scope of recognition as a NRTL. TUVRNA requests the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA currently has nine facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12 Commerce Road, Newtown, Connecticut 06470. A complete list of TUVRNA sites recognized by OSHA is available at
TUVRNA submitted two applications, one dated March 30, 2016 (OSHA-2007-0042-0030) and another dated April 19, 2017 (OSHA-2007-0042-0031), to expand the scope of recognition to include the addition of four recognized testing and certification sites and the addition of two test standards to its scope of recognition. OSHA preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the applications for expansion.
OSHA published a
Table 1 lists the appropriate test standard found in TUVRNA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
TUVRNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation indicates that TUVRNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding recognition to include the addition of this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVRNA's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant TUVRNA's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts International Indemnity Panel.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 14, 2019, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606-8322;
The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after January 1, 2020. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated April 15, 2016.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to renew this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by December 30, 2019 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W18200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email
NSECs will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, NSECs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via the Research Performance Project Reporting module in
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
NSECs are required to file a final report through the RPPR and external technical assistance contractor. Final reports contain similar information and metrics as annual reports, but are retrospective.
Weeks of October 28, November 4, 11, 18, 25, December 2, 2019.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 4, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 11, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 18, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 25, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 2, 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.
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service is amending
Karen F. Key at (202) 268-7492 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
The Postal Service published a notice of prospective revision of standards; invitation to comment on September 17, 2019, (84 FR 48959-48960) to:
1. Require the use of Label 139,
2. Eliminate the use of Labels 11-B, 11-F, and 11-HFPU, for domestic shipments containing cremated remains.
3. Limit the additional mailing services for mailpieces containing cremated remains to insurance and return receipt.
The Postal Service did not receive any comments to this notice of prospective revision of standards.
To increase the visibility of mailpieces containing cremated remains to postal employees and to ensure those mailpieces are more secure for processing and timely delivery, the Postal Service is requiring the use of Label 139 to be affixed to each side (including top and bottom) of a Priority Mail Express or Priority Mail Express International mailpiece containing cremated remains (USPS-produced or customer supplied). As an alternative, the Postal Service is introducing a special Priority Mail Express cremated remains branded box (BOX-CRE) that may be used for domestic or international shipments of cremated remains. The new Priority Mail Express cremated remains branded box will be available as part of a kit that will be offered in two versions. One kit will contain the box and a roll of tape. The other kit will include the box, a self-sealing plastic bag, bubble wrap, tape, and Publication 139,
To improve service, the Postal Service is providing an option for retail customers to present a mailpiece containing cremated remains at a Post Office® location and have a shipping label printed and affixed. Customers will continue to have the option to use a single-ply Priority Mail Express label generated through Click-N-Ship or other USPS-approved method. If customers generate a single-ply label, the Postal Service is requiring an Intelligent Mail® package barcode (IMpb®) shipping label with the appropriate service type code and banner text above the barcode (see Publication 199) used for cremated remains domestic shipments. The shipping services file must include the appropriate cremated remains three-digit Extra Service Code for domestic and international shipments (see Publication 199). The use of a Priority Mail Express Label 11-B, 11-F, and 11-HFPU, will no longer be accepted for cremated remains domestic shipments.
As a result of improving service with the new shipping label requirements, the Postal Service is limiting the extra services available when mailing cremated remains to additional insurance and return receipt, and is eliminating the option to use Hold For Pickup service. Customers will continue to have the option to request a signature.
The specific revisions to Publication 52,
In addition, the Postal Service will update
These revisions will enable the Postal Service to provide an improved customer experience from sender to receiver.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The proposed rule change is filed in connection with proposed enhancements to OCC's Rules, margin policy and methodology, Clearing Fund policy, and Clearing Fund and stress testing methodology to adopt new margin charges and other risk measures to address the specific wrong-way risk presented by certain cleared positions.
The proposed amendments to OCC's Rules are included in Exhibit 5A of the filing.
The proposed rule change is available on OCC's website at
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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
As a central counterparty (“CCP”), OCC is exposed to wrong-way risk, which is the risk that arises when exposure to a counterparty is adversely correlated with the credit quality and probability of default of that counterparty. Specific wrong-way risk (“SWWR”) arises when an exposure to a participant is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness of that participant is deteriorating.
OCC currently accounts for SWWR as it relates to margin collateral by generally prohibiting a Clearing Member from pledging equities issued by it or one of its affiliates as margin collateral unless this pledge provides a hedge against a cleared position in the same account.
OCC proposes to enhance its management of SWWR by: (1) Imposing certain restrictions on stock lending activity at OCC; (2) adopting a new SWWR margin add-on for STANS (“SWWR Add-on”); (3) introducing new stress test scenarios to capture the SWWR of cleared positions involving Clearing Member-issued ETNs beyond certain pre-defined thresholds; and (4) making other clarifying and conforming changes to the CFM Policy and Methodology Description. The proposed changes are intended to address the credit risks arising from SWWR positions at OCC. The proposed changes are described in detail below.
OCC operates two programs for stock loan transactions: (1) The Stock Loan/Hedge Program and (2) the Market Loan Program (collectively, the “Stock Loan Programs”). In the Stock Loan/Hedge Program, prospective Lending and Borrowing Clearing Members identify each other (independent of OCC), agree to bilaterally negotiated terms of the stock loan (in this case, a “Hedge Loan”), and then send the details of the stock loan to the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) designating the stock loan as a Hedge Loan for guaranty and clearance at OCC. The Lending Clearing Member then instructs DTC to transfer a specified number of shares of Eligible Stock
Regardless of whether a transaction is initiated under the Stock Loan/Hedge Program or Market Loan Program, OCC novates the transaction and becomes the lender to the Borrowing Clearing Member and the borrower to the Lending Clearing Member. As the principal counterparty to the Borrowing and Lending Clearing Members, OCC guarantees the return of the full value of cash collateral to a Borrowing Clearing Member and guarantees the return of the Loaned Stock (or value of that Loaned Stock) to the Lending Clearing Member.
OCC proposes to mitigate SWWR in its Stock Loan Programs by prohibiting Clearing Members from lending any Eligible Stock issued by such Clearing Member or any affiliate of such Clearing Member. The proposed restriction would apply to both SWWR Equity positions and SWWR ETN positions. OCC does not believe that the proposed restriction on lending SWWR Equity positions would have a material impact on Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs as Clearing Members do not typically engage in lending of their own equity securities and borrowers typically do not accept equity securities issued by their lending counterparty.
The proposed prohibition on lending Clearing Member or Member Affiliate-issued Eligible Stock would be included in new OCC Rules 2202(f) and 2202A(f) for the Stock Loan/Hedge Program and Market Loan Program, respectively. OCC would also make conforming changes to its Margin Policy and Margins Methodology to reflect the newly proposed restrictions in stock lending activity.
The proposed rule change would only apply to stock lending activity as of the time of implementation of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would not be applied retroactively to existing open positions, and Clearing Members with open stock loans involving Clearing Member or Member Affiliate-issued Eligible Stock would not be forced to terminate those existing positions. Any SWWR stock lending positions in existence as of the implementation of the proposed rule change would be subject to the SWWR charges described below until such positions are closed out through the normal course stock loan termination process.
OCC proposes to adopt a new margin add-on (
Under the proposal, when a Clearing Member defaults, it is assumed that the price of any equity security issued by the Clearing Member Group would fall to zero. As a result, OCC would calculate the SWWR Equity Charge by assuming that a Clearing Member's and its affiliates' equity securities would be priced at zero and value all cleared positions accordingly (
In addition to SWWR that arises from equity securities issued by a Clearing Member or its affiliates, OCC is also exposed to SWWR from open positions related to the uncollateralized ETNs issued by a Clearing Member/Group, which are adversely correlated with the credit quality of that Clearing Member Group. These ETNs are generally equivalent to unsecured senior debt issued by the Clearing Member/Group. While a Clearing Member default can be triggered by its failure to meet other obligations, the firm may or may not default on its ETNs. Hence, the recovery rate for ETNs is uncertain and could be between 0% and 100%.
To address SWWR presented by ETNs issued by a Clearing Member/Group, OCC proposes to calculate an SWWR ETN Charge as part of the SWWR Add-on. OCC notes that, unlike SWWR Equity positions, for which it is assumed that the price of any equity security issued by the Clearing Member Group would fall to zero, the recovery rate for ETNs would not necessarily fall to zero. As a result, the proposed SWWR ETN Charge would utilize an industry standard recovery rate assumption designed to reflect the credit risk associated with such ETN positions.
To ensure that OCC appropriately calculates margins to capture SWWR
OCC proposes to revise its CFM Policy and Methodology Description to introduce new stress test scenarios designed to capture SWWR exposures for Clearing Member-issued ETNs that are not accounted for in the SWWR ETN Charge and that exceed certain thresholds of OCC's Clearing Fund (“SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios”).
SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios would value Clearing Member-issued ETNs at a price of zero within their own accounts capturing impacts to any cleared positions tied to those ETNs. Calls, equities, and single-stock futures would all be valued at zero and puts would be valued at their strike price. For these scenarios, margin assets for shortfall calculations would not be adjusted by the SWWR ETN Charge. In addition, other scenarios may be created that embed the SWWR Equity risk by not excluding positions related to the Clearing Member Group's own equity but using an equity price of zero to value all related products.
In the event an SWWR Sufficiency Scenario identifies exposures that exceed 75% of the current Clearing Fund requirement less deficits, OCC may require additional margin deposits from the Clearing Member Group(s) driving the breach. If an SWWR Sufficiency Stress Scenario identifies exposures that exceed 90% of the current Clearing Fund, OCC would perform an intra-month resizing of the Clearing Fund. The proposed change would enable OCC to more accurately measure its credit risks as they relate to SWWR and better test the sufficiency of its overall financial resources and would allow OCC to call for additional financial resources when SWWR ETN position exposures exceed certain thresholds of OCC's Clearing Fund. As a result of these proposed enhancements, OCC believes it would have sufficient financial resources to cover the SWWR associated with SWWR ETN positions if such positions were to be liquidated for less than the assumed recovery rate.
OCC notes that, under its current CFM Policy, in the event results of a daily Sufficiency Stress Test over the final five business days preceding the monthly Clearing Fund sizing exceed 90% of the projected Clearing Fund size for the upcoming month, the Clearing Fund size is set such that the peak Sufficiency Stress Test draw is no greater than 90% of the Clearing Fund size. OCC proposes to revise the CFM Policy to provide that OCC generally does not intend to mutualize exposures resulting from the proposed SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios and therefore SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios would not be included for purposes of this anti-procyclicality measure. The proposed change is generally aligned with OCC's intention to appropriately charge individual Clearing Members based on the SWWR they bring to OCC.
In addition to the proposed changes described above, OCC would revise the CFM Policy and Methodology Description to provide that, with respect to stress test portfolio construction, SWWR single-name equity positions would be removed from stress test portfolios as they are fully collateralized in margins. Additionally, the Methodology Description would be revised to provide that when adding STANS margin asset amounts to scenario gains and losses, the SWWR Equity Charge, SWWR ETN Charge, and certain other Add-ons from STANS margin asset amounts are excluded.
Finally, OCC would revise its Methodology Description to clarify that for Idiosyncratic Scenarios,
To inform Clearing Members of the proposed changes, OCC has provided an overview of the proposed changes to the Financial Risk Advisory Council (“FRAC”), a working group comprised of exchanges, Clearing Members and indirect participants of OCC. OCC has also performed direct outreach to Clearing Members that would be most impacted by the proposed changes. To-date, OCC has not received any material objections or concerns in response to this outreach.
OCC expects to implement the proposed changes within sixty (60) days after the date that OCC receives all necessary regulatory approvals for the proposed changes. OCC will announce the implementation date of the proposed change by an Information Memorandum posted to its public website at least two (2) weeks prior to implementation.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to registered clearing agencies. Specifically, OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
In addition, OCC believes that introducing new SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios designed to capture SWWR exposures for Clearing Member-issued ETNs that are not accounted for in the SWWR ETN Charge would provide OCC with a more comprehensive approach to managing OCC's credit risks as they relate to SWWR ETN positions. The proposed change would enable OCC to more accurately measure its credit risks and better test the sufficiency of its overall financial resources and would allow OCC to call for additional financial resources when those exposures exceed certain thresholds of OCC's Clearing Fund. The proposed rule change is therefore designed to enhance OCC's overall framework for measuring and managing its credit risks and would reduce the risk that OCC's financial resources would be insufficient in the event of a Clearing Member default. For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
OCC also proposes a number of other clarifying and conforming changes to its CFM Policy and Methodology Description required to implement the proposed SWWR Add-on and SWWR Sufficiency Scenarios described herein and to more clearly describe OCC's stress testing practices. OCC believes that these changes would enhance OCC's overall framework for measuring and managing its credit risks so that it can continue to provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)
The proposed changes to OCC's margin and Clearing Fund policies and methodologies to adopt the SWWR Add-on would utilize a risk-based model designed to limit OCC's credit exposures to Clearing Members that present SWWR exposure to OCC through the clearing of Clearing Member-issued equity and ETN positions. OCC believes the proposed SWWR Add-on is reasonably designed to produce margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes SWWR Equity and ETN positions and would use an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors such as SWWR.
The proposed SWWR Add-on would include both an SWWR Equity Charge and SWWR ETN Charge to address the SWWR attributes and exposures presented to OCC by each type of product. For example, the SWWR Equity Charge assumes that when a Clearing Member defaults the price of
In addition, OCC would adopt an SWWR ETN Charge to address the SWWR presented by Clearing Member-issued ETNs. ETNs have different characteristics than equity securities and more closely reflect those characteristics of other unsecured debt obligations. For example, if a Clearing Member defaults that does not necessarily imply that it will automatically default on its ETNs. Therefore, ETNs are not necessarily valued at 0 and in fact may retain 100% of their value and be exposed to normal market risk. OCC proposes to measure the risk of these positions using an industry standard recovery rate assumption designed to calculate a margin charge that reflects the expected credit risk associated with such ETN positions. The potential market risk of the ETNs would still be covered by including ETNs in regular margin calculations, whereas the SWWR Equity positions are assumed to be heading towards bankruptcy and necessarily valued near 0 in a default situation.
For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed SWWR Add-on would enhance OCC's margin system by providing for a risk-based model that: (1) Sets margin requirements designed to limit OCC's SWWR exposures to its participant; (2) considers and produces margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes SWWR positions cleared by OCC; and (3) uses an appropriate method for measuring such SWWR exposures consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2), (e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v).
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii) and (vi)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)
For the reasons set forth above, OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
OCC also proposes to mitigate SWWR in its Stock Loan Programs by prohibiting Clearing Members from lending any Eligible Stock issued by such Clearing Member or any affiliate of such Clearing Member. As discussed above, OCC does not believe that the proposed restriction on lending SWWR Equity positions would have a material impact on Clearing Members in the Stock Loan Programs. The vast majority of OCC's Clearing Members do not lend their own or affiliate-issued equity securities in the Stock Loan Programs, and to the extent Clearing Members do engage in such activity, it is minimal when compared to their overall stock lending activity.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2019-010 and should be submitted on or before November 19, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
LCH SA is proposing to adopt an updated recovery plan (the “RP”) in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii). The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit 5. LCH SA has requested confidential treatment of the material submitted as Exhibit 5.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
On September 28, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
LCH SA is a covered clearing agency under the CCA rules and therefore is subject to the requirements of the CCA rules, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3). The CCA rules require that covered clearing agencies, among other things, “establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which . . . includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses”.
Specific guidance has been given on Recovery for CCP by CPMI IOSCO. Within the CPMI IOSCO principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI) it is outlined that all systemically important FMIs should have a comprehensive and effective recovery plan. For this purpose, it has issued the report “recovery of financial market infrastructures” containing guidance on recovery plans, content of a recovery plan in October 2014 and a guidance relating resilience and recovery in 2017.
Furthermore, regulations are under preparation on a European level outlining the Recovery and Resolution measures for CCPs.
As described in more detail below, the purpose of the RP is to maintain the continuity of critical services in times of extreme stress and to facilitate the recovery of LCH SA agency. Among other things, the RP seeks to: (i) Identify if and to what level LCH SA's service are critical for the market and what internal or external services/systems are critical for the continuity of LCH SA's activity; (ii) outline the scenario under which recovery of the LCH SA might be necessary; (iii) define the early warning indicators and triggers for initiating the recovery measures under the RP, including the market conditions or events that could trigger it; (iv) define the governance framework to trigger these recovery measures; (v) identify the available recovery tools to manage crisis situations and to restore business as usual; and (vi) perform a quantitative and qualitative assessment if the recover tools meet the CPMI IOSCO criteria for recovery instruments.
The RP also includes a detailed summary of the overall business and regulatory framework that LCH SA operates in, including identification of applicable regulations, company structure, detail regarding the LCH SA business lines and geographical spread, and information regarding the interaction between LCH SA and its parent entity (the “Parent”).
The RP also contains an FMI analysis, which analyses LCH SA relationship with other financial market infrastructure (
The RP covers all scenarios, which may potentially prevent LCH SA from providing its critical services:
The updated 2018 version of the RP includes the following main improvements:
With respect to the critical services that might impact the continuity of LCH SA's operations, the proposed RP provides that an assessment has been done in accordance with guidance by the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) on identification of critical functions and shared services. LCH SA has assessed that the clearing services LCH SA provides to participants with respect to the markets identified in the RP are deemed critical for purposes of the RP. Overall the services provided in respect of all markets are critical because: (1) The volume of the activity on certain markets may be very significant, (2) most of the business on the relevant market is cleared through LCH SA or (3) the suspension of the clearing service could impact materially the functioning of the market; the level of global market share with respect to certain products is high; and LCH SA's service are used by significant clearing firms. Moreover, a transfer of the clearing activity to another CCP is technically and organizationally complex to perform on short notice.
The RP also identifies those shared operations which LCH SA depends on to perform critical services to members, including those critical departments and services and systems within its corporate group and those provided by others. The RP identifies the main operating units within LCH SA that play a critical role in providing services as well as those enterprise systems that are critical for LCH SA's ongoing operations. Such systems are categorized as (i) Tier 1 Enterprise Critical (which is the most important category and where a failure may have direct impact on the continued functioning of LCH SA); (ii) Tier 2 Business Critical (which is a category of systems where business may not be able to proceed as usual in the event of a failure); and (iii) Tier 3 Business Support (which are non-critical systems). In addition, the RP identifies those services provided by its affiliates (including its Parent) and third-party service providers through a comprehensive framework that are essential to LCH SA's operations as well as the agreements governing such relationships.
The RP describes that LCH SA maintains comprehensive exit management plans should LCH Ltd initiate its own recovery and wind-down plan, cease to operate following a Business continuity or Cyber event, or notify LCH SA of its termination of services. as well as the corresponding recovery tools in each case.
The RP also describes the business continuity procedures and exit management plans that LCH SA would initiate upon the failure of a critical third-party service provider including LCH Ltd. This is managed under relevant services agreement between LCH Ltd and LCH SA so that LCH SA can continue to offer its services in case of a potential failure.
The RP categorizes potential stress scenarios in two ways as a result of either: (i) Clearing member defaults and (ii) non-clearing member events. Clearing member defaults are identified as those losses that threaten LCH SA's ability to operate as a going concern through either uncovered credit losses or liquidity shortfalls created as a result of a default by one or more members. Non-clearing member defaults are defined as losses impacting capital adequacy arising from risks, including, without limitation, general business risks, operational events, custody and investment risks, or risks on the interoperability link.
The RP then identifies, prior to implementing any of the recovery strategies described therein, the day-to-day risk measures in place to assure provision of the critical services performed where these are insufficient the recovery plan will be triggered.
With respect to clearing member defaults, the LCH SA risk framework provides mitigations for uncovered credit losses due to a member default. LCH SA follows high standards to assess financial resources against member portfolios, including initial margin model covering the potential loss from any member default to a 99.7% confidence level over the applicable holding period, margin add-ons to deal with specific member portfolios risks such as concentration, liquidity risk and sovereign risk, and default fund sizing to cover simultaneous default of the 2 members having the largest stress testing losses beyond the 99.7% confidence level. Stress tests are applied by LCH SA in order to assess whether financial resources are calibrated to handle systemic risks. In addition, a reverse stress resting procedure is used to ascertain adequacy of financial resources held against member positions. The stress testing framework is reviewed on an annual basis.
Further, reverse stress testing exercise is conducted at least quarterly for each default fund and is subject to review by LCH Executive Risk Committee. Risk monitoring mechanisms have been established in order to anticipate and identify any credit or market risks with respect to a clearing member, including daily monitoring of credit watch lists by LCH SA's credit risk department.
The RP covers the default of one or multiple Clearing Member(s) on one or several of its markets, where LCH SA has to re-establish the matched book and may have allocate any uncovered credit losses to its own capital or to surviving clearing members.
With respect to liquidity shortfalls as a result of the clearing member default, the existing liquidity risk management framework seeks to manage liquidity risk by requiring certain minimum liquidity coverage ratio and using reserve stress testing to identify plausible scenarios where the liquidity coverage ratio falls below 100%, as well as considering the liquidity impact as a result of the default of its liquidity line provider.
LCH SA would leverage on the reserve stress testing scenarios and the liquidity line provider's default to define the liquidity recovery scenarios.
In addition, the RP provides that LCH SA uses a set of early warning indicators and management actions to mitigate liquidity risk prior to implementing RP. To the extent a clearing member default has occurred, LCH SA would perform increased risk monitoring, including preparation of liquidity risk reports that would be produced several times a day.
The RP covers the potential and actual liquidity shortfalls as result of a clearing member or allied clearing house default.
For operational risks, the RP provides that on a monthly basis, control assessments, incident and audit recommendations are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate. On a yearly basis, a risk and control self-assessment is performed whereby all risks are reassessed. The operational risk department performs second line challenge on all these activities. In addition, all “major” or “high” incidents are processed through a detailed incident review to identify actions to further improve the control environment.
LCH SA performs a business impact analysis where it identifies all critical systems and departments and has in place a global business continuity strategy which outlines the strategy to maintain critical services in case of a disaster. The RP further identifies events, including cyber-attacks, failure of a critical service provider, failure of data providers and exchanges, failure of LCH SA's Parent, and reputational events as potential operational risks that could threaten its continued functioning.
The RP covers both a loss resulting from an operational risk event (for example resulting from a fraud) or any other event which impacts the critical services provided by LCH SA (
The most important operational exposures within SA relates to Cyber risk:
The definition of a cyber crisis involves several notions which, according to the ISO 27000 standard, can be described as follows:
The following scenarios are possible for a cyber attack:
A crisis management plan has been developed to manage the risks listed above. It comprises:
A specific change in the plan has been to detail the case of a failure of LCH Ltd which provides critical IT service to LCH SA. The following scenarios have been identified:
1. A Business continuity event affecting LCH Ltd. This is mitigated through highly resilient systems described in the business continuity plan.
2. A sale of LCH SA. In this case, LCH Ltd would continue to provide the service over the period required to exit and described in detail in the exit plan. The plan states the main steps that would be followed.
3. A Wind-down of LCH Ltd. In this case, LCH Ltd will have insufficient resources to continue as a CCP but will continue to provide the service for 6 months supported by its wind down capital. The plan describes the steps that would be followed to replicate the exact IT service provided by LCH Ltd on short notice.
Business risk is managed by the relevant individual business lines and requires frequent monitoring of results against budget and financial plans, with a second line challenge performed by the risk and finance departments to verify if sufficient capital buffers are available for applicable business risks. In addition, LCH SA conducts a yearly review of business risk scenarios to define potential loss scenarios under foreseeable conditions and the LCH SA finance department monitors key metrics, including revenues and quarterly financial information. Investment risk and second line monitoring is also conducted with respect to interest rate risk, aggregate credit risk exposure, daily mark-to-market limits, and internal credit scores for investment counterparties.
The RP also considers that LCH SA is connected to a broad range of financial market infrastructures, including central securities depositories, settlement platforms and interoperating central counterparties and identifies the types of operational or financial failures that could restrict LCH SA's ability to operate.
Finally, the RP identifies a series of scenarios which, taken together, could
The RP includes a detailed list of events, which if they were to occur would trigger the implementation of a specific action identified in the RP.
The RP provides that a clearing member default will be identified through credit risk monitoring and review of external information indicating a default. Each LCH SA business line then applies its own default management process under which a default management group identifies and manages the phases of the default management process and the application of the default waterfall. The possible triggers for the RP include: (i) A clearing member default, in which case the default procedures will be initiated to reestablish the matched book; (ii) several default events may lead to more than one replenishment of Skin in the Game (iii) mutualized default fund contributions per specific default have been consumed, in which case unfunded resources will be used to keep LCH SA appropriately funded.
Each LCH SA business lines maintain its own default management process and waterfall, but, in general, the RP describes the tools used in the event of a clearing member default. The default management process is used to re-establish the matched book of LCH SA and return back to business as usual and therefore considered as a recovery tool. The relevant governance for the management of a default is followed as described in the paragraph 5.
When covering the relevant credit losses related to a default event, first, LCH SA looks to the defaulting clearing member's margin. These amounts are already held by LCH SA and are available to manage the default of a clearing member and, as such, are not considered to be a trigger of the RP. Second, LCH SA looks to the defaulting clearing member's default fund contribution, which may be allocated to the defaulting clearing member's shortfalls. Again, this action is within the control of LCH SA and does not impact the capital adequacy of LCH SA, so is also not considered a trigger for the RP. Third, in line with requirements under EMIR, LCH SA is required to hold capital equivalent to 25 percent of LCH SA's minimum net capital requirement against which default losses can be applied against liquid available capital. In addition, excess capital is held to replenish such amount within the relevant EMIR deadline. Where multiple defaults occur over a longer time period and lead to multiple replenishments of Skin in the Game, this may lead to start up of the recovery plan and application of capital conservation measures. Fourth, should losses arising from a clearing member default be consumed by the defaulter's margin and default fund contribution and subsequently LCH SA's contribution from capital, LCH SA may look to non-defaulting member default fund contributions. Those amounts are pre-funded by members and held and controlled by LCH SA for the purposes of managing a default and, thus, the utilization of those amounts is not considered an application of the RP. However, LCH SA has the right to trigger an assessment of the defaults as to reestablish the fund to its original size, and such an assessment is considered to be a recovery measure under the RP. Finally, when it is no longer possible for LCH SA to make assessments and all pre-funded default fund contributions have been used, recovery measures under the RP, as described below, will be implemented.
With respect to liquidity shortfall triggers, LCH SA runs a daily liquidity assessment and monitors key liquidity drivers. In the event that these fall below a specific level, the RP will be triggered. In addition, the occurrence of a clearing member default or the failure of a third-party providing settlement and payment services to clearing member may also result in increased monitoring, and in the event that LCH SA does not have sufficient liquid resources to meet liquidity needs, the RP would be triggered.
With respect to non-clearing member default events, the RP identifies those events with more particularity and identifies the specific triggers for the RP with respect to such events:
For investment losses, which are defined as losses related to the default of an investment counterparty or losses incurred as a result of extreme market conditions, the RP is triggered if losses are greater than the maximum regulatory capital allocated to this activity. For operational risk events, the RP is triggered upon any operational losses that consume the regulatory capital LCH SA holds against the relevant risks; failure of a third party which impacts the provision of LCH SA's services; and reputational events impacting LCH SA's reputation with clearing members and partners. With respect to business risks, the RP is triggered upon a loss that consumes the regulatory capital LCH SA holds against the relevant risks. The RP may also be triggered upon the failure of other financial market infrastructures or a failure in the delivery of services including a cyber-event.
The RP identifies the various recovery tools that may be applied by LCH SA upon the triggering of the RP, using again the same distinction between clearing member default events and non-clearing member events.
For clearing member default scenarios, the existing stages of the LCH SA default management process have been used as the framework for identifying and confirming the appropriate tools to use in the event of a clearing member default. The RP describes the default management process in detail and summarizes the actions to be taken at each phase, including, as mentioned above, (i) reestablishing the matched book, (ii) default fund assessments, (iii) service continuity charges, and (iv) voluntary payments. To the extent that the default fund and assessments cannot manage the losses accumulated from the clearing member default and any service continuity or voluntary service continuity contributions received are not sufficient to cover the relevant losses, the service closure phase of the default management process is triggered and all outstanding contracts will be closed out as of the clearing day following such determination and all relevant losses are allocated to the clearing members. If the RP is triggered as a result of a liquidity shortfall, the RP provides that LCH SA may use its central bank credit line to deposited securities received on behalf of defaulting clearing member(s). The amounts of non-Euro liquidity are very low and LCH SA has appropriate liquidity lines but also has recovery tools in place for this for example the possibility to pay in alternative currency (Euro).
Other potential tools to manage liquidity stress situation are limits with respect to illiquid collateral or, if necessary apply increased haircuts on certain types of collateral to incentivize the use of more liquid collateral as well or apply specific liquidity margins.
The measures should assure that LCH SA has sufficient liquid resources at all times. As a last resort, under its rulebook, LCH SA could defer funding for the settlement platform for a limited period of time.
As to non-clearing member events, the tool that is used under the RP will depend on the nature of the event, but for most investment, business, and operational risks, LCH SA has its capital surplus that it can allocate losses against. Further, LCH SA can put in place several measures for capital
In order to cope with a liquidity stress situation, LCH SA has the possibility to use non-Euro collateral to raise liquidity. The repurchase agreements will then realise the required currency liquidity requirements needed to satisfy the outgoings resulting from the member default. Non-euro bonds deposited as non cash collateral by surviving members can be used for repo transactions and CALM should perform repo transactions with Gilt/T-bills as collateral in order to raise liquidity. CaLM has multi-currency GMRA signed with a number of investment banks, which will allow CaLM to do bilateral transactions. If liquidity is received in non-euro currencies through bilateral repo transaction this can be transformed into Euro through the recovery tool “FX markets”. CALM also has its disposal some Triparty repo agreement signed to do cross currency repo transactions, where liquidity is received directly in Euro from Gilt or USD securities.
For any shortfall in a particular currency SA has the ability to enter into a FX Transaction with a range of counterparties. LCH SA also has the possibility to transform liquidity received through bilateral repo transaction of collateral in USD and GBP into Euro.
Article 4.4.3.2 of CDSClear rulebook and instruction I.V.4-2 of the SA Rulebook allows LCH to convert amounts owed to members into such other currency or currencies, using a reasonable/prevailing rate of exchange. In the application of this regulation, LCH SA is therefore able to resolve a specific currency liquidity shortfall by completing the required transaction in an alternate currency than the original obligation.
A “Cyber Crisis Management Plan” has been developed which provide a framework of procedures allowing LCH SA to respond to cyber incidents in case of cyber crisis. As such, the process defined is to be activated in case of detection of a cyber incident that could potentially cause a significant impact on LCH SA business objectives. Cyber incidents can develop rapidly and business impact can quickly escalate. The objective of this framework is to manage cyber events or incident in a way that:
• Limits the damage, increases the confidence in stakeholders and reduces recovery time and costs,
• facilitate systematic and efficient response,
• empowered decision making,
• all response activities are recognised and coordinated.
LCH SA monitors on a monthly basis if it meets the EMIR capital requirements and in addition it monitors sufficient “surplus/buffers capital” is available to assure recovery of the CCP from both CMD and non-CMD losses under single scenarios (
Next to the surplus capital, the LCH Board may decide to withhold Dividend payment and Variable bonus payment to be used as additional buffers.
If an event resulted in a major disruption of its activities, LCH SA would initiate its business continuity strategy, which establishes an enterprise wide RP and response proportionate to the event which aims to minimize the impact of a major disruption on LCH SA's critical business and resources, or in case of a cyber-event LCH will trigger the cyber crisis management plan. For any disruption or loss of key third-party service provider, LCH SA would be able to exercise several contractual rights and maintains exit plans which are intended to safeguard the continuity of services. LCH SA also maintains back up procedures and protocols that would be initiated if there is an impact on critical services of FMIs, for example its ability to collect margin within T2 under an emergency platform. Finally, LCH SA maintains a crisis communication plan, which outlines the procedure for communicating with clearing members and partners in the event of a disruption.
With respect to each recovery tool identified, the RP also seeks to assess that each tool possesses the following characteristics: Comprehensive; effective, including as to reliability, timeliness; transparent, provides appropriate incentives, and results in a minimum negative impact. To confirm that each recovery tool does, in fact, have these characteristics, the RP considers as to each: The barriers or constraints within the tool itself; the steps and time to implement (if not already available as a tool); the likely effectiveness of the tool; any risk of execution; the potential impacts on participants and markets generally; the sequencing of the use of the tools where multiple tools may be required; and the legal basis of the tool. The RP also includes a qualitative and quantitative assessment to provide an indication of the likelihood and severity of a potential recovery situation and whether the tools included in the RP are adequate.
The creation of the RP and its approval is subject to a number of layers of governance approval. At a high level, the LCH SA Management Committee is responsible for the preparation of the RP and implementation of the monitoring and the recovery tools set forth in the RP. Before submission to the LCH SA Risk Committee, the RP is reviewed and validated by the Executive Risk Committee of LCH Group. The LCH SA Risk committee, which includes independent directors, then reviews, challenges (if needed), and recommends the RP for approval by the LCH SA board. Final approval of the RP rests with the LCH SA Board.
At a more granular level, the RP identifies the groups and individuals within LCH SA that are responsible for the various aspects of the RP.
A clearing member default will be managed in accordance with the relevant procedures. The Default Management Group (“DMG”) is responsible for the management of the default while all critical decisions are
With respect to non-clearing member events, the management of those events will depend on the nature of the event. For example, investment losses and liquidity shortfalls are managed from a first line of defense, which attempts to control risks within the risk appetite parameters set by the Board, and then are escalated as appropriate. Operational risks are managed in accordance with the operational risk policy approved by the Board and reporting and second line challenges are performed by the operational risk department. Business risk is managed by individual business lines and requires frequent monitoring of results against budget and financial plans, with a second line challenge performed by the risk and finance departments to verify if sufficient capital buffers are available for the applicable business risks.
Upon the occurrence of a clearing member default, the recovery measures that will apply are clearly set forth in LCH SA's rulebook and LCH SA's CEO has the authority to trigger the different stages in the waterfall process, but will consult with DCMT and regulators prior to taking any action. In addition, the RP provides that the LCH SA will also activate an emergency board meeting for approval (if reasonably possible). Upon receipt of information relevant to a scenario causing non-default losses, the LCH SA management committee will consider whether a recommendation to formally invoke the RP should be made to the LCH SA Board. Upon receipt of a recommendation for action, the LCH SA Board will consider the information presented to determine if the RP should be formally invoked.
The RP requires that LCH SA conduct testing and review of member default rules and associated procedures through the running of periodic “fire drills” which simulate member default scenarios. According to the RP, the fire drills are intended to simulate all aspects of a member default, including the auctioning of the defaulting members portfolio to non-defaulting members (where appropriate) and involves the participation of members and relevant functions within the LCH SA organization. Further, because one of the main scenarios contemplated under the RP is a clearing member default, the testing of this element (
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the regulations thereunder, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The RP would also be consistent with the specific relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22, including under 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
LCH SA does not consent to the extension of the time period listed in Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Commission action.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 0-4 (17 CFR 275.0-4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Act” or “Advisers Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
The requirements of rule 0-4 are designed to provide Commission staff with the necessary information to assess whether granting the Orders of exemption are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the intended purposes of the Act.
Applicants for Orders under the Advisers Act can include registered investment advisers, affiliated persons of registered investment advisers, and entities seeking to avoid investment adviser status, among others. Commission staff estimates that it receives up to 4 applications per year submitted under rule 0-4 of the Act seeking relief from various provisions of the Advisers Act and, in addition, up to 3 applications per year submitted under Advisers Act rule 206(4)-5, which addresses certain “pay to play” practices and also provides the Commission the authority to grant applications seeking relief from certain of the rule's restrictions. Although each application typically is submitted on behalf of multiple applicants, the applicants in the vast majority of cases are related entities and are treated as a single respondent for purposes of this analysis. Most of the work of preparing an application is performed by outside counsel and, therefore, imposes no hourly burden on respondents. The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time required. Based on conversations with applicants and attorneys, the cost for applications ranges from approximately $13,600 for preparing a well-precedented, routine (or otherwise less involved) application to approximately $212,800 to prepare a complex or novel application. We estimate that the Commission receives 1 of the most time-consuming applications annually, 3 applications of medium difficulty, and 3 of the least difficult applications subject to rule 0-4.
The requirements of this collection of information are required to obtain or retain benefits. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Chicago BBO (“NYSE Chicago BBO”), NYSE Chicago Trades (“NYSE Chicago Trades”) and NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed (“NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed”) market data feeds. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades and NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed (“NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds”). The Exchange recently got approval to decommission the Book Feed market data product when it transitions to the Pillar trading platform.
The Exchange believes that the proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds will provide subscribers of the Book Feed market data product with the same scope of Exchange information once the Exchange transitions to Pillar, but with greater optionality. Subscribers that would like to continue to receive both order data (including depth of book) and last-sale data would be able to replace Book Feed with NYSE Chicago Integrated and would not need to separately subscribe to either NYSE Chicago BBO or NYSE Chicago Trades. Subscribers that do not need as much data could opt instead to subscribe to only NYSE Chicago BBO or NYSE Chicago Trades. In anticipation of the transition to the Pillar trading system, the Exchange has provided notice of the availability of the proposed market data products and related testing opportunities.
NYSE Chicago BBO is a NYSE Chicago-only market data feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same best-bid-and-offer information that NYSE Chicago reports under the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”) and the Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (“UTP Plan”). NYSE Chicago BBO would include the best bids and offers (“NYSE Chicago BBO Information”) for all securities that are traded on the Exchange. NYSE Chicago will make the NYSE Chicago BBO available over a single datafeed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are listed.
NYSE Chicago BBO would allow vendors, broker-dealers, and others (“NYSE Chicago Vendors”) to consume and make available NYSE Chicago BBO Information on a real-time basis. NYSE Chicago Vendors may distribute the NYSE Chicago BBO to both professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE Chicago BBO Information available through the NYSE Chicago BBO datafeed no earlier than it makes that information available to the processor under the CQ Plan or the UTP Plan, as applicable.
NYSE Chicago Trades is a NYSE Chicago-only market data feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same last sale information that NYSE Chicago reports under the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”) and the UTP Plan for inclusion in the consolidated feeds. NYSE Chicago Trades would include the real-time last sale price, time and size information (“NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information”) for all securities that are traded on the Exchange. NYSE Chicago will make the NYSE Chicago Trades available over a single datafeed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are listed.
NYSE Chicago Trades would allow NYSE Chicago Vendors to consume and make available NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information on a real-time basis. NYSE Chicago Vendors may distribute the NYSE Chicago Trades to both professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information available through the NYSE Chicago Trades datafeed no earlier than it makes that information available to the processor under the CTA Plan or the UTP Plan, as applicable. In addition to the information that the Exchange provides to the processor, NYSE Chicago Last Sale Information will also include a unique sequence number that the Exchange assigns to each trade and that allows an investor to track the context of a trade through other Exchange market data products.
NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed is a NYSE Chicago-only market data feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with a unified view of events, in sequence, as they appear on the NYSE Chicago matching engines. The NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed would include both top of book and depth of book order data, last sale data, and security status updates (
As described in Article 4, Rule 1, the current Book Feed allows a subscriber to view all individual Participant orders displayed in the Matching System, including the size and price associated with such order and the trade data for executions that occur within the Matching System. When the Exchange transitions to Pillar, current subscribers to the Book Feed will be able to obtain the same scope of information via the proposed NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed. Accordingly, after the transition to Pillar, subscribers of Book Feed would still need only one data product to satisfy their data needs. The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE Chicago BBO and NYSE Chicago Trades to provide additional optionality to data subscribers that may not need the scope of data included in NYSE Chicago Integrated.
Offering an integrated product addresses requests received from vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described above in an integrated fashion. An integrated data feed would provide greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that currently choose to integrate the data after receiving it from the Exchange. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers with the option of a market data product that both integrates existing products and includes additional market data would allow vendors and subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific businesses.
The Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds over the Liquidity Center Network and IP network, the local area networks available to users of the Exchange's co-location services in the Mahwah, New Jersey data center. The Exchange would also offer connectivity to the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds over the ICE Global Network, through which all other users and members access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the products will be available to all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers.
At this time, the Exchange does not intend to charge any fees associated with the receipt of NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades or NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed. The Exchange will submit a proposed rule change should it determine to charge fees associated with the receipt of NYSE Chicago BBO, NYSE Chicago Trades or NYSE Chicago Integrated Feed. Accordingly, subscribers of the current Book Feed product, which is also not subject to any fees, would not be subject to any additional fees in order to receive any of the proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds.
Subject to effectiveness of proposed rule changes, the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds will be available when the Exchange transitions to the Pillar trading platform.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and purchasers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the real-time information contained in the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds. The Exchange further believes that the proposed NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because once the Exchange transitions to the Pillar trading platform, current subscribers to the Book Feed market data product would be able to obtain the same level of data from NYSE Chicago Integrated without incurring any new fees.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds are precisely the sort of market data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant.
The NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the products will be available to all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The NYSE Chicago Market Data Feeds provide investors with new options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Market Maker Plus program under Options 7, Section 3.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the qualifications for Market Makers to achieving Market Maker Plus status.
The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on October 1, 2019 (SR-ISE-2019-25). On October 10, 2019, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
As set forth in Section 3 of the Pricing Schedule, the Exchange operates a Market Maker Plus program for regular orders in Select Symbols
Market Makers are evaluated each trading day for the percentage of time spent on the NBBO for qualifying series that expire in two successive thirty calendar day periods beginning on that trading day. A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the NBBO a specified percentage
While the Exchange believes that the Market Maker Plus program has been successful overall in encouraging better market quality in Select Symbols, the Exchange has also observed that in extremely volatile months, Market Makers are less likely to meet the stringent Market Maker Plus tier qualifications for that month because they are unable to hit the tiers as easily. The Exchange therefore proposes to change its Market Maker Plus qualifications to avoid penalizing Market Makers that have historically contributed to market quality on the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange proposes that a Market Maker who qualifies for Market Maker Plus Tiers 2 or higher in at least four of the previous six months will be eligible to receive a reduced Tier 2 rebate in a given month where the Market Maker does not qualify for any Market Maker Plus Tiers.
For example, Market Maker 1 (“MM 1”) meets the SPY Market Maker Plus Tier 2 level in all of the previous 6 months. In the current month, there is a significant increase in volatility and MM 1 is unable to meet the stringent Market Maker Plus requirements within the month. With the proposal, MM 1 would receive a reduced rebate of $0.10 per contract (
With the proposed changes, the Exchange seeks to avoid penalizing historically strong Market Maker Plus program participants in similar situations as the one outlined above, thereby easing the burden on Market Makers to maintain their Market Maker Plus qualification, which ultimately will fortify its Market Maker Plus program. Of course, the Market Maker would still need to meet the stringent requirements of the applicable Market Maker Plus Tier 2 qualifications
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its Market Maker Plus program is reasonable and equitable for several reasons. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options transaction services. The Exchange is only one of sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.
Within the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors. As noted above, the Exchange's proposal is intended to fortify participation in the Market Maker Plus program, which the Exchange believes has been successful overall in encouraging better market quality in Select Symbols. The Exchange believes that further encouraging Market Makers to maintain tight markets in Select Symbols will increase liquidity and attract additional order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants in the quality of order interaction.
In particular, the Exchange's proposal to provide a reduced rebate to Market Makers who do not qualify for any Market Maker Plus tiers in a given month, but qualified for Market Maker Plus Tier 2 or higher in at least four of the previous six months preserves the intent of the Market Maker Plus program to reward Market Makers who contribute to market quality by maintaining tight markets based on time spent quoting at the NBBO. The Exchange proposes to provide the reduced rebate to Market Makers that qualified for Market Maker Plus Tier 2 or higher in the requisite time period as opposed to Market Maker Plus Tier 1 because Tier 1 currently does not provide rebates to qualifying Market Makers across all Select Symbols.
As discussed above, the Exchange has observed that in extremely volatile months, Market Makers are less likely to meet the stringent Market Maker Plus tier qualifications for that month because they are unable to hit the tiers as easily. For example, the Exchange observed a decrease in Market Maker Plus program participation concurrent with increased volatility in August 2019. In particular, in July 2019, around 41% of the total number of ISE Market Makers had qualified for Market Maker Plus Tier 2 in any Select Symbol. In August 2019, the Exchange saw this percentage drop to less than 30%. Had the proposed changes been in place for August 2019, around 47% of all ISE Market Makers would have qualified for Tier 2 using the 6-month look-back period. Given the foregoing, the Exchange seeks to avoid penalizing Market Makers that have historically been strong participants in the Exchange's Market Maker Plus program by easing the burden on these Market Makers to maintain their Market Maker Plus qualification.
The Exchange believes that the proposed “lookback” period of at least four out of the previous six months is an appropriate measure of strong past performance in the Market Maker Plus program as it requires Market Makers to meet the stringent requirements of Market Maker Plus Tier 2 or higher for a significant period of time in order to receive the reduced rebates.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable and equitable because the modified criteria will continue to require Market Makers to quote significantly at the NBBO, thereby continuing to contribute to market quality in a meaningful way. In fact, with the proposed changes, the Exchange will fortify participation in the Market Maker Plus program by helping ensure that historically strong program participants continue to participate and qualify as Market Maker Plus, which will further improve market quality.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the qualifications to Market Maker Plus are not unfairly discriminatory as all Market Makers will be subject to the same qualification criteria for Market Maker Plus. The Exchange also continues to believe that it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer rebates under this program to only Market Makers. Market Makers, and in particular, those Market Makers that participate in the Market Maker Plus Program and achieve Market Maker Plus status, add value through continuous quoting and are subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting obligations) that other market participants are not. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will continue to encourage Market Makers to post tight markets in Select Symbols, thereby increasing liquidity and attracting additional order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants in the quality of order interaction.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed amendments to the Exchange's Market Maker Plus program described above do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. While the proposal would apply directly to those Market Makers that achieve the Market Maker Plus Tier 2 standards described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will fortify and encourage participation in the Market Maker Plus program, ultimately to the benefit of all market participants. As discussed
The proposed changes are designed to ensure that the goals of the Exchange's Market Maker Plus program are furthered by fortifying participation in the program and to avoid penalizing Market Makers that have historically made quality markets in Select Symbols for a significant amount of time. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The proposed rule change is filed in connection with proposed enhancements to OCC's Clearing Fund and stress testing rules and methodology designed to: (1)
The proposed amendments to OCC's Rules can be found in Exhibit 5A.
The proposed rule change is available on OCC's website at
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
In September 2018, OCC implemented new rules for sizing and monitoring its Clearing Fund and overall Pre-Funded Financial Resources,
As described in the Methodology Description, the newly adopted methodology includes two types of scenarios: “Historical Scenarios” and “Hypothetical Scenarios.” Historical Scenarios intend to replicate historical events in current market conditions, which includes the set of currently existing securities, their prices, and volatility levels. These scenarios provide OCC with information regarding pre-defined reference points determined to be relevant benchmarks for assessing OCC's exposure to Clearing Members and the adequacy of its financial resources. Hypothetical Scenarios represent events in which market conditions change in ways that have not yet been observed. The Hypothetical Scenarios are derived using statistical methods (
Under the Policy and Methodology Description, OCC performs daily stress testing using a wide range of scenarios, both Hypothetical and Historical, designed to serve multiple purposes. OCC's proposed stress testing inventory contains scenarios designed to: (1) Determine whether the financial resources collected from all Clearing Members collectively are adequate to cover OCC's risk tolerance (“Adequacy Scenarios,” and such scenarios collectively constituting “Adequacy Stress Tests”); (2) establish the monthly size of the Clearing Fund necessary for OCC to maintain sufficient Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover losses arising from the default of the two Clearing Member Groups that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure to OCC as a result of a 1-in-80 year hypothetical market event (“Sizing Scenarios,” and such scenarios collectively constituting “Sizing Stress Tests”); (3) measure the exposure of the Clearing Fund to the portfolios of individual Clearing Member Groups, and determine whether any such exposure is sufficiently large as to necessitate OCC calling for additional resources so that OCC continues to maintain sufficient financial resources to guard against potential losses under a wide range of stress scenarios, including extreme but plausible market conditions (“Sufficiency Scenarios,” and such scenarios collectively constituting “Sufficiency Stress Tests”);
In addition, under the Rules, Policy, and Methodology Description, individual Clearing Members' Clearing Fund contribution requirements are determined using a risk-based allocation methodology of 70% “total risk,” 15% volume, and 15% open interest using a one-month look-back period. For purposes of allocating Clearing Fund contributions, “total risk” is defined to mean the margin requirement calculated and reported by OCC with respect to all accounts of a Clearing Member less the net asset value of the positions in such accounts aggregated across all such accounts.
OCC proposes to enhance its Clearing Fund and stress testing framework by: (1) Adopting a new set of stress scenarios to be used in the monthly sizing of OCC's Clearing Fund that are designed to capture the risks of extreme moves in individual or small subsets of securities (“Idiosyncratic Scenarios”); (2) improving its model for determining price shocks for futures on the Cboe Volatility Index (“VIX”)
OCC proposes to revise its Policy and Methodology Description to incorporate into its inventory of Sizing Stress Tests a new set of Idiosyncratic Scenarios that are designed to capture the risks of extreme moves in individual or small subsets of securities. As noted above, OCC's Sizing Stress Tests are used to establish the monthly size of the Clearing Fund necessary for OCC to maintain sufficient Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover losses arising from the default of the two Clearing Member Groups that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure to OCC in extreme but plausible market conditions. The proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios would supplement OCC's current set of Sizing Scenarios (which are generally designed to estimate risk exposures arising from more broad-based market and systemic shocks (“Systemic Scenarios”) and would allow OCC to identify forward-looking, non-systemic market events that may impact its Pre-Funded Financial Resource requirements. Like other Sizing Scenarios, the proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios may be used to determine the monthly size of Clearing Fund when projected exposures from the Idiosyncratic Scenarios are greater than OCC's other Sizing Scenarios.
The proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios are designed to capture the risk of extreme non-systemic market moves on single-name securities through individual rally and decline shocks. Under the proposed methodology for Idiosyncratic Scenarios, every single-name equity (
OCC believes that implementing the proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios would enhance OCC's stress testing methodology and overall resiliency by providing a more comprehensive suite of Sizing Stress Tests to ensure that OCC maintains an appropriate level of Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover its credit exposures under scenarios addressing both systemic market risks and idiosyncratic risks.
OCC also proposes to enhance its methodology for modeling price shocks for VIX futures. Under OCC's current stress testing methodology, prices shocks for VIX futures are equivalent to the price shock for the underlying VIX index. OCC believes that this approach is unrealistic in that it produces a uniform shock across expirations of the VIX futures contract, which leads to an overestimation of VIX futures price shocks, particularly in market decline scenarios. Futures contracts for different expirations generally trade at different prices reflecting the differing future price expectations of the underlying asset.
OCC proposes to enhance its stress testing methodology (and specifically, Section 3.4 of the Methodology Description) by using SPX at-the-money implied volatility shocks across different expirations to model forward volatility to generate shocks for VIX futures contracts for the corresponding expirations. OCC believes the proposed model enhancements would produce more appropriate VIX futures price shocks in its stress scenarios because it would produce differing price shocks across the term structure as is generally observed in the market.
OCC proposes to modify its allocation methodology for determining individual Clearing Members' Clearing Fund requirements. As part of OCC's recently adopted stress testing and Clearing Fund methodology, OCC moved to a more risk-based method for allocating Clearing Fund requirements.
OCC proposes to standardize the margin or “total risk” component of its Clearing Fund allocation formula for all members by using only the STANS base amount, plus certain add-on charges
OCC also proposes to adopt a new internal notification threshold for intra-day margin calls resulting from its Sufficiency Stress Tests. Under existing Rule 609, the Policy, and the Methodology Description, if a Sufficiency Stress Test identifies a Clearing Fund Draw
OCC proposes to revise the Policy to require that STLRM provide written notification to the Office of the CEO whenever a Sufficiency Stress Test margin call imposed on an individual Clearing Member exceeds 75% of the Clearing Member's excess net capital (in addition to the current requirement to provide notification for any margin call exceeding $500 million). OCC believes that this additional notification requirement is appropriate because it will allow OCC's senior management to be informed as soon as practicable of, and to subsequently monitor, circumstances where a margin call may strain a particular Clearing Member's ability to meet such requirements based on its financial condition or the amount of collateral it has available to pledge when certain pre-identified thresholds have been exceeded.
OCC proposes several corrections to its Rules and Policy concerning its cooling-off period and Clearing Fund replenishment/assessment powers. As part of OCC's recently approved filings to implement enhanced and new recovery tools (“Recovery Tools Filings”), OCC adopted a minimum 15-day “cooling-off period” with a cap on Clearing Fund assessments.
Finally, OCC proposes a number of clarifying, streamlining, and organizational changes to the Methodology Description that are not intended to change the substance of OCC's stress testing and Clearing Fund methodology, but that OCC believes would improve the clarity and readability of the document. The proposed changes to the Methodology Description are described below.
OCC proposes to revise the model scope discussion of the executive summary to provide a summary of the netting rules and positions sets used for stress testing and to break out different sections for the discussion of Systemic Scenarios and Idiosyncratic Scenarios. The executive summary would also be revised to provide additional information regarding the key assumptions of OCC's stress testing and Clearing Fund methodology. In addition, the Model Performance section of the executive summary would be revised to provide further information on supporting documentation for OCC's stress testing.
OCC also proposes to revise its Methodology Description to provide additional details regarding the construction of stress testing portfolios. For example, the proposed revisions would discuss OCC's process for creating the “Synthetic Accounts” used in stress testing. Clearing Member positions are initially held in “Tier Accounts” that have the same business type (
The proposed revisions would also provide further clarity and detail concerning the aggregation of account-level stress test results. A key aspect of the aggregation of business type accounts is that some accounts have a restricted lien, in which assets in that account can only be used to offset losses in that business type account, while other accounts have a general lien, in which assets or gains in that account can be used to offset losses in any business type account of the same Clearing Member. The Methodology Description would be revised to summarize OCC's process for determining if an account is a general lien account or restricted lien account and for ensuring that such accounts receive proper netting treatment.
In addition, OCC proposes a number of changes to its Methodology Description to improve the description of the models used in OCC's stress testing and Clearing Fund methodology. For example, the Methodology Description would be revised to provide additional context around the types of scenarios (
In addition, OCC proposes to revise the Methodology Description to provide a more straightforward discussion of the modeling of risk factor returns and price shocks for Hypothetical and Historical Scenarios and for OCC's various cleared products. Specifically, OCC proposes clarifying, streamlining, and organizational changes to the description of its modeling of volatility shocks for risk factors with SPX as the risk driver and for non-SPX driven risk factors. The proposed changes would also provide additional details on OCC's volatility modeling for flexibly structured options (or “flex options”),
OCC also proposes to replace a section specifically discussing price shocks for products where the underlying security is a basket of deliverable obligation securities with a more generalized discussion of OCC's approach to modeling price shocks for products with multiple risk factors as the underlying. In this case, the Methodology Description would describe how the underlyings are shocked by applying the one-factor model to each component risk factor. In addition, this proposed change would eliminate a restriction limiting the methodology to an “all or none” approach where price shocks are modeled using either all historical shocks or all shocks derived from OCC's beta methodology
Additionally, OCC proposes to correct a reference to the use of log returns in the calculation of volatility shocks to more accurately state that these calculations are currently made using two-day arithmetic returns. OCC's stress testing methodology utilizes two-day arithmetic returns to calculate these shocks to align with OCC's two-day liquidation horizon assumption for its margin methodology and the arithmetic returns used in its dynamic VIX calibration process.
OCC also proposes to clarify that implied volatility shocks for Systemic Scenarios are based on the expected risk, or “variance,” of the risk factor in a forward-looking period after the price shock as opposed to the “standard deviation.” OCC believes that using the terms “variance” or “standard deviation” are essentially equivalent ways to describe the equation; however, the term “variance” would more accurately reflect the terms of equation used in the document.
OCC proposes to revise its Methodology Description to more correctly describe the approach for generating shocks for U.S. Treasuries and Canadian Government Bond by replacing the term “covariance” with “correlation.” While the calibration does use a covariance matrix, the inputs to the calibration are normalized by their standard deviation and so the resulting matrix actually contains correlations. The correlation matrix is then scaled by standard deviation terms to generate interest rate shocks.
Finally, OCC proposes to revise the Methodology Description to provide additional clarity around the use and calibration of risk driver shocks in Hypothetical, Historical and Idiosyncratic Scenarios. OCC would
To inform Clearing Members of the proposed changes, OCC has provided an overview of the proposed changes to the Financial Risk Advisory Council (“FRAC”), a working group comprised of exchanges, Clearing Members and indirect participants of OCC. OCC has also performed direct outreach to Clearing Members that would be most impacted by the proposed changes. To-date, OCC has not received any material objections or concerns in response to this outreach.
OCC expects to implement the proposed changes within sixty (60) days after the date that OCC receives all necessary regulatory approvals for the proposed changes. OCC will announce the implementation date of the proposed change by an Information Memorandum posted to its public website at least two (2) weeks prior to implementation.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to registered clearing agencies. Specifically, OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
OCC believes that implementing the proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios would enhance OCC's stress testing methodology and overall resiliency by providing a more comprehensive suite of Sizing Stress Tests to ensure that OCC maintains appropriate level of Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover its credit exposures under scenarios addressing both systemic market risks and idiosyncratic risks. As noted above, OCC's Sizing Stress Tests are used to establish the monthly size of the Clearing Fund necessary for OCC to maintain sufficient Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover losses arising from the default of the two Clearing Member Groups that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure to OCC in extreme but plausible market conditions. The proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios would supplement OCC's current set of Sizing Scenarios (which are generally designed to estimate risk exposures arising from more broad-based market and systemic shocks reflected in OCC's Systemic Scenarios) by enabling OCC to appropriately consider the risks of extreme moves in individual or small subsets of securities. OCC therefore believes that the proposed rule change would enhance OCC's overall framework for managing credit risks and reduce the risk that its Pre-Funded Financial Resources would be insufficient in an actual default so that it can continue to provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
In addition, OCC proposes to enhance its stress testing methodology to more accurately and appropriately model price shocks for VIX futures. Under OCC's current stress testing methodology, prices shocks for VIX futures are equivalent to the price shock for the underlying VIX index. OCC believes that this approach is unrealistic in that it produces a uniform shock across expirations of the VIX futures contract, which leads to an overestimation of VIX futures price shocks, particularly in market decline scenarios. OCC therefore proposes to enhance its stress testing methodology to produce more appropriate VIX futures price shocks that would vary based on the expiration of contracts as is more realistically observed in the market.
OCC also proposes to revise the Policy to require that STLRM provide written notification to the Office of the CEO whenever a Sufficiency Stress Test margin call imposed on an individual Clearing Member exceeds 75% of the Clearing Member's excess net capital. The proposed change would allow OCC's senior management to be informed of, and to subsequently monitor, circumstances where a margin call may strain a particular Clearing Member's ability to meet such requirements based on its financial condition or the amount of collateral it has available to pledge when certain pre-identified thresholds have been exceeded. OCC believes the proposed rule change would improve its process for monitoring and managing credit risk, particularly those identified through Sufficiency Stress Test margin calls, and take steps to reduce potential default risks so that it can continue to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Additionally, OCC proposes to standardize the margin risk component of its Clearing Fund allocation formula by using only STANS-based margin requirements for all Clearing Members. OCC believes it is appropriate to use the same margin risk measurement for all Clearing Members/accounts when determining Clearing Fund allocations since this allows for a more equitable comparison across all accounts through the utilization of a consistent margin methodology. OCC believes that the
OCC proposes to revise its Rules and Policy to provide that the cooling-off period and associated assessment caps apply to any proportionate charge related to a Clearing Member default, including any use of the Clearing Fund to make good losses or expenses suffered by OCC or as a result of a borrowing by OCC (1) in connection with protective transactions effected for the account of OCC pursuant to Chapter XI of the Rules and (2) as a result of a failure of any Clearing Member to make any other required payment or render any other required performance, and are not limited to a certain subset of Clearing Member default-related events. The proposed rule change would ensure that the cooling-off period and associated assessment caps are consistently applied for any proportionate charge resulting from any of the events described in clauses (i) through (vi) of Rule 1006(a) and thereby ensure that OCC can fully access and utilize its Clearing Fund resources to continue to provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
OCC also proposes to make clarifying, streamlining, and organizational changes to the Methodology Description that are not intended to change the substance of OCC's stress testing and Clearing Fund methodology, but that OCC believes would improve the clarity and readability of the document. OCC believes that by improving the clarity of the primary documents governing OCC's Clearing and stress testing requirements the proposed changes are designed, in general, to protect the investors and the public interest in a manner consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3)
The proposed rule change would enhance OCC's stress testing methodology and overall resiliency by providing a more comprehensive suite of Sizing Stress Tests to ensure that OCC maintains an appropriate level of Pre-Funded Financial Resources to cover its credit exposures under scenarios addressing both systemic market risks and idiosyncratic risks. The proposed Idiosyncratic Scenarios would supplement OCC's current set of Sizing Scenarios, which are generally designed to estimate risk exposures arising from more broad-based market and systemic shocks reflected in OCC's Systemic Scenarios, by enabling OCC to appropriately consider the risks of extreme moves in individual or small subsets of securities. OCC therefore believes that the proposed rule change would enhance OCC's overall framework for managing credit risks and reduce the risk that its Pre-Funded Financial Resources would be insufficient in an actual default.
In addition, OCC proposes to enhance its stress testing methodology by using SPX at-the-money implied volatility shocks across different expirations to model price shocks for VIX futures contracts for corresponding expirations as opposed to using a uniform shock for all expirations. The proposed rule change is designed to more accurately measure OCC's credit exposure in its stress scenarios by producing price shocks for VIX futures that would vary based on the expiration as is more realistically observed in the market.
Taken together, OCC believes the proposed changes are reasonably designed so that OCC can measure its credit exposures to its participants and manage such exposures by maintaining sufficient financial resources at a minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for OCC in extreme but plausible market conditions (and do so exclusive of assessments for additional Clearing Fund contributions or other resources that are not prefunded). For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii) and (iv).
Furthermore, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)
OCC also believes that the proposed changes to standardize the margin risk component of its Clearing Fund allocation formula by using only STANS-based margin requirements for all Clearing Members are reasonably designed to measure and manage its credit exposures to participants. With respect to the use of Clearing Funds and the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4),
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix)
Finally, OCC believes the proposed clarifying, organizational, and streamlining changes to its Rules, Policy, and Methodology Description would improve the clarity and readability of its stress testing and Clearing Fund-related rules and policies are therefore consistent with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
OCC does not believe the proposed changes to its methodology for modeling VIX futures price shocks would have a material impact on competition. The proposed changes are designed to generate more realistic price shocks that better reflect observed market conditions, which could generally result in lower shortfalls in market decline scenarios. OCC expects that the proposed VIX futures changes would have minimal impact on the monthly sizing of the Clearing Fund; however, the proposed change may result in reduced shortfalls in OCC's Sufficiency Scenarios (particularly the historical 1987 market event scenario) and therefore result in less frequent Sufficiency Stress Test margin calls (or margin calls of a lower magnitude). The impact of the proposed change would depend on the composition of a Clearing Member's portfolio at a given time. Generally, Clearing Members with longer tenor positions in VIX future contracts or VIX options will experience a change in the profit and loss on the contracts. Where these positions are driving the shortfall in an account, the account would experience a change in shortfall due to the decrease in the amount of the shock, dependent on the position and direction of the shock for the scenario in question. When shortfalls increase, a large Clearing Member may be more likely to be subject to more frequent and/or larger Sufficiency Stress Test margin calls than under the current model. When shortfalls decrease, Clearing Members may be less likely to breach Sufficiency Thresholds and/or may experience smaller Sufficiency Stress Test margin calls as a result of the change. OCC does not believe that this would present an impact or burden from a competitive standpoint, however. The proposed approach is simply intended to more accurately reflects the risks carried by Clearing Members and align any potential margins calls with this more accurate risk measure.
OCC also proposes to modify its Clearing Fund allocation methodology to standardize the margin risk component of the allocation formula for
In addition, OCC proposes changes to its cooling-off period and associated assessment cap rules that would ensure that the cooling-off period and associated assessment caps are consistently applied for any proportionate charge resulting from any of the events described in clauses (i) through (vi) of Rule 1006(a). These changes would apply equally to all Clearing Members and therefore OCC does not believe the proposed changes would have any impact or burden on competition.
Finally, OCC proposes to make clarifying changes to its Methodology Description, which are not expected to have any impact on competition. The proposed changes are not intended to materially change OCC's Clearing Fund or stress testing rules but are simply designed to provide more accuracy and clarity in OCC's methodology documentation. As a result, OCC does not believe the proposed changes would have any impact or burden on competition.
For the reasons set forth above, OCC believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2019-009 and should be submitted on or before November 19, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-1 requires that every national securities exchange, national securities association, registered clearing agency, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board keep on file for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, at least one copy of all documents, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, and other such records made or received by it in the course of its business as such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity,
There are 34 entities required to comply with the rule: 23 National securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, 9 registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The Commission staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for compliance with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 52 hours per year. In addition, 4 national securities exchanges notice-registered pursuant to Section 6(g) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(g)) are required to preserve records of determinations made under Rule 3a55-1 under the Act (17 CFR 240.3a55-1), which the Commission staff estimates will take 1 hour per exchange, for a total of 4 hours. Accordingly, the Commission staff estimates that the total number of hours necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 17a-1 is 1,772 hours. The total internal cost of compliance for all respondents is $124,040, based on an average cost per hour of $70.
Compliance with Rule 17a-1 is mandatory. Rule 17a-1 does not assure confidentiality for the records maintained pursuant to the rule. The records required by Rule 17a-1 are available only for examination by the Commission staff, state securities authorities, and the self-regulatory organizations. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, and the Commission's rules thereunder (17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish or make available information contained in any reports, summaries, analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and records of any person or any other investigation.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 7, 2019 from 9:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before November 7, 2019.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
Use the Commission's internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion regarding whether investors use environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data in investment/capital allocation decisions; a discussion regarding the SEC's Concept Release on Harmonization of Securities Offering Exemptions; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
On July 9, 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
On September 3, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to make certain changes to the investments of the Fund. According to the Exchange, the Shares of the Fund commenced listing and trading on the Exchange on September 12, 2018 pursuant to the generic listing standards under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
The Fund is a series of Janus Detroit Street Trust (“Trust”).
According to the Exchange, the Fund's investment objective is to seek a high level of total return consisting of income and capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions,
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in mortgage-related securities issued by the U.S. government and its agencies, such as the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The Fund will typically enter into “to be announced” or “TBA” commitments when purchasing mortgage-backed securities. The Fund also may invest in exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in the mortgage-related securities issued by the U.S. government and its agencies as described above under Principal Investments, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents.
• U.S. government securities;
• industrial development bonds;
• inflation-indexed bonds, including municipal inflation-indexed bonds and corporate inflation-indexed bonds; or in derivatives that are linked to these securities;
• municipal lease obligations;
• pass-through securities;
• variable and floating rate obligations (including “inverse floaters”);
• subordinated or junior debt;
• corporate bonds, debentures, notes, and other similar corporate debt instruments;
• non-agency, or privately-issued, residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, and other mortgage-related securities.
The Fund may enter into mortgage dollar rolls and may invest in TBA transactions. The Fund may enter into short sales of any securities in which the Fund may invest.
The Fund also may hold the following listed derivative instruments: Futures, options (including options on futures), and swaps on commodities, currencies, U.S. and non-U.S. equity securities, fixed income securities as defined in Commentary .01(b) to Rule 8.600-E, interest rates, U.S. Treasuries, or a basket or index of any of the foregoing. Such listed derivatives will comply with the criteria in Commentary .01(d) of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
The Fund may hold the following over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative instruments: Forwards, options, and OTC total return swaps on commodities, currencies, U.S. and non-U.S. equity securities, fixed income securities as defined in Commentary .01(b) to Rule 8.600-E, interest rates, or a basket or index of any of the foregoing. The Fund also may hold OTC credit default swaps and may enter into OTC options on swap agreements.
The Fund may invest in securities of non-exchange-traded investment company securities, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, and may invest in private placements, restricted securities, and Rule 144A securities. The Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in this proposed rule change.
The Exchange represents that it is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolio for the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Fund's portfolio would meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentaries .01(a)
The Fund may invest in non-exchange-traded investment company securities, which are equity securities. Because such securities have a net asset value based on the value of securities and financial assets the investment company holds, the Exchange believes it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to apply to such investment company securities the criteria in Commentary .01(a)(1). The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved the listing of Managed Fund Shares with similar investment objectives and strategies where such funds were permitted to invest in the shares of other registered investment companies that are not ETFs or money market funds.
In addition, the Exchange 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 by their nature cannot satisfy the criteria in Commentary .01(b)(4).
The Adviser represents that the proposed exceptions from the requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E described above are consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective. Deviations from the generic requirements are necessary for the Fund to achieve its investment objective in a manner that is cost-effective and that maximizes investors' returns. Further, the proposed alternative requirements are narrowly tailored to allow the Fund to achieve its investment objective in manner that is consistent with the principles of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As a result, the Exchange represents that it is in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange pursuant to the requirements set forth herein.
The Exchange represents that, other than Commentaries .01(a) and (b)(4) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, as described above, 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,
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 November 19, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 3, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 31(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The retention of records, as required by the rule, is necessary to ensure access to material business and financial information about funds and certain related entities. We periodically inspect the operations of funds to ensure they are in compliance with the Act and regulations under the Act. Due to the limits on our resources, however, each fund may only be inspected at intervals of several years. In addition, the prosecution of persons who have engaged in certain violations of the federal securities laws may not be limited by timing restrictions. For these reasons, we often need information relating to events or transactions that occurred years ago. Without the requirement to preserve books, records, and other documents, our staff would have difficulty determining whether the fund was in compliance with the law in such areas as valuation of its portfolio securities, computation of the prices investors paid, and, when purchasing and selling fund shares, types and amounts of expenses the fund incurred, kinds of investments the fund purchased, actions of affiliated persons, or whether the fund had engaged in any illegal or fraudulent activities. As part of our examinations of funds, our staff also reviews the materials that directors consider in approving the advisory contract.
There are 3,160 funds currently operating as of December 31, 2018, all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-2. The Commission staff estimates that, on average, a fund spends 220.4 hours annually to comply with the rule. The Commission therefore estimates the total annual hour burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to be 696,464 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission staff estimates that the
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory. Responses to the disclosure requirements will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishes minimum standards with respect to business records that broker-dealers registered with the Commission must make and keep current. These records are maintained by the broker-dealer (in accordance with a separate rule), so they can be used by the broker-dealer and reviewed by Commission examiners, as well as other regulatory authority examiners, during inspections of the broker-dealer.
The collections of information included in Rule 17a-3 are necessary to provide Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners to conduct effective and efficient examinations to determine whether broker-dealers are complying with relevant laws, rules, and regulations. If broker-dealers were not required to create these baseline, standardized records, Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners could be unable to determine whether broker-dealers are in compliance with the Commission's antifraud and anti-manipulation rules, financial responsibility program, and other Commission, SRO, and State laws, rules, and regulations.
As of December 31, 2018 there were 3,764 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. The Commission estimates that these broker-dealer respondents incur a total burden of 2,893,773 hours per year to comply with Rule 17a-3.
In addition, Rule 17a-3 contains ongoing operation and maintenance costs for broker-dealers, including the cost of postage to provide customers with account information, and costs for equipment and systems development. The Commission estimates that under Rule 17a-3(a)(17), approximately 45,633,482 customers will need to be provided with information regarding their account on a yearly basis. The Commission estimates that the postage costs associated with providing those customers with copies of their account record information would be approximately $16,321,719 per year (45,633,482 × $0.35).
Rule 17a-3 does not contain record retention requirements. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the staffs of the Commission, self-regulatory organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member, and the states during examination, inspections and investigations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 17(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.
The staff assumes that all existing funds with subadvisory contracts amended those contracts to comply with the adoption of rule 17a-10 in 2003, which conditioned certain exemptions upon these contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds.
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 221 funds enter into new subadvisory agreements each year.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the PRA. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17a-10. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, and business development companies (“BDCs”), as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and registered unit
MassMutual Select Funds, MassMutual Premier Funds, MML Series Investment Fund, and MML Series Investment Fund II (each a “Trust,” and collectively, the “Trusts”), is each organized as a Massachusetts business trust and registered with the Commission under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, each of which has its own investment objectives and principal investment strategies. MML Investment Advisers, LLC, the adviser to the Trusts, is organized as a limited liability company established under the laws of the state of Delaware and is registered as an investment adviser under section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on July 26, 2019, and amended on October 17, 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 November 18, 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: Andrew M. Goldberg, Esq., MML Investment Advisers, LLC, 100 Bright Meadow Blvd., Enfield, CT 06082, with copies to Timothy W. Diggins, Esq. and Yana D. Guss, Esq., Ropes & Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600.
Edward J. Rubenstein, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6854, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6823 (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. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund
2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) 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 section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension and approval of the collection of information discussed below.
In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts (“Canadian retirement accounts”). These accounts, which operate in a manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States, encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States (“Canadian-U.S. Participants” or “participants”) often continue to hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts rather than prematurely withdrawing (or “cashing out”) those assets, which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
Once in the United States, however, these participants historically have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account investments. Most securities that are “qualified investments” for Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under the U.S. securities laws. Those securities, therefore, generally cannot be publicly offered and sold in the United States without violating the registration requirement of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).
The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.
Rule 237 requires written offering documents for securities offered and sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that the securities are not registered with the Commission and are exempt from registration under the U.S. securities laws. The burden under the rule associated with adding this disclosure to written offering documents is minimal and is non-recurring. The foreign issuer, underwriter, or broker-dealer can redraft an existing prospectus or other written offering material to add this disclosure statement, or may draft a sticker or supplement containing this disclosure to be added to existing offering materials. In either case, based on discussions with representatives of the Canadian fund industry, the staff estimates that it would take an average of 10 minutes per document to draft the requisite disclosure statement.
The Commission understands that there are approximately 2,412 Canadian issuers other than funds that may rely on rule 237 to make an initial public offering of their securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants.
The staff therefore estimates that during each year that rule 237 is in effect, approximately 36 respondents
In addition, issuers from foreign countries other than Canada could rely on rule 237 to offer securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to their accounts without becoming subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act. However, the staff believes that the number of issuers from other countries that rely on rule 237, and that therefore are required to comply with the offering document disclosure requirements, is negligible.
These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of the rule in general. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-22 was adopted to strengthen the substantive regulation of clearing agencies, promote the safe and reliable operation of covered clearing agencies, and improve efficiency, transparency, and access to covered clearing agencies.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission staff's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On July 16, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has proposed to amend the re-opening auction process for Nasdaq-listed securities following trading halts due to extraordinary market volatility (“market-wide circuit breakers”).
The Exchange proposes modifications to its rules that would allow it to instead follow a process it believes is similar to that described in Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(10) for releasing a security
Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4121(d)(1)(A) provides that during the Initial Display Only Period, the Exchange will also establish the “Auction Reference Price,” which is the Nasdaq last sale price (either round or odd lot) after 9:15 a.m. Eastern Time but prior to the MWCB Halt and, if none, the prior trading day's Nasdaq Official Closing Price.
Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4121(d)(1)(B) describes how the Exchange would calculate the upper and lower MWCB Auction Collar prices during the Initial Display Period. The lower MWCB Auction Collar is derived by subtracting from the Auction Reference Price 10% of the Auction Reference Price, or in the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50. The upper MWCB Auction Collar is derived by adding to the Auction Reference Price 10% of the Auction Reference Price, rounded to the nearest minimum price increment, or in the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50.
Proposed Nasdaq Rules 4121(d)(2) and (d)(3) specify the circumstances when the Exchange would extend the Display Only Period for an MWCB Halt re-opening process, and how the Exchange would adjust the MWCB Auction Collars for each extension. In particular, at the conclusion of the Initial Display Only Period, the security will be released for trading unless, at the end of the Initial Display Only Period, Nasdaq detects an order imbalance in the security. In that case, Nasdaq will extend the Display Only Period for an additional 5-minute period (“Extended Display Only Period”), and the MWCB Auction Collar prices will be adjusted as follows:
• If the Display Only Period is extended because the calculated price at which the security would be released for trading is below the lower MWCB Auction Collar price or all sell market orders would not be executed in the cross, then the new lower MWCB Auction Collar price is derived by subtracting 10% of the Auction Reference Price, which was rounded to the nearest minimum price increment, or in the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50, from the previous lower MWCB Auction Collar price, and the upper MWCB Auction Collar price will not be changed.
• If the Display Only Period is extended because the calculated price at which the security would be released for trading is above the upper MWCB Auction Collar price or all buy market orders would not be executed in the cross, then the new upper MWCB Auction Collar price is derived by adding 10% of the Auction Reference Price, which was rounded to the nearest minimum price increment, or in the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50, to the previous upper MWCB Auction Collar price, and the lower MWCB Auction Collar price will not be changed.
At the conclusion of the Extended Display Only Period, the security will be released for trading unless, at the end of the Extended Display Only Period, Nasdaq detects an order imbalance in the security. In that case, Nasdaq will further extend the Display Only Period, continuing to adjust the MWCB Auction Collar prices every five minutes in the manner described in proposed Nasdaq Rule 4121(d)(2) until the security is released for trading; provided, however, that Nasdaq will not adjust the MWCB Auction Collar prices past 50% of the Auction Reference Price for any security during any Extended Display Only Period.
Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4121(d)(4) specifies that an order imbalance would be established for purposes of the process under Nasdaq Rule 4121 as follows:
• The calculated price at which the security would be released for trading is above (below) the upper (lower) MWCB Auction Collar price calculated under paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of Nasdaq Rule 4121(d); or
• all market orders would not be executed in the cross.
Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4121(d)(5) describes how the MWCB Auction Collars will function in the event of more than one trading halt initiated under Nasdaq Rule 4121 in the same day. In the event of a Level 2 Market Decline while a security is in a Level 1 MWCB Halt and has not been released
The Exchange also proposes to add new paragraph (e) to Nasdaq Rule 4121 to describe how the Exchange will handle the publication of MWCB Halt Information. Specifically, at the beginning of the Initial Display Only Period and continuing through the resumption of trading, Nasdaq will disseminate by electronic means an Order Imbalance Indicator
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns 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 proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which 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 November 19, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 3, 2019. 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,
1. The Nasdaq proposal appears to differ from other primary listing market MWCB re-opening processes in three ways. First, the Nasdaq proposal would establish a security's auction reference price after a MWCB Halt by referring to the Nasdaq last sale price (as opposed to the consolidated last sale price). Second, the Nasdaq proposal would establish wider price bands of 10% of the Auction Reference Price, or in the case of securities with an Auction Reference Price of $5 or less, $0.50 (as opposed to 5% of the auction reference price, or $0.15 for securities with an auction reference price of $3), and would widen the price bands in those larger increments (as opposed to widening in the smaller increments). Third, the Nasdaq proposal would not widen the price bands for an individual security beyond 50% (as opposed gradually widening price bands without limit until a security is reopened). Should the primary listing exchanges harmonize their respective processes for reopening trading after a halt pursuant to the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism following a Level 1 or Level 2 Market Decline, and if so, why? If so which aspects of the re-opening processes should be harmonized (
2. Is it appropriate for the Exchange to derive and expand the lower/upper MWCB Auction Collar by subtracting from/adding to the Auction Reference Price 10% of the Auction Reference Price (or $0.50 for securities priced $5 or less), which are currently wider than
3. Is it appropriate for the Exchange to not adjust the MWCB Auction Collar prices past 50% of the Auction Reference Price for any security during any Extended Display Only Period? Are there any specific data, statistics, or studies to support the Exchange's belief that (1) without this limitation, there is potential for extreme volatility resulting in trades at prices far away from a security's fundamental value, ultimately harming investors that are party to the trade and (2) it may be more appropriate to continue adjusting price collars in the context of LULD where trading is halted due to a period of extraordinary volatility in a single security because there may be instances of a discrete event that ultimately impacts the value of the individual security and that an MWCB Halt will be triggered during a period of significant volatility across markets that may not correlate to the fundamental value of a single security?
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-057 and should be submitted on or before November 19, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by December 3, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) seeks reconsideration of its application for exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) rule that was denied by the Agency on July 17, 2019. SBTC has resubmitted its application for exemption from the ELD requirements for all motor carriers with fewer than 50 employees, including, but not limited to, one-person private and for-hire owner-operators of commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce. SBTC believes that the exemption would not have any adverse impacts on operational safety as motor carriers and drivers would remain subject to the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations as well as the requirements to maintain paper records of duty status (RODs). FMCSA requests public comment on SBTC's application for reconsideration.
Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0239 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: (202) 366-4325; Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2019-0239), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
On December 16, 2015, FMCSA published the Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents final rule (80 FR 78292). The ELD rule applies to most motor carriers and drivers who are required to keep RODS. The compliance date for the ELD requirement was December 18, 2017.
On June 5, 2018, FMCSA published SBTC's application for exemption and requested public comment (83 FR 26140). SBTC reports it is a non-profit trade organization with more than 8,000 members. SBTC states that it “represents, promotes, and protects the interest of small businesses in the transportation industry. Through the exemption application, SBTC sought relief from the ELD requirements for small private, common and contract motor carriers with fewer than 50 employees.” SBTC argued:
“[T]he ELD rule is not a “safety regulation” per se as the FMCSA has concluded. Rather it is a mechanism intended to enforce a safety regulation by regulating the manner in which a driver records and communicates his compliance. That is, it is merely a tool to determine compliance with an existing rule that regulates over-the-road drivers' driving and on duty time, namely the actual safety regulation: the [hours-of- service] regulations codified at 49 CFR 395.3 and 395.5. However, the ELD rule is not a safety regulation itself. Therefore, it is our position that this rule does
On July 9, 2018, FMCSA extended the public comment period at the request of the SBTC (83 FR 31836). The Agency received more than 1,900 comments to the docket [Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0180]. Most of the comments favored granting the exemption. On July 17, 2019, the Agency published notice of its decision to deny SBTC's application for exemption (84 FR 34250) and listed the following reasons for the denial:
• Failing to provide the name of the individual or motor carrier that would be responsible for the use or operation of CMVs under the exemption [49 CFR 381.310(b)(2)];
• Failing to provide an estimate of the total number of drivers and CMVs that would be operated under the terms and conditions of the exemption [§ 381.310(c)(3)]; and
• Failing to explain how an equivalent level of safety would be achieved [§ 381.310(c)(5)].
Through this application SBTC is requesting FMCSA to reconsider its denial of the exemption from the ELD rule. SBTC provided responses to each of FMCSA's reasons for denying its application. According to SBTC the reason for not providing an estimate of the number of drivers and CMVs that would be operating under the exemption is that SBTC is a trade group, not a single carrier. SBTC argues that a trade group would not know the number of employees eligible for the exemption. SBTC deferred that question to the Agency because FMCSA is the custodian of MCS-150 industry data. SBTC believes that it has identified the percentage of carriers that would be affected by the exemption but does not know a way to extrapolate the number of drivers from the estimated 3.5 million truck drivers in the U.S. without deferring to FMCSA for that information.
A copy of SBTC's application for reconsideration of the Agency's denial is available for review in the docket for this notice.
To ensure an equivalent level of safety, SBTC suggests a return to paper logs. According to SBTC, “Paper logs were deemed sufficient to ensure adequate levels of safety for generations, more than 80 years. And the FMCSA has already issued numerous exemptions that require carriers to revert to tracking their hours of service using paper logs in lieu of ELDs . . .” SBTC supports its argument with the belief that ELDs have caused reckless
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to revise and renew an ICR titled “Driver Qualification Files,” OMB Control Number 2126-0004. The ICR estimates the burden commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers and motor carriers incur to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping tasks required for motor carriers to maintain driver qualification (DQ) files. The Agency's regulations pertaining to maintaining DQ files are unchanged and impose no increased information collection (IC) burden on individual drivers and motor carriers. However, the Agency increases its estimate of the total IC burden of these regulations primarily because both the number of CMV drivers and the frequency of their hiring have increased since the Agency's 2016 estimate of this burden.
Please send your comments by November 29, 2019. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System Docket Number FMCSA-2019-0102. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division Department of Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2834 (October 30, 1984)) requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations pertaining to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety. Part 391 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains the minimum qualifications of drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Motor carriers may not require or permit an unqualified driver to operate a CMV. The foremost proof of driver qualification is the information that part 391 requires be collected and maintained in the driver qualification file (DQ file) (49 CFR 391.51). Motor carriers must obtain this information from sources specified in the regulations, such as the driver, previous employers of the driver, and officials of the State of driver licensure. Motor carriers are not required to forward DQ information to FMCSA, but must maintain the information in a DQ file and make it available to State and Federal safety investigators on demand.
Through this ICR, FMCSA is asking OMB's approval to renew and revise its estimate of the paperwork burden imposed by its DQ file regulations. The regulations have not been amended; the IC burden imposed on individual drivers and motor carriers by the regulations is unchanged. The current IC burden estimate approved by OMB is 10.21 million hours. The Agency has increased its estimate of the total IC burden from 10.21 million hours to 12.26 million hours. The increase in burden hours is primarily the result of a larger driver population and a higher driver turnover rate, both of which affect the volume of documents produced and filed in DQ files. This revised ICR removes the medical examiner's certificate recordkeeping requirement from the estimate of burden hours and cost to eliminate double counting. Although the currently approved ICR did not monetize driver and motor carrier burden hours, the revised ICR monetizes such burden.
On June 10, 2019, FMCSA published a
FMCSA requests that you comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO or notice).
This notice details the application requirements and procedures to obtain grant
Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT November 29, 2019. Applications for funding, or supplemental material in support of an application, received after 5:00 p.m. EDT on November 29, 2019 will not be considered for funding. Incomplete applications will not be considered for funding. See section D of this notice for additional information on the application process.
Applications must be submitted via
For further information regarding the Maglev Grants Program, please contact Ruthie Americus, Office of Policy and Planning, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W36-403, Washington, DC 20590; email:
Under this NOFO, a total of $24,027,500 is available for eligible capital project costs and preconstruction planning activities for eligible Maglev projects as discussed further in section C(3). The $24,027,500 is composed of funding from two sources, $14,027,500 in 2008 Funds and $10,000,000 in 2019 Funds.
Section 102 of the Technical Corrections Act amended sections 1101(a)(18) and 1307 of SAFETEA-LU and provided $45,000,000 in contract authority for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for Maglev projects.
In the 2019 Appropriation, Congress appropriated an additional $10,000,000 for the deployment of magnetic levitation transportation projects, consistent with the language in section 1307(a) through (c) of SAFETEA-LU, as amended by section 102 of the Technical Corrections Act. The 2019 Funds are not limited to the above three projects and are available to any otherwise eligible Maglev project.
To reiterate, only the Pittsburgh, Baltimore-Washington, and Atlanta-Chattanooga projects are eligible for the full $24,027,500 available under this notice from the remaining 2008 Funds ($14,027,500) and the 2019 Funds ($10,000,000). Applicants with otherwise eligible Maglev projects may apply only for the $10,000,000 in 2019 Funds available under this notice.
a. “Full Project Cost” means the total capital costs of a Maglev project
b. “Magnetic Levitation” or “Maglev” means transportation systems employing magnetic levitation that would be capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 240 miles per hour.
c. “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)” is a Federal law that requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of a proposed action, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities, and with the public. The NEPA class of action depends on the nature of the proposed action, its complexity, and the potential impacts. For purposes of this NOFO, NEPA also includes all related Federal laws and regulations including: The Clean Air Act, section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Additional information regarding FRA's environmental processes and requirements are located at
d. “State” has the meaning such term has under 23 U.S.C. 101(a).
FRA will make up to $24,027,500 in funding available under this notice, composed of $14,027,500 in 2008 Funds and $10,000,000 in 2019 Funds. Should additional Maglev funds become available after the release of this NOFO, FRA may elect to award such additional funds to applications received under this NOFO.
There are no predetermined minimum or maximum dollar thresholds for awards, and FRA may choose to select one or more eligible projects for funding. FRA may not award grants to all eligible applications, or even those applications that meet or exceed the stated evaluation criteria (see section E, Application Review Information).
FRA may award less than the amount of funding requested by the applicant based on considerations such as individual project scope and total available funding. In such cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded.
FRA strongly encourages applicants to identify and include other State, local, public, or private funding or financing to support the proposed project to maximize competitiveness.
FRA will make awards for projects selected under this notice through grant agreements and/or cooperative agreements. Grant agreements are used when FRA does not expect to have substantial Federal involvement in carrying out the funded activity. Cooperative agreements allow for substantial Federal involvement in carrying out the agreed upon investment, including technical assistance, review of interim work products, and increased program oversight. The funding provided under this NOFO will be made available to grantees on a reimbursable basis. Applicants must certify that their expenditures are allowable, allocable, reasonable, and necessary to the approved project before seeking reimbursement from FRA. Additionally, the grantee is expected to expend matching funds at the required percentage concurrent with Federal funds throughout the life of the project. See an example of standard terms and conditions for FRA grant awards at:
This section of the notice explains applicant eligibility, cost sharing and matching requirements, and project eligibility. Applications that do not meet the requirements in this section will be ineligible for funding. Instructions for submitting eligibility information to FRA are detailed in section D of this NOFO.
Applicants must be a State, States, or an authority designated by one or more States.
The Federal share of Full Project Costs will not exceed 80 percent. The funds available under this NOFO are available only for eligible project costs of eligible Maglev projects. As a result, under this NOFO the Federal share of the estimated total eligible project costs will not exceed 80 percent. The estimated total cost of a project must be based on the best available information, including engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, environmental analyses, and information on the expected use of equipment and/or facilities. Additionally, in preparing estimates of total project costs, applicants should refer to FRA's cost estimate guidance documentation, “Capital Cost Estimating: Guidance for Project Sponsors,” which is available at:
The minimum 20 percent non-Federal match may be composed of public sector (
Before applying, applicants should carefully review the principles for cost sharing or matching in
Funding under this NOFO is available for eligible project costs for eligible Maglev projects. Eligible project costs are: (1) The capital cost of the fixed guideway infrastructure of a Maglev project including land, piers, guideways, propulsion equipment and other components attached to guideways, power distribution facilities (including substations), control and communications facilities, access roads, and storage, repair, and maintenance facilities and (2) preconstruction planning activities. Eligible project costs exclude new stations and rolling stock,
Eligible Maglev projects must: (1) Involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground transportation corridor; (2) result in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing service; (3) be approved by the Secretary based on an application submitted to the Secretary of Transportation by a State or authority designated by one or more States, and (4) for 2008 Funds, be an existing Maglev project in Pittsburgh, Baltimore-Washington, or Atlanta-Chattanooga. With respect to the second criterion, Congress titled section 1307 of SAFETEA-LU “Deployment of Magnetic Levitation Transportation Projects” and provided funding through section 1101(a)(18) of SAFETEA-LU, as amended by the Technical Corrections Act, for the “deployment of magnetic levitation projects.” Congress also provided funding through the 2019 Appropriation for the “deployment of magnetic levitation projects.” FRA interprets this language as evidencing a Congressional intent that the Federal funds be used to directly advance and result in the construction of a Maglev project.
Funding under this NOFO may not be used for costs that are included in, or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of, any other Federally-financed award or program. If the applicant is seeking additional funding for a project that has already received Federal financial assistance, costs associated with the scope of work for the existing Federal award are not eligible for funding under this NOFO. Only new scope (
Required documents for the application are outlined in the following paragraphs. Applicants must complete and submit all components of the application. See section D(2) for the application checklist. FRA welcomes the submission of other relevant supporting documentation that may have been developed by the applicant (planning, environmental documentation, engineering and design documentation, letters of support, etc.) that will not count against the Project Narrative 25-page limit.
Applicants must submit all application materials in their entirety through
For any supporting application materials that an applicant cannot submit via
FRA strongly advises applicants to read this section carefully. Applicants must submit all required information and components of the application package to be considered for funding.
Required documents for an application package are outlined in the checklist below.
This section describes the minimum content required in the Project Narrative of the grant application. The Project Narrative must follow the basic outline below to address the program requirements and assist evaluators in locating relevant information.
The above content must be provided in a narrative statement submitted by the applicant. The Project Narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length (excluding cover pages, table of contents, and supporting documentation). FRA will not review or consider Project Narratives beyond the 25-page limitation. If possible, applicants should submit supporting documents via website links rather than hard copies. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants must clearly identify the page number of the relevant portion of the supporting documentation in the Project Narrative. The Project Narrative must adhere to the following outline.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
Applicants must submit:
Forms needed for the electronic application process are at
See section F(2) of this notice for post-selection requirements.
To apply for funding through
FRA may not make a grant award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and SAM requirements, and if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. (Please note that if a Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number must be obtained or renewed, this may take a significant amount of time to complete.) Late applications that are the result of a failure to register or comply with
A DUNS number is required for
All applicants for Federal financial assistance must maintain current registrations in the SAM database. An applicant must be registered in SAM to successfully register in
Applicants must complete an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) profile on
The E-Biz POC at the applicant's organization must respond to the registration email from
If an applicant experiences difficulties at any point during this process, please call the
Applicants must submit complete applications in their entirety to
To ensure a fair competition of limited discretionary funds, the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before the deadline; (2) failure to follow
Executive Order 12372 requires applicants from State and local units of government or other organizations providing services within a State to submit a copy of the application to the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC), if one exists, and if this program has been selected for review by the State. Applicants must contact their State SPOC to determine if the program has been selected for State review.
Consistent with 2 CFR 200.458, FRA will only approve pre-award costs if such costs are incurred pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the grant agreement and if such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Under 2 CFR 200.458, grant recipients must seek written approval from the FRA for pre-award activities to be eligible for reimbursement under the grant. Activities initiated prior to the execution of a grant or without written approval may not be eligible for reimbursement or included as a grantee's matching contribution.
As stated in section C(3), funding under this NOFO is not available for costs incurred for new stations, rolling stock, or solely for land acquisition (even acquisition to secure operational right-of-way). Further, funding under this NOFO may not be used for costs that are included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other Federally financed project or program.
If an applicant experiences difficulties at any point during this process, please call the
FRA will first screen each application for eligibility (eligibility requirements are outlined in section C of this notice), completeness (application documentation and submission requirements are outlined in section D of this notice), and the 20 percent minimum match.
FRA subject-matter experts will evaluate all eligible and complete applications against the following evaluation criteria:
i. The extent to which the project would feasibly integrate Maglev systems with conventional rail systems, such as establishing efficient connections and transfers.
ii. The extent to which funds awarded under this section would result in investments that are beneficial not only to the Maglev project, but also to other current or near-term transportation projects.
iii. The degree to which the project demonstrates: (a) The potential for public-private partnerships and (b) that the project will stand alone as a complete, self-sustaining operation where fully allocated operating expenses of the Maglev service are projected to be offset by revenues attributable to the service.
iv. The extent of the demonstrated financial commitment to the construction of the proposed project from both non-Federal public and private sources.
v. The extent to which the project demonstrates coordination and consistency with any applicable ongoing or completed environmental and planning studies for passenger rail on or connecting to the geographic route segment being proposed for Maglev investment.
vi. The degree to which the project will successfully operate in the variety of Maglev operating conditions which are to be expected in the United States. For example, these conditions might include a variety of at-grade, elevated and depressed guideway structures, extreme temperatures, and intermodal connections at terminals.
vii. The feasibility of the project meeting a top speed of at least 240 miles per hour (MPH). FRA will also consider the ability to meet higher speeds as well as the duration that speeds of at least 240 MPH can be attained.
In addition to the eligibility and completeness review and the evaluation criteria outlined in this section, the FRA Administrator (or his designee) will determine the final selection of projects for program funding.
i. FRA will take into account the following key Departmental objectives:
a. Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
b. Leveraging Federal funding to attract other, non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
c. Preparing for future operations and maintenance costs associated with the project's life-cycle, as demonstrated by a credible plan to maintain assets without having to rely on future Federal funding;
d. Using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery; and,
e. Holding grant recipients accountable for their performance and achieving specific, measurable outcomes identified by grant applicants.
ii. In determining the allocation of program funds, FRA may also consider geographic diversity, diversity in the size of the systems receiving funding, the applicant's receipt of other competitive awards, projects located in or that support transportation service in a qualified opportunity zone designated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1400Z-1, and the percentage of non-Federal share provided and whether such non-Federal share is provided by multiple sources.
FRA will conduct a three-part application review process, as follows:
a. Screen applications for completeness and eligibility;
b. Evaluate eligible applications (completed by technical panels applying the evaluation criteria); and
c. Select projects for funding (completed by the FRA Administrator or his designee applying the selection criteria).
Before making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (see 2 CFR 200.88 Simplified Acquisition Threshold), FRA will review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). See 41 U.S.C. 2313.
An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.
FRA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR 200.205.
FRA will announce applications selected for funding in a press release and on the FRA website after the application review period. FRA will contact applicants with successful applications after announcement with information and instructions about the award process. This notification is not an authorization to begin proposed project activities. FRA requires satisfaction of applicable requirements by the applicant and a formal agreement signed by both the grantee and the FRA, including an approved scope, schedule, and budget, to obligate the grant.
In connection with any program or activity conducted with or benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the United States; the conditions of performance, nondiscrimination requirements, and other assurances made applicable to the award of funds in accordance with regulations of the Department of Transportation; and applicable Federal financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. In complying with these requirements, recipients must ensure that no concession agreements are denied or other contracting decisions made based on speech or other activities protected by the First Amendment. If the Department determines that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable Federal requirements, the Department may terminate the award of funds and disallow previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to reimburse any expended award funds.
Examples of administrative and national policy requirements include: 2 CFR part 200; procurement standards; compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations; disadvantaged business enterprises; debarment and suspension; drug-free workplace; FRA's and OMB's Assurances and Certifications; Americans with Disabilities Act; safety requirements; NEPA; environmental justice and the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. 8301-8305. Financial assistance made available under this NOFO, and projects assisted with such assistance, are subject to 49 U.S.C. 5333(a).
See an example of standard terms and conditions for FRA grant awards at
Each applicant selected for a grant will be required to comply with all standard FRA reporting requirements, including quarterly progress reports, quarterly Federal financial reports, and interim and final performance reports, as well as all applicable auditing, monitoring and close out requirements. Reports may be submitted electronically.
Applicants selected for funding are required to comply with all reporting requirements in the standard terms and conditions for FRA grant awards including 2 CFR 180.335 and 2 CFR 180.350. See an example of standard terms and conditions for FRA grant awards at:
If the Federal share of any Federal award under this NOFO may include more than $500,000 over the period of performance, applicants are informed of the post award reporting requirements reflected in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII—Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
Each applicant selected for funding must collect information and report on the project's performance using measures mutually agreed upon by FRA and the grantee to assess progress in achieving strategic goals and objectives.
For further information regarding this notice and the grants program, please contact Amy Houser, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W36-412, Washington, DC 20590; email:
All information submitted as part of or in support of any application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes information the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI)”; (2) mark each affected page “CBI”; and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions.
FRA protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. In the event FRA receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, FRA will follow the procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Issued in Washington, DC.
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, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burden. On August 21, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 29, 2019.
Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
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 issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages.
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the ICRs 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.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
FRA announces the fifty-ninth meeting of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), a Federal Advisory Committee that develops railroad safety regulations through a consensus process.
The RSAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 26, 2019. The meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m., and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m. Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than November 16, 2019. Requests for accommodations because of a disability must be received by November 16, 2019.
The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Association of Home Builders, located at 1201 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. A final agenda will be posted on the RSAC internet website at
Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202) 493-6286; or Larry Woolverton, Executive Officer, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202) 493-6212.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC is composed of 40 voting representatives from 29 member organizations, representing various rail industry perspectives. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on September 18, 2019, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), on behalf of its members, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)(A), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for six consecutive days. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0080.
Specifically, ASLRRA seeks a comprehensive waiver of relief from (1) the statutory rest requirements contained in 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)(A); and (2) approval of a pilot project to demonstrate the safety of adopting fatigue mitigation plans on Class II and Class III railroads in lieu of strict compliance with the requirements of these statutory provisions.
ASLRRA's existing waiver of 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)(A), granted under the terms and conditions contained in FRA's initial March 5, 2010 decision letter, and extended by FRA's decision letter dated February 27, 2012, permits participating railroads to allow train employees to work six consecutive days followed by 24 hours of rest before returning to work.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by December 13, 2019 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting via conference call of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board.
The public meeting will be held on (all times Eastern):
• Monday, December 2, 2019 from 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held via conference call at the SLSDC's Operations location, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662.
Wayne Williams, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed under the heading,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is amending Regulation C to adjust the threshold for reporting data about open-end lines of credit by extending to January 1, 2022, the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. The Bureau is also incorporating into Regulation C the interpretations and procedures from the interpretive and procedural rule that the Bureau issued on August 31, 2018, and implementing further the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
This final rule is effective on January 1, 2020, except for the amendments to § 1003.2 in amendatory instruction 6, the amendments to § 1003.3 in amendatory instruction 7, and the amendments to supplement I to part 1003 in amendatory instruction 8, which are effective on January 1, 2022.
Jaydee DiGiovanni, Counsel; or Amanda Quester or Alexandra Reimelt, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801 through 2810, and includes institutional and transactional coverage thresholds that determine whether financial institutions are required to collect, record, and report any HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit (collectively, coverage thresholds).
In an October 2015 final rule (2015 HMDA Rule), the Bureau established institutional and transactional coverage thresholds in Regulation C, and these thresholds affect whether financial institutions need to report any information under HMDA for transactions.
The final rule also implements further the partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that the EGRRCPA recently added to HMDA. In August 2018, the Bureau issued an interpretive and procedural rule to implement and clarify the EGRRCPA amendments to HMDA (2018 HMDA Rule).
HMDA requires certain depository institutions and for-profit nondepository
In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA and transferred HMDA rulemaking authority and other functions from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the Bureau.
In October 2015, the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA.
The 2015 HMDA Rule requires some financial institutions to report data on certain dwelling-secured, open-end lines of credit, including home-equity lines of credit. Prior to the 2015 HMDA Rule, Regulation C allowed, but did not require, reporting of home-equity lines of credit.
The 2015 HMDA Rule also established institutional coverage thresholds based on loan volume that limit the definition of “financial institution” to include only those institutions that either originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years or originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
In April 2017, the Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to address certain technical errors in the 2015 HMDA Rule, ease the burden of reporting certain data requirements, and clarify key terms to facilitate compliance with Regulation C.
Recognizing the significant systems and operations challenges needed to adjust to the revised regulation, the Bureau issued a statement in December 2017 (December 2017 Statement) indicating that, for HMDA data collected in 2018 and reported in 2019, the Bureau did not intend to require data resubmission unless data errors are material.
On May 24, 2018, the President signed into law the EGRRCPA.
On August 31, 2018, the Bureau issued an interpretive and procedural rule (2018 HMDA Rule) to implement and clarify section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and effectuate the purposes of the EGRRCPA and HMDA.
The Bureau's estimates of HMDA coverage and the sources used in deriving those estimates are explained in detail in the Bureau's analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII below.
As explained in more detail in part VII.E.3 and table 3 below, under the temporary 500 open-end line of credit coverage threshold set in the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau estimated in the May 2019 Proposal that currently there are about 333 financial institutions required to report about 1.23 million open-end lines of credit under HMDA. Of these institutions, the Bureau estimated that approximately 318 are depository institutions and approximately 15 are nondepository institutions. None of these 333 institutions are partially exempt.
In comparison, if the open-end coverage threshold were to adjust to 100 on January 1, 2020 pursuant to the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau estimated in the May 2019 Proposal that the number of reporters would be about 1,014, who in total originate about 1.41 million open-end lines of credit. The Bureau estimated that approximately 972 of these open-end reporters would be depository institutions and approximately 42 would be nondepository institutions. The Bureau estimated that, among the 1,014 financial institutions that would be required to report open-end lines of credit under a threshold of 100, about 618 insured depository institutions and insured credit unions are partially exempt for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA and the 2018 HMDA Rule, and thus would not be required to report a subset of the data points currently required by Regulation C for these transactions.
On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued the May 2019 Proposal relating to Regulation C's coverage thresholds and the EGRRCPA partial exemptions under HMDA and requested public comment.
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed two alternatives to amend Regulation C to increase the current 25-loan coverage threshold for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans so that institutions originating fewer than either 50 closed-end mortgage loans, or alternatively 100 closed-end mortgage loans, in either of the two preceding calendar years would not have to report such data. The May 2019 Proposal proposed an effective date of January 1, 2020 for the amendment to the closed-end coverage threshold. The May 2019 Proposal also proposed to adjust the coverage threshold for reporting data about open-end lines of credit by (a) extending to January 1, 2022 the current temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit, and (b) setting the permanent coverage threshold at 200 open-end lines of credit upon the expiration of the proposed extension of the temporary coverage threshold. In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau also proposed to incorporate into Regulation C the interpretations and procedures from the interpretive and procedural rule that the Bureau issued on August 31, 2018 to implement and clarify section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA,
The comment period for the May 2019 Proposal closed on June 12, 2019.
Among the comments received were a number of letters expressing concern that the national loan level dataset for 2018 and the Bureau's annual overview of residential mortgage lending based on that data (collectively, the 2018 HMDA Data) would not be available until after the close of the comment period for the May 2019 Proposal. Stakeholders asked to submit comments on the May 2019 Proposal that reflect consideration of the 2018 HMDA Data. To allow for the submission of such comments, the Bureau reopened the comment period on certain aspects of the proposal until October 15, 2019.
The Bureau concluded that further comment was not necessary with respect to the other aspects of the May 2019 Proposal.
The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies, including the Board.
HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
Regulation C requires financial institutions to report HMDA data. Section 1003.2(g) defines financial institution for purposes of Regulation C and sets forth Regulation C's institutional coverage criteria for depository financial institutions and nondepository financial institutions.
The Bureau also proposed in May 2019 to increase the permanent open-end coverage threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit effective January 1, 2022. As discussed in part III above, the Bureau has reopened the comment period relating to the May 2019 Proposal's proposed amendments to the permanent thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit.
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau adopted the thresholds for certain depository institutions in § 1003.2(g)(1) pursuant to its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA to provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions that in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, for the reasons given in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau found that the exception in § 1003.2(g)(1) is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of and facilitate compliance with HMDA. The Bureau found that the provision, by reducing burden on financial institutions and establishing a consistent loan-volume test applicable to all financial institutions, would facilitate compliance with HMDA's requirements.
By its terms, the definition of “mortgage loan” in HMDA covers all loans secured by residential real property and home improvement loans whether open- or closed-end.
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Rule, open-end mortgage lending continued to increase in the years following the Board's 2002 final rule, particularly in areas with high home-price appreciation.
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, in expanding coverage to include mandatory reporting of open-end lines of credit, the Bureau recognized that doing so would impose one-time and ongoing operational costs on reporting institutions; that the one-time costs of modifying processes and systems and training staff to begin open-end line of credit reporting likely would impose significant costs on some institutions; and that institutions' ongoing reporting costs would increase as a function of their open-end lending volume.
To estimate the one-time and ongoing costs of reporting data under HMDA in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau identified seven “dimensions” of compliance operations and used those to define three broadly representative financial institutions according to the overall level of complexity of their compliance operations: “tier 1” (high-complexity); “tier 2” (moderate-complexity); and “tier 3” (low-complexity).
The Bureau recognized in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the one-time cost of reporting open-end lines of credit could be substantial because most financial institutions had not reported open-end lines of credit and thus would have to develop completely new systems to begin reporting these data. As a result, there would be one-time costs to create processes and systems for open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau acknowledged in the 2015 HMDA Rule that ongoing costs for open-end reporting vary by institutions due to many factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and that this variance exists on a continuum that was impossible to capture fully.
Drawing on all of these estimates, the Bureau decided in the 2015 HMDA Rule to establish an open-end coverage threshold that would require institutions that originate 100 or more open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to report data on such lines of credit. The Bureau estimated that this threshold would avoid imposing the burden of establishing mandatory open-end reporting on approximately 3,000 predominantly smaller-sized institutions with low-volume open-end lending
The 2017 HMDA Rule explained that, between 2013 and 2017, the number of dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit financial institutions originated had increased by 36 percent.
Based on this information regarding one-time and ongoing costs and new data indicating that more institutions would have reporting responsibilities under the 100-loan open-end threshold than estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau proposed in 2017 to increase for two years (
As the Bureau explained in the May 2019 Proposal, several developments since the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Rule have affected the Bureau's analyses of the costs and benefits associated with the open-end line of credit coverage threshold. The Bureau is concerned that, in establishing a 100-loan threshold for open-end lines of credit in the 2015 HMDA Rule, it may have underestimated the number of institutions that would be covered and the reporting burden on smaller covered institutions. Table 3 in the Bureau's analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.3 below provides the Bureau's updated coverage estimates from the May 2019 Proposal for reporting thresholds of 100 and 500 open-end lines of credit.
As explained in more detail in part VII below, the estimates the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA Rule may understate the burden that open-end reporting would impose on smaller institutions if they were required to begin reporting on January 1, 2020. For example, in developing the one-time cost estimates for open-end lines of credit in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau had envisioned that there would be cost sharing at the corporate level between the line of business that conducts open-end lending and the line of business that conducts closed-end lending, as the implementation of open-end reporting that became mandatory under the 2015 HMDA Rule would coincide with the implementation of the changes to closed-end reporting under the 2015 HMDA Rule. However, this type of cost sharing is less likely now because financial institutions have already implemented almost all of the closed-end reporting changes required under the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Another development since the Bureau finalized the 2015 HMDA Rule is the enactment of the EGRRCPA, which created partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions may now use.
As explained above, the 2015 HMDA Rule established an institutional coverage threshold in § 1003.2(g) for open-end lines of credit of at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
The Bureau received a number of comments relating to the proposed extension of the temporary open-end threshold in §§ 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12). Commenters typically discussed in a general way the open-end threshold for HMDA coverage, without distinguishing between the threshold applicable to depository institutions under § 1003.2(g)(2)(1)(v)(B) and the threshold applicable to nondepository institutions under § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B).
Industry commenters generally expressed support for the proposed extension. Many industry commenters described the significant costs that HMDA data collection and reporting imposes on small institutions, and some expressed concern that they might not be able to offer open-end lines of credit at all if the 100 open-end line of credit threshold takes effect. These commenters stated that the anticipated cost savings support extending the current threshold of 500 and noted that the current threshold of 500 would provide relief for over 600 institutions in 2020 and 2021. A number of industry commenters urged the Bureau to make the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit permanent, either immediately or during the two-year period of the proposed extension; to raise the open-end threshold even further (
Other commenters, including a number of consumer and civil rights groups, a bank, a State attorney general, and some members of Congress, expressed opposition to the proposal as a whole based on their concerns about the consequences of exempting institutions from HMDA. They indicated, for example, that extending the temporary threshold of 500 open-end loans for another two years could exclude a significant percentage of the market. They also expressed concern that lenders and loans might escape public scrutiny and that there would be fewer safeguards to prevent events similar to the 2008 financial crisis. However, even some commenters who opposed increasing the permanent open-end threshold recognized the need to provide additional time for lenders that will be first-time open-end reporters to prepare.
The Bureau has considered the comments received and, pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a) as discussed above, has decided to extend the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for two years, as proposed. As discussed below, the extension of the temporary coverage threshold will provide additional time for the Bureau to issue a final rule in 2020 on the permanent open-end coverage threshold and for affected institutions to prepare for compliance with that final rule and will reduce HMDA costs over the next two years, while still providing significant market coverage.
The Bureau continues reviewing HMDA data on open-end lines of credit that financial institutions collected in 2018 and reported to the Bureau in 2019. As explained in part III above, the Bureau reopened the comment period on the May 2019 Proposal to allow for additional comment relating to these open-end data. The two-year temporary extension of the current 500 open-end line of credit coverage threshold will ensure the Bureau has time to consider the initial open-end data submitted pursuant to the 2015 HMDA Rule and any additional comments received about that data before finalizing any change to the permanent threshold.
The two-year extension of the temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit will also ensure that institutions that would be required to report under any new permanent threshold that the Bureau sets in 2020 to take effect in 2022 have time to adapt their systems and prepare for compliance. Consistent with feedback provided by industry stakeholders in connection with the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule, a number of commenters indicated in response to the May 2019 Proposal that a long implementation period is necessary when coverage changes result in new institutions having reporting obligations under HMDA. The Bureau determines that the two-year extension of the temporary coverage threshold of 500 lines of credit will provide any newly covered institutions with sufficient time to revise and update policies and procedures, implement any necessary systems changes, and train staff before any permanent threshold that the Bureau sets in 2020 takes effect in 2022.
The extension of the temporary coverage threshold will also relieve institutions that originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit of ongoing costs associated with reporting open-end lines of credit over the next two years. As noted above, many financial institutions and trade associations expressed in their comments how costly HMDA compliance can be on an ongoing basis for smaller institutions. In total, the Bureau estimates that extending the temporary open-end coverage threshold for two years will reduce operational costs for institutions by about $9.4 million per year in the years 2020 and 2021.
While the extension of the temporary threshold increase will reduce market coverage compared to a lower threshold, information about a sizeable portion of the market will still be available in the next two years under the temporary threshold of 500. The Bureau has used multiple data sources, including credit union Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and thrifts, HMDA data, and Consumer Credit Panel data, to develop updated estimates about open-end originations for institutions that are active and to assess the impact of various thresholds on the numbers of institutions which report and the number of loans about which they report under various scenarios.
Extending the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for two years will decrease information about the open-end line of credit market relative to the information that would be reported if the Bureau were to allow the 100-loan threshold to take effect on January 1, 2020. However, the effect of this threshold increase will be limited, because the EGRRCPA now provides a partial exemption that exempts almost all of the institutions that the temporary increase will affect from any obligation to report many of the data points generally required by Regulation C for their open-end lines of credit. In light of the EGRRCPA's partial exemption from reporting certain data for open-end lines of credit for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions, continuing the open-end line of credit coverage threshold at 500 will result in a much smaller loss of data than the Bureau anticipated when it adopted a permanent threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit in the 2015 HMDA Rule or when it revisited the open-end line of credit coverage threshold in the 2017 HMDA Rule. The Bureau determines that the limited decrease in information reported occasioned by the temporary adjustment to the open-end threshold is justified by the benefits discussed above of reducing the burden on smaller institutions. This burden reduction is greater than the Bureau anticipated in the 2015 HMDA Rule, because the number of institutions affected and the costs per institution associated with reporting are higher than anticipated, as explained above and in part VII below.
The 2015 HMDA Rule established a coverage threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) as part of the definition of nondepository financial institution. As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above, the 2017 HMDA Rule amended §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12) and related commentary to raise temporarily the open-end coverage threshold to 500 lines of credit for calendar years 2018 and 2019.
Commenters typically discussed generally the open-end threshold for HMDA coverage, without distinguishing between the threshold applicable to depository institutions under § 1003.2(g)(2)(1)(v)(B) and the threshold applicable to nondepository institutions under § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). Comments received regarding the proposed extension of the temporary open-end threshold are discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B).
For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), and to ensure the thresholds are consistent for depository and nondepository institutions, the Bureau is finalizing as proposed the extension to January 1, 2022 of Regulation C's temporary open-end threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. As discussed in part III above, the Bureau has reopened the comment period relating to the May 2019 Proposal's proposed amendments to the permanent thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit.
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a) as discussed above, the Bureau is extending for two years the temporary threshold for open-end lines of credit in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). The Bureau determines that this final rule's amendments to § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) will effectuate the purposes of HMDA by ensuring significant coverage of nondepository mortgage lending. This extension also facilitates compliance with HMDA by reducing burden on smaller institutions and excluding nondepository institutions that are not engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending. The Bureau believes that the reasons provided for extending the temporary open-end threshold for depository institutions in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above apply to the temporary threshold for nondepository institutions as well. Additionally, the extension of the temporary threshold in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) will promote consistency by subjecting nondepository institutions to the same threshold that applies to the depository institutions that make up the bulk of the open-end line of credit market. According to the Bureau's estimates, nondepository institutions account for only a small percentage of the institutions and loans in the open-end line of credit market.
As adopted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, § 1003.3(c)(12) provides an exclusion from the requirement to report open-end lines of credit for institutions that did not originate at least 100 such loans in each of the two preceding calendar years. This transactional coverage threshold was intended to complement an open-end reporting threshold included in the definition of financial institution in § 1003.2(g), which sets forth Regulation C's institutional coverage. The 2017 HMDA Rule replaced “each” with “either” in § 1003.3(c)(12) to correct a drafting error and to ensure that the exclusions provided in that section mirror the loan-volume thresholds for financial institutions in § 1003.2(g).
For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), the Bureau is now extending to January 1, 2022, Regulation C's 500 open-end line of credit threshold. As discussed in part III above, the Bureau has reopened the comment period relating to the May 2019 Proposal's proposed amendments to the permanent thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit.
Section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA amended HMDA section 304(i) by adding partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that apply to certain transactions of eligible insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. In the 2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau implemented and clarified HMDA section 304(i) by addressing a set of interpretive and procedural questions relating to the partial exemptions. The Bureau proposed in § 1003.3(d) and related commentary to incorporate the partial exemptions and the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implement HMDA section 304(i) by addressing additional questions that have arisen with respect to the partial exemptions.
Although some commenters expressed general opposition to the May 2019 Proposal in its entirety, there were no specific concerns articulated in the comments regarding the regulation text and commentary that the Bureau proposed to implement EGRRCPA. Commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA. A few commenters specifically expressed support for the Bureau's interpretation on issues related to partial exemptions after a merger or acquisition and for the guidance related to determining loans and lines of credit that would be considered originations and counted towards the thresholds for partial exemptions. Many industry commenters stated that they appreciated the Bureau quickly implementing the provisions of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes to the proposed regulation text and commentary relating to the partial exemptions. A group of 148 national and local organizations also expressed their support for the Bureau's proposed commentary clarifying that a financial institution that is not itself an insured credit union or an insured depository institution is not eligible for a partial exemption even if it is an affiliate of an insured credit union or an insured depository institution.
Section 1003.3(d)(1) sets forth definitions relating to the partial exemptions, including a definition of optional data that delineates which data points are covered by the partial exemptions. Section 1003.3(d)(2) and (3) provides the general tests for when the partial exemptions apply for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit, respectively. Section 1003.3(d)(4) addresses voluntary reporting of data that are covered by a partial exemption for a partially exempt transaction. Section 1003.3(d)(5) relates to the non-universal loan identifier that financial institutions must report for a partially exempt transaction if a ULI is not provided. Section 1003.3(d)(6) implements the statutory exception to the partial exemptions for insured depository institutions with certain less than satisfactory examination histories under the CRA. Each of these paragraphs and related commentary are discussed in more detail below.
The loan thresholds added by the EGRRCPA to HMDA section 304(i) resemble in many respects the loan thresholds that determine institutional and transactional coverage in Regulation C. For example, both sets of thresholds relate to originations (rather than applications or purchases) and apply separately to closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit. In light of these similarities, the Bureau has used the institutional and transactional coverage thresholds in existing Regulation C as a model in interpreting certain aspects of the partial exemption thresholds. Because the Bureau recognizes that there are advantages to industry stakeholders and others from using consistent language to describe similar requirements, the final rule (like
Comments 3(d)-1 through -5 address certain issues relating to the partial exemptions that the 2018 HMDA Rule does not specifically discuss. Comments 3(d)-1 through -3 explain how to determine whether a partial exemption applies to a transaction after a merger or acquisition. Comment 3(d)-1 describes the application of the partial exemption thresholds to a surviving or newly formed institution. Comment 3(d)-2 describes how CRA examination history is handled in the event of a merger or acquisition for purposes of § 1003.3(d)(6), which implements the exception to the partial exemptions for certain less than satisfactory CRA examination histories in HMDA section 304(i)(3). Comment 3(d)-3 describes the applicability of partial exemptions during the calendar year of a merger or acquisition and provides various examples. These comments are modeled closely on existing comments 2(g)-3 and -4, which explain how to determine whether an institution satisfies the definition of financial institution in § 1003.2(g) after a merger or acquisition.
Comment 3(d)-4 relates to whether activities with respect to a particular closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit constitute an origination for purposes of the partial exemption loan thresholds. Given the similarities between the coverage thresholds currently in Regulation C
Comment 3(d)-5 addresses questions about whether a financial institution that does not itself meet the requirements for a partial exemption can claim an exemption if an affiliate or parent company meets the requirements. It clarifies that a financial institution that is not itself an insured credit union or an insured depository institution
Proposed § 1003.3(d)(1) and proposed comment 3(d)(1)(iii)-1 define terms related to the partial exemptions for purposes of proposed § 1003.3(d). As mentioned above, commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to the EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes to the proposed regulation text or commentary. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting § 1003.3(d)(1) and comment 3(d)(1)(iii)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.3(d)(1)(i) defines the term “insured credit union” to mean an insured credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752), and § 1003.3(d)(1)(ii) defines the term “insured depository institution” to mean an insured depository institution as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813). These definitions are consistent with the way HMDA section 304(o) defines the two terms for purposes of HMDA section 304.
Section 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) and comment 3(d)(1)(iii)-1 define the term “optional data” for purposes of § 1003.3(d). For the reasons discussed below, § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) generally defines optional data as the data identified in § 1003.4(a)(1)(i), (a)(9)(i), and (a)(12), (15) through (30), and (32) through (38). Comment 3(d)(1)(iii)-1 explains that the definition of optional data in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) identifies the data that are covered by the partial exemptions for certain transactions of insured depository institutions and insured credit unions under § 1003.3(d). It also clarifies that, if a transaction is not partially exempt under § 1003.3(d)(2) or (3), a financial institution must collect, record, and report optional data as otherwise required under part 1003.
The EGRRCPA added partial exemptions to HMDA section 304(i), and the definition of optional data in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) specifies the data points covered by the partial exemptions. As the 2018 HMDA Rule explains, if a transaction qualifies for one of the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, HMDA section 304(i) provides that the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall not apply. In the 2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interpreted the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) to include the 26 data points listed in Table 1 in the 2018 HMDA Rule, which are found in § 1003.4(a)(1)(i), (a)(9)(i), and (a)(12), (15) through (30), and (32) through (38).
The Dodd-Frank Act added HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6), which requires reporting of certain data points and provides the Bureau discretion to require additional data points.
• The total points and fees payable at origination in connection with the mortgage as determined by the Bureau;
• The difference between the APR associated with the loan and a benchmark rate or rates for all loans;
• The term in months of any prepayment penalty or other fee or charge payable on repayment of some portion of principal or the entire principal in advance of scheduled payments; and
• Such other information as the Bureau may require.
HMDA section 304(b)(6) requires disclosure of the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans and completed applications grouped according to measurements of:
• The value of the real property pledged or proposed to be pledged as collateral;
• The actual or proposed term in months of any introductory period after which the rate of interest may change;
• The presence of contractual terms or proposed contractual terms that would allow the mortgagor or applicant to make payments other than fully amortizing payments during any portion of the loan term;
• The actual or proposed term in months of the mortgage loan;
• The channel through which application was made;
• As the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, a unique identifier that identifies the loan originator as set forth in section 5102 of this title;
• As the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, a universal loan identifier;
• As the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, the parcel number that corresponds to the real property pledged or proposed to be pledged as collateral;
• The credit score of mortgage applicants and mortgagors, in such form as the Bureau may prescribe; and
• Such other information as the Bureau may require.
As explained in the 2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interprets the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) for purposes of HMDA section 304(i) to include the 12 data points that the Bureau added to Regulation C in the 2015 HMDA Rule to implement data points specifically identified in HMDA section 304(b)(5)(A) through (C) or (b)(6)(A) through (I), which are the following: ULI; property address; rate spread; credit score; total loan costs or total points and fees; prepayment penalty term; loan term; introductory rate period; non-amortizing features; property value; application channel; and mortgage loan originator identifier.
As the 2018 HMDA Rule explains, the Bureau interprets the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) not to include four other data points that are similar or identical to data points added to Regulation C by the Board and that the Bureau re-adopted in the 2015 HMDA Rule: Lien status of the subject property; whether the loan is subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA); construction method for the dwelling related to the subject property; and the total number of individual dwelling units contained in the dwelling related to the loan (number of units).
The Board adopted its versions of these data points before HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) was added to HMDA by the Dodd-Frank Act, pursuant to HMDA authority that pre-existed section 304(b)(5) and (6). Although the Bureau cited HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) as additional support for these four data points in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau relied on HMDA section 305(a), which predates the Dodd-Frank Act and independently provides legal authority for their adoption.
The requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6), and thus the partial exemptions, also do not include 17 other data points included in the 2015 HMDA Rule that are similar or identical to pre-existing Regulation C data points established by the Board and that were not required by HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) or promulgated by the Bureau using discretionary authority under HMDA section 304(b)(5)(D) and (b)(6)(J). These are: The Legal Entity Identifier (which replaced the pre-existing respondent identifier); application date; loan type; loan purpose; preapproval; occupancy type; loan amount; action taken; action taken date; State; county; census tract; ethnicity; race; sex; income; and type of purchaser.
Consistent with the scope of the new partial exemptions as explained in the 2018 HMDA Rule, the general definition of optional data in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) encompasses 26 of the 48 data points currently set forth in Regulation C.
For ease of reference throughout § 1003.3(d), § 1003.3(d)(1)(iv) defines partially exempt transaction as a covered loan or application that is partially exempt under § 1003.3(d)(2) or (3).
HMDA section 304(i)(1) provides that the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall not apply with respect to closed-end mortgage loans of an insured depository institution or insured credit union if it originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years. The Bureau proposed § 1003.3(d)(2) and comment 3(d)(2)-1 to implement this provision. As mentioned above, commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes to the proposed regulation text or commentary. As explained below, the Bureau is finalizing § 1003.3(d)(2) and comment 3(d)(2)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.3(d)(2) states that, except as provided in § 1003.3(d)(6), an insured depository institution or insured credit union that, in each of the two preceding calendar years, originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from part 1003 pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13) is not required to collect, record, or report optional data as defined in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) for applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases.
The EGRRCPA and HMDA do not define the term “closed-end mortgage loan” for purposes of HMDA section 304(i). They also do not specify whether the term includes loans that would otherwise not be subject to HMDA reporting under Regulation C, such as loans used primarily for agricultural purposes.
Comment 3(d)(2)-1 provides an illustrative example of how the closed-end partial exemption threshold works. For the reasons stated in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(d) above, comment 3(d)(2)-1 also provides a cross-reference to comments 4(a)-2 through -4 for guidance about the activities that constitute an origination.
HMDA section 304(i)(2) provides that the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall not apply with respect to open-end lines of credit of an insured depository institution or insured credit union if it originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The Bureau proposed § 1003.3(d)(3) and comment 3(d)(3)-1 to implement this provision. As mentioned above, commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes to the regulation text or commentary. The Bureau is finalizing § 1003.3(d)(3) and comment 3(d)(3)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.3(d)(3) provides that, except as provided in § 1003.3(d)(6), an insured depository institution or insured credit union that, in each of the two preceding calendar years, originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from part 1003 pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) is not required to collect, record, report, or disclose optional data as defined in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) for applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases.
The EGRRCPA and HMDA do not define the term “open-end line of credit” for purposes of HMDA section 304(i). They also do not specify whether the term includes lines of credit that would otherwise not be subject to HMDA reporting under Regulation C, such as loans used primarily for agricultural purposes.
Comment 3(d)(3)-1 provides a cross-reference to § 1003.3(c)(12) and comments 3(c)(12)-1 and -2, which provide an exclusion for certain open-end lines of credit from Regulation C and permit voluntary reporting of such transactions under certain circumstances. While the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit is in place for institutional and transactional coverage, all of the open-end lines of credit that are covered by the partial exemption for open-end lines of credit in HMDA section 304(i)(2) are completely excluded from the requirements of part 1003 under current §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v) and 1003.3(c)(12). For the reasons stated in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(d) above, comment 3(d)(3)-1 also provides a cross-reference to comments 4(a)-2 through -4 for guidance about the activities that constitute an origination.
Some data points required under Regulation C are reported using multiple data fields, such as the property address data point, which
As the 2018 HMDA Rule explains, whether a partial exemption applies to an institution's lending activity for a particular calendar year depends on an institution's origination activity in each of the preceding two years. In some cases, coverage therefore cannot be determined until just before data collection must begin for a calendar year. For example, whether a partial exemption applies to closed-end mortgage loans for which final action is taken in 2020 depends on the number of closed-end mortgage loans originated by the insured depository institution or insured credit union in 2018 and 2019. Thus, an insured depository institution or insured credit union might not know until the end of 2019 what information it needs to collect in 2020 and report in 2021. Some insured depository institutions and insured credit unions eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA may therefore find it less burdensome to report all of the data, including the exempt data points, than to separate the exempt data points from the required data points and exclude the exempt data points from their submissions.
Aspects of the Bureau's current HMDA platform used for receiving HMDA submissions, including edit checks
Section 1003.3(d)(4) incorporates the voluntary reporting interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C. Since issuing the 2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau has also received questions relating to voluntary reporting of property address under § 1003.4(a)(9)(i). The property address data point under § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) is covered by the partial exemptions and includes State as a data field, yet State is also a separate data point under § 1003.4(a)(9)(ii)(A) that is not covered by the partial exemptions. To address possible confusion, § 1003.3(d)(4) and comment 3(d)(4)(i)-1 include additional detail about voluntary reporting of property address.
Section 1003.3(d)(4) provides that a financial institution eligible for a partial exemption under § 1003.3(d)(2) or (3) may collect, record, and report optional data as defined in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) for a partially exempt transaction as though the institution were required to do so, provided that: (i) If the institution reports the street address, city name, or Zip Code for the property securing a covered loan, or in the case of an application, proposed to secure a covered loan pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9)(i), it reports all data that would be required by § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) if the transaction were not partially exempt; and (ii) If the institution reports any data for the transaction pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(15), (16), (17), (27), (33), or (35), it reports all data that would be required by § 1003.4(a)(15), (16), (17), (27), (33), or (35), respectively, if the transaction were not partially exempt.
Comment 3(d)(4)-1 provides an example of voluntary reporting that is permitted under § 1003.3(d)(4). Comment 3(d)(4)-2 addresses how financial institutions may handle partially exempt transactions within the same loan/application register. It explains that a financial institution may collect, record, and report optional data for some partially exempt transactions under § 1003.3(d) in the manner specified in § 1003.3(d)(4), even if it does not collect, record, and report optional data for other partially exempt transactions under § 1003.3(d).
Comment 3(d)(4)-3 addresses how to handle a transaction that is partially exempt pursuant to § 1003.3(d) and for which a particular requirement to report optional data is not applicable to the transaction. The comment explains that, in that circumstance, the insured depository institution or insured credit union complies with the particular requirement by reporting either that the transaction is exempt from the requirement or that the requirement is not applicable.
Comment 3(d)(4)(i)-1 explains that, if an institution eligible for a partial exemption under § 1003.3(d)(2) or (3) reports the street address, city name, or Zip Code for a partially exempt transaction pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9)(i), it reports all data that would be required by § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) if the transaction were not partially exempt, including the State. The comment also explains that an insured depository institution or insured credit union that reports the State pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9)(ii) or comment 4(a)(9)(ii)-1 for a partially exempt transaction without reporting any other data required by § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) is not required to report the street address, city name, or Zip Code pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9)(i). The Bureau believes that this comment will help to clarify that, even though State is a property address data field under § 1003.4(a)(9)(i), reporting State does not trigger the requirement to report other property address data fields under § 1003.3(d)(4)(i), because State is also a stand-alone data point under § 1003.4(a)(9)(ii)(A) that is not covered by the partial exemptions.
Pursuant to HMDA section 304(i), insured depository institutions and insured credit unions are not required to report a ULI for partially exempt transactions.
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interpreted ULI as used in HMDA section 304(b)(6)(G) to mean an identifier that is unique within the industry and required that the ULI include the Legal Entity Identifier of the institution that assigned the ULI. Although the EGRRCPA exempts certain transactions from the ULI requirement, loans and applications must be identifiable in the HMDA data to ensure proper HMDA submission, processing, and compliance.
To ensure the orderly administration of the HMDA program, § 1003.3(d)(5) and comments 3(d)(5)-1 and -2 incorporate the NULI requirements of the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C with minor adjustments. As the 2018 HMDA Rule explains, a NULI does not need to be unique within the industry and therefore does not need to include a Legal Entity Identifier as the ULI does. A check digit is not required as part of a NULI, as it is for a ULI under § 1003.4(a)(1)(i)(C), but may be voluntarily included in a NULI provided that the NULI, including the check digit, does not exceed 22 characters. Beyond these important differences, there are a number of similarities between the requirements for the ULI and those for the NULI. To the extent that NULI requirements resemble requirements for the ULI, the Bureau has conformed § 1003.3(d)(5) and its commentary to the corresponding text of existing § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) and its commentary for ease of reference and consistency.
Section 1003.3(d)(5) provides that, if, pursuant to § 1003.3(d)(2) or (3), a financial institution does not report a ULI pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) for an application for a covered loan that it receives, a covered loan that it originates, or a covered loan that it purchases, the financial institution shall assign and report a NULI. It further provides that, to identify the covered loan or application, the NULI must be composed of up to 22 characters, which:
• May be letters, numerals, or a combination of letters and numerals;
• Must be unique within the annual loan/application register in which the covered loan or application is included; and
• Must not include any information that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower.
Comment 3(d)(5)-1 explains the requirement that the NULI must be unique within the annual loan/application register in which the covered loan or application is included. Comment 3(d)(5)-2 clarifies the scope of information that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower for purposes of § 1003.3(d)(5)(iii), using the same language that appears in comment 4(a)(1)(i)-2 with respect to the ULI.
The final rule's requirements for the NULI are consistent with those in the 2018 HMDA Rule. However, the 2018 HMDA Rule states that the NULI must be “unique within the insured depository institution or credit union,” whereas § 1003.3(d)(5)(ii) states that the NULI must be “unique within the annual loan/application register in which the covered loan or application is included.” This adjustment and similar adjustments that appear in comment 3(d)(5)-1 clarify that the NULI must be unique within a financial institution's
The Bureau recognizes that some insured depository institutions and insured credit unions may prefer to report a ULI for partially exempt transactions even if they are not required to do so. As explained in the 2018 HMDA Rule and in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(d)(4) above and of § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) below, voluntary reporting of ULIs for partially exempt transactions is permissible under the EGRRCPA, and no NULI is required if a ULI is provided.
Notwithstanding the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, new HMDA section 304(i)(3) provides that an insured depository institution shall comply with HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) if the insured depository institution has received a rating of “needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs” during each of its two most recent examinations or a rating of “substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs” on its most recent examination under section 807(b)(2) of the CRA. To implement this provision, proposed § 1003.3(d)(6) provided that § 1003.3(d)(2) and (3) do not apply to an insured depository institution that, as of the preceding December 31, had received a rating of “needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs” during each of its two most recent examinations or a rating of “substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs” on its most recent examination under section 807(b)(2) of the CRA. As mentioned above, commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes. For the reasons explained below, the Bureau is finalizing comment 3(d)(6)-1 as proposed.
As the Bureau explained in the 2018 HMDA Rule, the EGRRCPA does not specify the date as of which an insured depository institution's two most recent CRA examinations must be assessed for purposes of the exception in HMDA section 304(i)(3). In the 2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interpreted HMDA section 304(i)(3) to require that this assessment be made as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year. This timing is consistent with the timing for assessing Regulation C's asset-size threshold and requirement that a financial institution have a home or branch office located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which are both assessed as of the preceding December 31.
Comment 3(d)(6)-1 explains that the preceding December 31 means the December 31 preceding the current calendar year. It includes the same example that was provided in the 2018 HMDA Rule to illustrate how the exception works, with minor wording changes for clarity.
Section 1003.4(a) requires financial institutions to collect specific data about covered loans, applications for covered loans, and purchases of covered loans. The EGRRCPA provides partial exemptions from this requirement for certain transactions of insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. To conform to the EGRRCPA, the Bureau proposed to amend the introductory paragraph of § 1003.4(a) to indicate that the requirement to collect the data identified in § 1003.4(a) is applicable except as specified in proposed § 1003.3(d), which would implement the new partial exemptions. The Bureau also proposed to make a similar change to comment 4(a)-1. The Bureau requested comment on these proposed amendments and the other proposed amendments to § 1003.4(a) relating to the partial exemptions that are discussed below. Commenters that discussed the proposed amendments relating to EGRRCPA generally expressed support for the Bureau's implementation of section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and did not suggest any changes to the proposed regulation text and commentary relating to the partial exemptions.
Section 1003.4(a)(1)(i) generally requires a financial institution to assign and report a ULI for the covered loan or application that can be used to identify and retrieve the covered loan or application file. As explained in the 2018 HMDA Rule and the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(d)(5) above, a financial institution is not required to assign and report a ULI for a partially exempt transaction if it instead assigns and reports a NULI. The Bureau proposed amendments to section 4(a)(1)(i) and comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3, -4, and -6 relating to the NULI. Only one commenter, a national trade association, specifically addressed the proposed amendments relating to the NULI, and it expressed support. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is finalizing § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) and comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3, -4, and -6 as proposed.
To incorporate the NULI into Regulation C, the final rule amends § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) to indicate that, for a partially exempt transaction under § 1003.3(d), the data collected shall include either a ULI or a NULI as described in § 1003.3(d)(5), and that a financial institution does not need to assign and report a ULI for a partially exempt transaction for which a NULI is assigned and reported under § 1003.3(d).
The final rule also amends comment 4(a)(1)(i)-3 to indicate that the requirement to report the same ULI that was previously assigned or reported for purchased covered loans does not apply if the purchase of the covered loan is a
The final rule also amends comment 4(a)(1)(i)-4 to clarify the example provided in that comment of how ULIs are assigned if a financial institution reconsiders an application that was reported in a prior calendar year. The amendments clarify that the example assumes that the financial institution reported a ULI rather than a NULI in 2020 for the initial denied application and that the financial institution then made an origination that is not partially exempt when it reconsidered in 2021 the previously denied application.
The final rule also adds a new comment 4(a)(1)(i)-6 explaining that, for a partially exempt transaction under § 1003.3(d), a financial institution may report a ULI or a NULI. The comment cross-references § 1003.3(d)(5) and comments 3(d)(5)-1 and -2 for guidance on the NULI. The Bureau believes that these changes will help clarify financial institutions' responsibilities in assigning identifiers to partially exempt transactions.
Section 1003.4(a)(1)(ii) generally requires financial institutions to collect the date the application was received or the date shown on the application form. Current comment 4(a)(1)(ii)-3 explains that, if, within the same calendar year, an applicant asks a financial institution to reinstate a counteroffer that the applicant previously did not accept (or asks the institution to reconsider an application that was denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness), the institution may treat that request as the continuation of the earlier transaction using the same ULI or as a new transaction with a new ULI. The Bureau believes that it is appropriate to apply the same approach with respect to NULIs and proposed to amend comment 4(a)(1)(ii)-3 to reference both ULIs and NULIs. Only one commenter, a national trade association, specifically addressed the proposed amendments relating to the NULI, and it expressed support for the NULI modifications generally. The Bureau is finalizing comment 4(a)(1)(ii)-3 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(9) generally requires a financial institution to report the property address of the location of the property securing a covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure a covered loan (property address), as well as the State, the county, and in some cases the census tract of the property if the property is located in an MSA or Metropolitan Division (MD) in which the financial institution has a home or branch office, or if the institution is subject to § 1003.4(e). Comment 4(a)(9)-2 addresses situations involving multiple properties with more than one property taken as security. The comment explains that, if an institution is required to report specific information about the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) by another section of Regulation C such as, for example, § 1003.4(a)(29) or (30), the institution reports the information that relates to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9). The Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(9)-2 to clarify that, in this circumstance, if the transaction is partially exempt under § 1003.3(d) and no data are reported pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9), the institution reports the information that relates to the property that the institution would have identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) if the transaction were not partially exempt. This would mean that, for a partially exempt transaction in which more than one property is taken as security and no data are reported under § 1003.4(a)(9), a financial institution should choose one of the properties taken as a security that contains a dwelling and provide information about that property if the institution is required to report specific information about the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) by one or more other sections of Regulation C. The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(9)-2 as proposed. The Bureau believes that this amendment will assist financial institutions in applying comment 4(a)(9)-2 to partially exempt transactions.
Section 1003.4(a)(9)(i) generally requires a financial institution to report the property address. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(9)(i)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report property address does not apply to partially exempt transactions under § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(9)(i)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(12) generally requires a financial institution to report the rate spread for covered loans and applications that are approved but not accepted, and that are subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, other than assumptions, purchased covered loans, and reverse mortgages. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(12)-7 to provide that § 1003.4(a)(12) does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(12)-7 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(15) generally requires financial institutions to report the credit score or scores relied on in making the credit decision and information about the scoring model used to generate each score. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(15)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the credit score or scores relied on in making the credit decision and information about the scoring model used to generate each score does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(15)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(16) generally requires financial institutions to report the principal reason(s) for denial of an application. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(16)-4 to clarify that the requirement to report the principal reason(s) for denial of an application does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt
Section 1003.4(a)(17) generally requires that, for covered loans subject to Regulation Z § 1026.43(c), a financial institution shall report the amount of total loan costs if a disclosure is provided for the covered loan pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), or the total points and fees charged in connection with the covered loan if the covered loan is not subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f). To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comments 4(a)(17)(i)-1 and (ii)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report total loan costs or total points and fees, as applicable, does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendments and is finalizing comments 4(a)(17)(i)-1 and (ii)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(18) generally requires financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the total of all borrower-paid origination charges. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(18)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report borrower-paid origination charges does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(18)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(19) generally requires financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the points paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(19)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report discount points does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(19)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(20) generally requires financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the amount of lender credits. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(20)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report lender credits does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(20)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(21) generally requires financial institutions to report the interest rate applicable to the approved application or to the covered loan at closing or account opening. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(21)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report interest rate does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(21)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(22) generally requires financial institutions to report the term in months of any prepayment penalty for covered loans or applications subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(22)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the term of any prepayment penalty does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(22)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(23) generally requires financial institutions to report the ratio of the applicant's or borrower's total monthly debt to the total monthly income relied on in making the credit decision (debt-to-income ratio). To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(23)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the debt-to-income ratio does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(23)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(24) generally requires financial institutions to report the ratio of the total amount of debt secured by the property to the value of the property relied on in making the credit decision (combined loan-to-value ratio). To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(24)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the combined loan-to-value ratio does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(24)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(25) generally requires financial institutions to report the scheduled number of months after which the legal obligation will mature or terminate or would have matured or terminated (loan term). To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(25)-5 to clarify that the requirement to report loan term does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(25)-5 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(26) generally requires financial institutions to report the number of months, or proposed number of months in the case of an application, from the closing or account opening until the first date the interest rate may change. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(26)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the number of months, or proposed number of months in the case of an application, from closing or account opening until the first date the interest rate may change does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(26)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(27) generally requires financial institutions to report contractual features that would allow payments other than fully amortizing payments. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(27)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report contractual features that would allow payments other than fully
Section 1003.4(a)(28) generally requires financial institutions to report the value of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan relied on in making the credit decision. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(28)-1 to clarify that the requirement to report the property value relied on in making the credit decision does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(28)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(29) generally requires financial institutions to report whether a covered loan or application is or would have been secured by a manufactured home and land or by a manufactured home and not land. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(29)-4 to clarify that the requirement to report whether a covered loan or application is or would have been secured by a manufactured home and land or by a manufactured home and not land does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(29)-4 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(30) generally requires financial institutions to report whether the applicant or borrower owns the land on which a manufactured home is or will be located through a direct or indirect ownership interest or leases the land through a paid or unpaid leasehold interest. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(30)-6 to clarify that the requirement to report ownership or leasing information on the manufactured home land property interest does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(30)-6 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(32) generally requires financial institutions to report information on the number of individual dwelling units in multifamily dwellings that are income-restricted pursuant to Federal, State, or local affordable housing programs. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(32)-6 to clarify that the requirement to report information on the number of individual dwelling units in multifamily dwellings that are income-restricted pursuant to Federal, State, or local affordable housing programs does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(32)-6 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(33) generally requires financial institutions to report whether the applicant or borrower submitted the application for the covered loan directly to the financial institution and whether the obligation arising from the covered loan was, or in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to the financial institution. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comments 4(a)(33)(i)-1 and (33)(ii)-1 to clarify that the requirement for financial institutions to report whether the applicant or borrower submitted the application for the covered loan directly to the financial institution and whether the obligation arising from the covered loan was, or in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to the financial institution, does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendments and is finalizing comments 4(a)(33)(i)-1 and (33)(ii)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(34) generally requires financial institutions to report the unique identifier assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR ID) for the mortgage loan originator. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(34)-1 to clarify that the requirement for financial institutions to report the NMLSR ID does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(34)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(35) generally requires financial institutions to report the name of the automated underwriting system (AUS) used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and the result generated by that AUS. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(35)-1 to clarify that the requirement for financial institutions to report the name of the AUS used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that AUS does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(35)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(37) requires financial institutions to identify whether the covered loan or the application is for an open-end line of credit. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(37)-1 to clarify that the requirement for financial institutions to identify whether the covered loan or the application is for an open-end line of credit does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(37)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(38) requires financial institutions to identify whether the covered loan is, or the application is for a covered loan that will be, made primarily for a business or commercial purpose. To implement the EGRRCPA's partial exemptions, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(38)-1 to clarify that the requirement for financial institutions to identify whether the covered loan is, or the application is for a covered loan that will be, made primarily for a business or commercial purpose does not apply to transactions that are partially exempt under proposed § 1003.3(d). The Bureau received no comments on the proposed amendment and is finalizing comment 4(a)(38)-1 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(e) provides that banks and savings associations that are required to report data on small business, small farm, and community development lending under regulations that implement the CRA shall also collect the information required by § 1003.4(a)(9) for property located outside MSAs and Metropolitan Divisions (MDs) in which the institution has a home or branch office, or outside any MSA. Section 1003.4(e) requires collection only of the information required by § 1003.4(a)(9)(ii) regarding the location of the property by State, county, and census tract because § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) itself requires collection of property address regardless of whether the property is located in an MSA or MD.
The Bureau proposed that amendments to incorporate the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implement section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA would take effect on January 1, 2020. The Bureau explained in the May 2019 Proposal that this would allow stakeholders to benefit without significant delay from the additional certainty and clarity that the Regulation C amendments will provide regarding the EGRRCPA partial exemptions that are already in effect.
The Bureau proposed that the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for institutional and transactional coverage would take effect on January 1, 2020. This effective date corresponds to the date when the initial temporary open-end coverage threshold established in the 2017 HMDA Rule is otherwise set to expire. The Bureau did not receive any comments on the proposed effective date for the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. The Bureau is finalizing these effective dates as proposed.
The Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the final rule.
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere throughout this supplementary information, in this rulemaking the Bureau is incorporating into Regulation C, which implements HMDA, the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule and implementing further section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA. The Bureau is also amending Regulation C, effective January 1, 2020, to extend for a period of two additional years the current data reporting threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit.
The final rule contains regulatory or commentary language (provisions). The discussion below considers the benefits, costs, and impacts of the following major provisions of the final rule to:
1. Incorporate the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implement section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA, which grants eligible financial institutions partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain transactions; and
2. Extend for a period of two years, specifically calendar years 2020 and 2021, the current data reporting threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
With respect to each major provision, the discussion considers the benefits, costs, and impacts to consumers and covered persons. The discussion also addresses comments the Bureau received on the proposed Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis, as well as certain other comments on the benefits or costs of the relevant provisions of the May 2019 Proposal that the Bureau is finalizing in this rule, when doing so is helpful to understanding the Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis. Some comments that mentioned the benefits or costs of a provision of the May 2019 Proposal in the context of commenting on the merits of that provision are addressed in the relevant section-by-section analysis, above. In this respect, the Bureau's discussion under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) is not limited to this discussion in part VII of the final notice.
The Bureau has discretion in any rulemaking to choose an appropriate scope of analysis with respect to potential benefits, costs, and impacts and an appropriate baseline. The two sets of provisions included in this final rule are distinct from one another and hence the Bureau has chosen a different baseline for each of the provisions: (1) To avoid double-counting the impacts assessed for each set of provisions, and (2) to provide the clearest exposition of the effects of the Bureau's actions in this final rule and in implementing the EGRRCPA in the 2018 HMDA Rule. However, summed together, the impact estimates for the two sets of provisions as analyzed in this part form the total estimated impact for the final rule corresponding to a baseline where the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule were in effect prior to the EGRRCPA.
For purposes of this analysis, we refer to the first set of provisions in the final rule as those that incorporate the
For the purposes of this analysis, we refer to the second set of provisions in this final rule as those that extend for two years, until January 1, 2022, the current temporary open-end coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. In the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau granted two-year temporary relief (specifically, for 2018 and 2019) for financial institutions that did not originate at least 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The 2017 HMDA Rule provides that, absent any future rulemaking, the open-end coverage threshold will revert to 100 open-end lines of credit, as in the 2015 HMDA Rule, starting in 2020. This final rule extends the current temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years for two more years (specifically, 2020 and 2021).
Meanwhile, the EGRRCPA's partial exemption for open-end lines of credit of eligible insured depository institutions and insured credit unions took effect on May 24, 2018. The temporary increase in the open-end coverage threshold adopted in the 2017 HMDA Rule would automatically expire without this current or other rulemaking effort and some insured depository institutions and insured credit unions are now eligible for a partial exemption for open-end lines of credit. Therefore, for the consideration of benefits and costs of this provision the Bureau is adopting a baseline in which the open-end coverage threshold starting in year 2020 is reset at 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years with some depository institutions and credit unions partially exempt under the EGRRCPA.
Both sets of provisions apply to certain financial institutions and relieve these financial institutions from HMDA's requirements for either all or certain data points regarding closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit that they originate or purchase, or for which they receive applications, as described further in each section below. In short, the implementation of the EGRRCPA would affect certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions with origination volumes below certain thresholds, while the rest of the final rule would affect all financial institutions below certain thresholds and not just insured depository institutions and insured credit unions.
This discussion relies on data that the Bureau has obtained from industry, other regulatory agencies, and publicly available sources. However, as discussed further below, the Bureau's ability to fully quantify the potential costs, benefits, and impacts of this final rule is limited in some instances by a scarcity of necessary data.
This final rule relates to the financial institutions, transactions, and data points that are exempted or excluded from HMDA's reporting requirements. Both sets of provisions in this final rule are designed to reduce the regulatory burdens on covered persons while minimizing the impact on the ability of HMDA data to serve the statute's purposes. Therefore, the benefits of these provisions to covered persons are mainly the reduction of the costs to covered persons relative to the compliance costs the covered persons would have to incur under each baseline scenario.
The Bureau's 2015 HMDA Rule, as well as the 2014 proposed rule for the 2015 HMDA Rule and the material provided to the Small Business Review Panel leading to the 2015 HMDA Rule, presented a basic framework of analyzing compliance costs for HMDA reporting, including ongoing costs and one-time costs for financial institutions. Based on the Bureau's study of the HMDA compliance process and costs, with the help of additional information gathered and verified through the Small Business Review Panel process, the Bureau classified the operational activities that financial institutions use for HMDA data collection and reporting into 18 discrete compliance “tasks” which can be grouped into four “primary tasks.”
The Bureau realizes that costs vary by institution due to many factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and that this variance exists on a continuum that is impossible to fully represent. To consider costs in a practical and meaningful way, in the 2015 HMDA Rule the Bureau adopted an approach that focused on three representative tiers of financial institutions. In particular, to capture the relationships between operational complexity and compliance cost, the Bureau used these seven dimensions to define three broadly representative financial institutions according to the overall level of complexity of their compliance operations. Tier 1 denotes a representative financial institution with the highest level of complexity, tier 2 denotes a representative financial institution with a moderate level of complexity, and tier 3 denotes a representative financial institution with the lowest level of complexity. For each tier, the Bureau developed a separate set of assumptions and cost estimates.
Table 1 below provides an overview of all three representative tiers across the seven dimensions of compliance operations:
For a representative institution in each tier, in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau produced a series of estimates of the costs of compliance, including the ongoing costs that financial institutions incurred prior to the implementation of the 2015 HMDA Rule, and the changes to the ongoing costs due to the 2015 HMDA Rule. The Bureau further provided the breakdown of the changes to the ongoing costs due to each major provision in the 2015 HMDA Rule, which includes the changes to the scope of the institutional coverage, the change to the scope of the transactional coverage, the revisions to the existing data points (as before the 2015 HMDA Rule) and the addition of new data points by the 2015 HMDA Rule.
For the impact analysis in this final rule, the Bureau is utilizing the cost estimates provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule for the representative financial institution in each of the three tiers, with some updates, mainly to reflect the inflation rate, and in the case of the set of provisions implementing the partial exemptions under the EGRRCPA, to align the partially exempt data points (and data fields used to report these data points) with the cost impact analyses discussed in the impact analyses for the 2015 HMDA Rule. The Bureau's analyses below also take into account the operational improvements that have been implemented by the Bureau regarding HMDA reporting since the issuance of the 2015 HMDA Rule. The details of such analyses are contained in the following sections addressing the two sets of provisions of this final rule.
The Bureau received a number of comments relating to the benefits to covered persons of the May 2019 Proposal, which it has considered in finalizing this rule. Many industry commenters reported that they expend substantial resources on HMDA compliance that could instead be used for other purposes or that they have structured their lines of business to ensure they are not required to report under HMDA. Some cited, for example, the burden of establishing procedures, purchasing reporting software, and training staff to comply with HMDA, and noted that compliance can be particularly difficult for smaller institutions with limited staff. A trade association commented that the Bureau's estimates do not account for the reduction in examination burdens and the resources diverted to HMDA compliance from other more productive activities. It also asserted that the Bureau's burden analysis did not properly address data security costs associated with HMDA collection and reporting. Another trade association suggested that the three-tiered approach to estimating costs does not seem to account for the unique challenges of adapting business and multifamily lending to HMDA regulations and HMDA reporting infrastructure designed with single-family consumer mortgage lending in mind.
In their comments, consumer groups, civil rights groups, and other nonprofit organizations stated that Federal agency fair lending and CRA exams will become more burdensome for Federal agencies and the HMDA-exempt lenders since the agencies will now have to ask
The Bureau has considered these comments and concludes that they do not undermine the Bureau's approach or cost parameters used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal. For example, the activities that many industry commenters described as burdensome in their comments—including scrubbing data, training personnel, and preparing for HMDA-related examinations—are consistent with and captured by the 18 discrete compliance “tasks” that the Bureau identified through its study of the HMDA compliance process and costs in the 2015 HMDA rulemaking. As part of its analysis, the Bureau also recognized that costs vary by institution due to many factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and adopted a tiered framework to capture the relationships between operational complexity and compliance cost. While some products are more costly than others to report, the three-tiered framework uses representative institutions to capture this type of variability and estimate overall costs of HMDA reporting. In estimating compliance costs associated with HMDA reporting through this framework, the Bureau also recognized that much of the information required for HMDA reporting is information that financial institutions would need to collect, retain, and secure as part of their lending process, even if they were not subject to HMDA reporting. The Bureau therefore does not believe that the comments received provide a basis for departing from the approach for analyzing costs and benefits for covered persons used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal.
The next step of the Bureau's consideration of the reduction of costs for covered persons involved aggregating the institution-level estimates of the cost reduction under each set of provisions up to the market-level. This aggregation required estimates of the total number of potentially impacted financial institutions and their total number of loan/application register records. The Bureau used a wide range of data in conducting this task, including recent HMDA data,
To perform the aggregation, the Bureau mapped the potentially impacted financial institutions to the three tiers described above. For each of the provisions analyzed, the Bureau assumed none of the changes would affect the high-complexity tier 1 reporters. The Bureau then assigned the potentially impacted financial institutions to either tier 2 or tier 3. In doing so, the Bureau relied on two constraints: (1) The estimated number of impacted institutions in tiers 2 and 3, combined, must equal the estimated number of impacted institutions for the applicable provision, and (2) the number of loan/application register records submitted annually by the impacted financial institutions in tiers 2 and 3, combined, must equal the estimated number of loan/application register records for the applicable provision. As in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau assumed for closed-end reporting that a representative low-complexity, tier 3 financial institution has 50 closed-end mortgage loan HMDA loan/application register records per year and a representative tier 2 financial institution has 1,000 closed-end mortgage loan HMDA loan/application register records per year. Similarly, the Bureau assumed for open-end reporting that a representative low-complexity, tier 3 financial institution has 150 open-end HMDA loan/application register records per year and a representative tier 2 financial institution has 1,000 open-end HMDA loan/application register records per year. Constraining the total number of impacted institutions and the number of impacted loan/application register records across tier 2 and tier 3 to the aggregate estimates thus enables the Bureau to calculate the approximate numbers of impacted institutions in tiers 2 and 3 for each set of provisions.
Multiplying the impact estimates for representative financial institutions in each tier by the estimated number of impacted institutions, the Bureau arrived at the market-level estimates.
In general, and as discussed in part VII.D.1 above, both sets of provisions in this final rule will reduce the ongoing operational costs associated with HMDA reporting for the affected covered persons. In the interim, it is possible that to adapt to the rule, covered persons may incur certain one-time costs. Such one-time costs are mostly related to training and system changes in covered persons' HMDA reporting/loan origination systems. Based on the Bureau's outreach to industry, however, the Bureau believes that such one-time costs are fairly small. Commenters did not indicate that there would be significant costs to covered persons associated with the temporary extension of the open-end coverage threshold or the manner in which the Bureau proposed to implement the EGRRCPA provisions.
Having generated estimates of the changes in ongoing costs and one-time costs to covered financial institutions, the Bureau then can attempt to estimate the potential pass-through of such cost reduction from these institutions to consumers, which could benefit consumers. According to economic theory, in a perfectly competitive market where financial institutions are profit maximizers, the affected financial institutions would pass on to consumers the marginal,
The Bureau requested additional comments on the potential pass-through from financial institutions to consumers due to the reduction in reporting costs. A trade association commented that it believed that the proposed higher thresholds will move mortgage markets to more perfect competition. It suggested that institutions that currently manage their origination volumes to stay below HMDA reporting thresholds will be incentivized to increase operations and that, by being able to offer savings on fees and pricing, and by being more competitive due to lower productions costs, smaller banks will be able to enter the mortgage market at more profitable levels. However, this comment did not provide specific estimates that the Bureau can utilize in refining the analyses.
HMDA is a sunshine statute. The purposes of HMDA are to provide the public with loan data that can be used: (i) To help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities; (ii) to assist public officials in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed; and (iii) to assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
The Bureau has received a number of comments emphasizing the loss of the HMDA benefits from decreased information lenders would report under HMDA due to the May 2019 Proposal. For example, a group of 148 local and national organizations stated that raising reporting thresholds will lead to another round of abusive and discriminatory lending similar to abuses that occurred in the years before the financial crisis. These commenters also stated that the general public, researchers, and Federal agencies will have an incomplete picture of lending trends in thousands of census tracts and neighborhoods if affected institutions no longer report HMDA data. Additionally, a State attorney general stated that the May 2019 Proposal failed to fully account for the harms that would be imposed by the proposal, including the costs to States in losing access to helpful data. However, none of these commenters provided specific quantifiable estimates of the loss of benefits from decreased information lenders would report under HMDA.
Because quantifying and monetizing benefits of HMDA to consumers would require identifying all possible uses of HMDA data, establishing causal links to the resulting public benefits, and then quantifying the magnitude of these benefits, the Bureau mostly presented qualitative analyses regarding HMDA benefits in the 2015 HMDA Rule. For instance, quantification would require measuring the impact of increased transparency on financial institution behavior, the need for public and private investment, the housing needs of communities, the number of financial institutions potentially engaging in discriminatory or predatory behavior, and the number of consumers currently being unfairly disadvantaged and the level of quantifiable damage from such disadvantage. Similarly, for the impact analyses of this final rule, the Bureau is unable to readily quantify the loss of some of the HMDA benefits to consumers with precision, both because the Bureau does not have the data to quantify all HMDA benefits and because the Bureau is not able to assess completely how this final rule will reduce those benefits.
In light of these data limitations, the discussion below generally provides a qualitative (not quantitative) consideration of the costs,
In this section, the Bureau presents a concise, high-level table summarizing the benefits and costs considered in the remainder of the discussion. This table is not intended to capture all details and nuances that are provided both in the rest of the analysis and in the section-by-section discussion above. Instead, it provides an overview of the major benefits and costs of the final rule, including the provisions to be analyzed, the baseline chosen for each set of provisions, the sub-provisions to be analyzed, the implementation dates of the sub-provisions, the annual savings on the operational costs of covered persons due to the sub-provision, the changes to the one-time costs of covered persons due to the sub-provision, and generally how the provisions in the final rule affect HMDA's benefits.
The final rule incorporates the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implements the EGRRCPA provision that adds partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions.
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that, under section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA, as implemented by the 2018 HMDA Rule and further implemented by the May 2019 Proposal, approximately 3,300 insured depository institutions and insured credit unions
The majority of the analyses in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal were conducted prior to the official submission deadline of the 2018 HMDA data on March 1, 2019, and 2017 was the most recent year of HMDA data the Bureau used for the analyses in the May 2019 Proposal. For this final rule, the Bureau supplemented the analyses with the 2018 HMDA data, which was released to the public on August 30, 2019. The 2018 HMDA data reflects that about 2,200 reporters used a partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit and about 425,000 loan/application register records, including 298,000 originations, have one or more data points reported as exempt. It is possible that some of reporters, even though eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA, chose to report in full the data points that are exempt under the EGRRCPA. This may particularly be the case because the EGRRCPA partial exemptions only went into effect in May 2018, and uncertainty or administrative burden around midyear implementation may have reduced participation in the optional partial exemption. At any rate, the Bureau continues to believe that its initial estimates provided in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal were and are reasonable. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Bureau is providing in this analysis two separate
For the open-end lines of credit, the 2017 HMDA Rule grants a complete exclusion for two years (specifically, 2018 and 2019) for reporting open-end lines of credit for all institutions that originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years. As such, insured depository institutions or insured credit unions that originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years and are partially exempt under the EGRRCPA are already completely excluded from HMDA's requirements for open-end lines of credit during 2018 and 2019 under the 2017 HMDA Rule. In other words, for the years 2018 and 2019, the partial exemption for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA has no immediate effect given the temporary 500 open-end coverage threshold established by the 2017 HMDA Rule.
The 2017 HMDA Rule provides that, absent any future rulemaking, the open-end coverage threshold will revert to 100 open-end lines of credit as established in the 2015 HMDA Rule, starting in 2020. Therefore, with the 2017 HMDA Rule and pre-EGRRCPA as the baseline, the effects of the EGRRCPA on open-end reporting would manifest starting in 2020. In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that, by 2020, absent other rulemakings, about 595 insured depository institutions or credit unions would be required to report open-end lines of credit at the 100 open-end coverage threshold and eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA.
Importantly, because the open-end lines of credit flag is one of the exempt data points under the EGRRCPA partial exemptions, it is not possible for the Bureau to identify which 2018 HMDA loan/application register records that reflect an EGRRCPA partial exemption for this data point are closed-end transactions and which are open-end transactions.
Nevertheless, the Bureau continues to believe that its original estimate provided in the May 2019 Proposal of the number of open-end reporters that would be eligible for a partial exemption with respect to open-end lines of credit if the open-end reporting threshold were to revert to 100 was and is reasonable. Hence, the Bureau is estimating in this final rule that in 2020 and 2021, relative to the baseline discussed above,
The partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans in the EGRRCPA that this final rule implements conveys a direct benefit to the covered persons who are eligible for such exemption by reducing the ongoing costs of having to report certain data points that were previously required.
The Bureau's 2015 HMDA Rule and 2017 HMDA Rule, which define the rules under the baseline for the analyses of this set of provisions, require financial institutions to report a total of 48 data points beginning with the data collected in 2018 and reported in 2019. These data points contain 110 data fields.
With the exception of denial reasons (which were previously optionally reported prior to the 2015 HMDA Rule, except that certain financial institutions supervised by the OCC and the FDIC were required to report denial reasons) and rate spread, all of the data points (and data fields) that are partially exempt under the EGRRCPA as implemented by the 2018 HMDA Rule and this final rule correspond to data points (and data fields) that the Bureau added to the HMDA reporting as
The analysis under section 1022(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act in the 2015 HMDA Rule noted that the Bureau was adding 50 new data fields with new data points that previously did not exist under Regulation C. To estimate the costs that financial institutions would incur in collecting and reporting these data, the Bureau used a cost-accounting, case-study methodology which involved an extensive set of interviews with financial institutions and their vendors through which the Bureau identified 18 component tasks involved in collecting and reporting HMDA data and estimated the number of person-hours required and the costs of each task for institutions of various levels of complexity. The Bureau augmented this information through the Small Business Review Panel process and through notice and comment on its proposed cost estimates, as well as through a review of academic literature and public data. Based on the information gathered in this process, the Bureau estimated that the impact of the additional 50 data fields on annual operational costs of covered person for closed-end reporting would be approximately $2,100, $10,900, and $31,000 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 financial institutions, respectively, after accounting for the operational improvements that the Bureau was planning to implement regarding how the Bureau receives and processes submitted data.
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau specifically requested information relating to the costs financial institutions incurred in collecting and reporting 2018 data in compliance with the 2015 HMDA Rule that may be valuable in estimating costs in the Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis issued with the final rule. The Bureau received a number of comments regarding the costs of collecting and reporting data in compliance with the 2015 HMDA Rule. Although most comments did not provide specific cost estimates of compliance, one small financial institution commented that it was expending approximately $12,000 in employee expenses alone to generate its loan/application register or approximately $68-100 per loan/application register record. Based on the information provided by this commenter, the Bureau estimates the annual loan/application register size for this commenter is between 175 and 200 records, which is close to the Bureau's assumption for a representative low-complexity, tier 3 financial institution in the estimates provided in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Specifically, the Bureau estimated that for a representative low-complexity, tier 3 financial institution with 50 HMDA loan/application register records, the total ongoing costs with operational improvements the Bureau has implemented since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule would be about $4,400, or about $88 per loan/application register record. Therefore, the Bureau believes the cost estimates that the commenter provided confirms the Bureau's cost-estimates in the 2015 HMDA Rule were and are reasonable, and therefore can serve as the basis of the cost estimates for this final rule.
Additionally, in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau assumed a representative medium-complexity, tier 2 financial institution had 1,000 HMDA loan/application register records per year while a high-complexity, tier 1 financial institution had 50,000 HMDA loan/application register records per year. The partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans granted under the EGRRCPA and that this final rule implements applies only to insured depository institutions and insured credit unions that originated less than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years prior to the HMDA collection year. Given that and the Bureau's characterization of representative financial institutions in the three tiers, the Bureau believes that none of the tier 1 institutions are partially exempt for closed-end reporting.
As explained in the May 2019 Proposal, some of the estimated partially exempt covered persons would be low-complexity/tier 3 institutions, while some would belong to tier 2. Under the estimates provided in the May 2019 Proposal, which the Bureau continues to believe are reasonable, the Bureau estimates that of the 3,300 institutions expected to be impacted, approximately 2,640 institutions eligible for the partial exemption from closed-end reporting are similar to the representative tier 3 financial institutions and approximately 660 eligible institutions belong to tier 2. Based on these counts, the Bureau estimates that the aggregate savings in ongoing operational costs for covered persons due to the EGRRCPA's partial exemption from closed-end reporting would be approximately $13.9 million annually.
Alternatively, if the Bureau were to assume that the number of impacted institutions remains at 2,200, which was the actual number of reporters that used the partial exemption in the 2018 HMDA data, approximately 1,850 institutions eligible for the partial exemption from closed-end reporting are similar to the representative tier 3 financial institutions and approximately
Combining these two sets of estimates, the Bureau estimates that the aggregate savings in ongoing costs for covered persons due to the EGRRCPA's partial exemption from closed-end reporting would be between approximately $8.4 million and $13.9 million annually.
Starting in 2020,
In the impact analysis of the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau estimated that, accounting for the Bureau's planned operational improvements, the estimated impact of the 2015 HMDA Rule on ongoing operational costs on open-end reporters would be approximately $8,600, $43,400, and $273,000 per year, for representative low-, moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively. The Bureau takes such 2015 estimates on the annual ongoing costs associated with open-end reporting, prorates the amount to account for the reduced number of data fields required due to the EGRRCPA partial exemption, adjusts those for inflation, and arrives at a set of estimates for the savings on the operational costs of reporting information on open-end lines of credit due to the partial exemption for representative firms in each of the three tiers. Specifically, the Bureau estimates that the impact on the savings on annual operational costs from not reporting the 52 data fields for open-end mortgage loans that are exempt under the EGRRCPA would be approximately $4,500, $22,800, and $144,000 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 open-end reporting financial institutions that are eligible for the partial exemption.
The Bureau estimates that, absent the temporary extension of the open-end coverage threshold at 500 for two additional years in this final rule, about 600
On the other hand, because the numbers of open-end line of credit applications and purchased loans were not available in any data sources prior to the 2018 HMDA data, the Bureau relied on the projected number of open-end originations as a proxy for the projected number of open-end line of credit loan/application register records (comprising originations, applications not originated, and purchased loans)
According to the Bureau's estimates in the May 2019 Proposal, about 545 of those 595 partially exempt open-end reporters are low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 50 are moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters. According to the Bureau's updated estimates, about 350 of those approximately 600 partially exempt open-end reporters are low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 250 are moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters.
It is possible that, like any new regulation or revision to the existing
The Bureau did not receive comments on any costs to eligible financial institutions associated with the May 2019 Proposal relating to the incorporation of the EGRRCPA into Regulation C.
Having generated estimates of the reduction in ongoing costs for closed-end mortgage loans on financial institutions due to the EGRRCPA partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans implemented by this final rule, the Bureau can estimate the potential pass-through of such cost reduction from these institutions to consumers,
The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the 50 data fields of the new data points required under the 2015 HMDA Rule would add variable costs per application for closed-end mortgage loans of approximately $22 for a representative tier 3 financial institution, $0.62 for a representative tier 2 financial institution, and $0.05 for a representative tier 1 financial institution.
Similarly, having generated estimates of the reduction in ongoing costs for open-end mortgage loans on financial institutions due to the EGRRCPA partial exemption for open-end lines of credit implemented in this final rule, the Bureau can estimate the potential pass-through of such cost reduction from these institutions to consumers, which could benefit consumers.
The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the rule would increase variable costs by $41.50 per open-end line of credit application for representative low-complexity institutions and $6.20 per open-end line of credit application for representative moderate-complexity institutions. Accounting for the difference in the number of the data fields that are partially exempt under the EGRRCPA and the total number of data fields that comprise all data points under the 2015 HMDA Rule, and adjusting for inflation, the Bureau estimates that the partial exemption under the EGRRCPA and this final rule would reduce the variable cost per open-end line of credit application for a representative tier 3 financial institution by about $22 and for a representative tier 2 financial institution by about $3. These savings on the variable costs by the partially exempt open-end reporters could potentially be passed through to consumers, under the assumption of a perfectly competitive market with profit maximizing firms. These expenses will be amortized over the life of a loan and represent a very small amount relative to the cost of a mortgage loan. The Bureau notes that the market structure in the consumer mortgage lending market may differ from that of a perfectly competitive market (for instance due to information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers) in which case the pass-through to the consumers would most likely be smaller than the pass-through under the perfect competition assumption.
The partial exemptions under the EGRRCPA and further implemented through this final rule remove the reporting requirements for 26 data points for certain transactions of eligible insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. As a result, regulators, public officials, and members of the public will lose information about the credit offered by these partially exempt institutions and overall credit in the communities they serve. The decreased information about partially exempt financial institutions may lead to adverse outcomes for some consumers. For instance, some of the exempt data points could have helped the regulators and public officials better understand the type of funds that are flowing from lenders to consumers and the needs of consumers for mortgage credit. Additionally, some exempt data points could improve the processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. In addition, without the exempt data regarding, for example, underwriting and pricing, some lenders with low fair lending risk may be initially misidentified as high risk, potentially increasing their associated compliance burden. Finally, to the extent that some covered persons may use the information reported by other financial institutions for market research purposes, the partial exemptions may potentially lead to less vigorous competition from these institutions. The Bureau has no quantitative data that can sufficiently measure the magnitude of this impact.
The final rule extends the temporary open-end coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for two additional years (2020 and 2021).
The 2015 HMDA Rule generally requires financial institutions that originated at least 100 open-end lines of
The Bureau has used multiple data sources, including credit union Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and thrifts, HMDA data, and Consumer Credit Panel data, to develop estimates about open-end originations for lenders that offer open-end lines of credit and assess the impact of various thresholds on the numbers of reporters and market coverage under various scenarios.
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that there were about 1.59 million open-end lines of credit originated in 2017 by about 6,615 lenders, and under the temporary 500 open-end line of credit coverage threshold set in the 2017 HMDA Rule, about 333 financial institutions would be required to report open-end lines of credit, accounting for about 1.23 million open-end lines of credit. In comparison, if the open-end coverage threshold were set at 100, the Bureau estimated that the number of reporters would be about 1,014, who in total originated about 1.41 million open-end lines of credit. In other words, if the coverage threshold is increased to 500 for another two years (2020 and 2021), in comparison to the default baseline where the threshold is set at 100 in 2020, the Bureau estimated that the number of institutions affected would be about 681, who in total originated about 177,000 open-end lines of credit. Among those 681 institutions, the Bureau estimated that about 618 already qualify for a partial exemption for their open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA and in total they originate about 136,000 open-end lines of credit.
The majority of the analyses in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal rule was conducted prior to the official submission deadline of the 2018 HMDA data on March 1, 2019, and 2017 was the most recent year of HMDA data the Bureau used for the analyses in the May 2019 Proposal. For this part of the final rule, the Bureau has supplemented the analyses with the 2018 HMDA data now available and released to the public on August 30, 2019. In the 2018 HMDA data about 957 reporters actually reported any open-end line of credit transactions. In total, these institutions reported about 1.15 million open-end originations, which is close to what the Bureau projected in its estimate of 1.23 million originations to be reported in the May 2019 Proposal. Even though the number of open-end reporters in the 2018 HMDA data (957) is greater than the number the Bureau forecasted would be required to report (333) in the May 2019 Proposal, only 307 of them that reported open-end transactions in the 2018 HMDA data actually reported greater than 500 open-end originations, which is close to the Bureau's projection that there would be 333 required open-end reporters. The Bureau's projection in the May 2019 Proposal was based on the projected number of open-end reporters whose open-end origination volumes were greater than 500 in each of the preceding two years (which is how the HMDA reporting requirements are structured), and not on the volume from the current HMDA activity year; in addition, that projection cannot account for the number of reporters who would report voluntarily even though they are not required to do so. Given this, it is possible that some lenders with open-end line of credit origination volumes exceeding 500 in both 2016 and 2017 originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in 2018, but were nevertheless required to report their 2018 data under the HMDA reporting requirements. On the other hand, it is also possible that some reporters opted to report their open-end lending activities in the 2018 HMDA data even though they were not required to report. Regardless, these 2018 open-end reporters with reported origination volume less than 500 in 2018 will not be required to collect data on their open-end activity in 2020 when the two-year temporary extension of the 500 open-end threshold of this final rule takes effect, based on the two-year lookback period of the reporting requirements. Therefore, for the purpose of the consideration of costs and benefits of the final rule, it is reasonable to exclude these 2018 open-end reporters with open-end origination volumes below 500 from the Bureau's projections of impacted institutions. Hence, the Bureau believes that its estimate of the number of impacted institutions due to the two-year temporary extension provided in the May 2019 Proposal was and is reasonable and consistent with the actual number of open-end reporters in the 2018 HMDA data.
On the other hand, because the number of open-end applications was not available in any data sources prior to the 2018 HMDA data, in past HMDA rulemakings related to open-end reporting, the Bureau relied on the projected number of originations as a proxy of the number of loan/application register records for the analyses. With the 2018 HMDA data reported, the Bureau now can evaluate the impact of the final rule using the projected loan/application register records instead of projected originations for the first time. Because most of the data points under HMDA are required for all loan/application register records, not just originated loans, the Bureau has updated the estimates of cost and cost savings for open-end lines of credit based on the number of loan/application register records instead of originations. The Bureau's coverage estimates, however, continue to be based on originations because the thresholds are based on origination volume, and thus, as noted immediately above, the estimates previously provided continue to be reasonable. The analyses below have been supplemented to reflect the new 2018 data that includes
Table 3 below shows the estimated number of open-end lines of credit reporters, their estimated origination volume, and the market share under 100 and 500 open-end coverage thresholds.
The extension of the temporary open-end coverage threshold of 500 for two additional years, as compared to the alternative of having the threshold adjust to 100, conveys a direct benefit to covered persons that originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding years but originated no less than 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years in reducing the ongoing costs associated with open-end lines of credit during 2020 and 2021.
In the impact analysis of the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau estimated that, accounting for the Bureau's planned operational improvements, the ongoing operational costs on open-end reporters for all data points required under the 2015 HMDA Rule would be approximately $8,600, $43,400, and $273,000 per year, for representative low-, moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively. Adjusting for inflation, this is equivalent to approximately $8,800, $44,700, and $281,100 per year currently. On the other hand, accounting for the reduced number of required data points and inflation, the Bureau now estimates that the ongoing costs of open-end reporting would be about $4,300, $21,900, and $138,000 per year, for representative low-, moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively, that are eligible for a partial exemption for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA.
The Bureau estimates that, with the coverage threshold increased to 500 as compared to reverting to 100 for 2020 and 2021, about 680 financial institutions will be excluded from reporting open-end lines of credit during the two years.
In addition, in the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that of the 63 institutions that are not eligible for the partial exemption under the EGRRCPA but would be fully excluded for two additional years from open-end reporting by the May 2019 Proposal, about 26 are low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 37 are moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters. Supplementing the analysis with the 2018 data, the Bureau now
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that the annual savings on operational costs would be about $5.6 million due to the two-year extension of the temporary open-end threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. The higher estimate presented above for the final rule is mainly due to the fact that the Bureau now is able to supplement new information from the 2018 HMDA data, which allows the Bureau to conduct the estimates based on the number of open-end loan/application register records rather than the number of originations. Although the estimated total cost reduction is higher than it was in the proposal based on the additional 2018 HMDA data, the overall analysis is consistent with the Bureau's methodology and conclusions from the May 2019 Proposal.
It is the Bureau's understanding that most of the financial institutions that were temporarily excluded for 2018 and 2019 under the 2017 HMDA Rule have not fully prepared for open-end reporting because they have been waiting for the Bureau to decide on the open-end reporting threshold that will apply after the temporary threshold of 500 loans expires in 2020. Under the baseline in this impact analysis, absent this final rule, those financial institutions would have to start reporting their open-end lines of credit starting in 2020, and hence incur one-time costs to create processes and systems for open-end lines of credit. The extension of the 500 open-end coverage threshold for 2020 and 2021 in this final rule will delay incurrence of such one-time costs for two more years.
It is possible that, like any new regulation or revision to the existing regulations, financial institutions may incur certain one-time costs adapting to the changes to the regulation. Based on the Bureau's early outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau understands that most of such one-time costs will result from interpreting and implementing the regulatory changes, but not from purchasing software upgrades or turning off the existing reporting functionality that the eligible institutions already built or purchased prior to the new changes taking effect.
Having generated estimates of the reduction in ongoing costs on covered financial institutions due to the temporary increase in the open-end coverage threshold, the Bureau then attempts to estimate the potential pass-through of such cost reduction from the lenders to consumers, which could benefit consumers. According to economic theory, in a perfectly competitive market where financial institutions are profit maximizers, the affected financial institutions would pass on to consumers the marginal,
The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the rule would increase variable costs by $41.50 per open-end line of credit application for representative low-complexity institutions and $6.20 per open-end line of credit application for representative moderate-complexity institutions. These savings on variable costs by the excluded open-end reporters could potentially be passed through to the consumers, if the market is perfectly competitive. These expenses will be amortized over the life of a loan and represent a negligible reduction in the cost of a mortgage loan. The Bureau notes that the market structure in the consumer mortgage lending market may differ from that of a perfectly competitive market (for instance due to information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers) in which case the pass-through to the consumers would most likely be smaller than the pass-through under the perfect competition assumption.
The extension of the temporary coverage threshold of 500 for open-end lines of credit for 2020 and 2021 will reduce the open-end data submitted under HMDA. As a result, HMDA data on these institutions' open-end loans and applications will no longer be available to regulators, public officials, and members of the public. The decreased data from affected financial institutions may lead to adverse outcomes for some consumers. For instance, reporting data on open-end line of credit applications and originations and on certain demographic characteristics of applicants and borrowers could help the regulators and public officials better understand the type of funds that are flowing from lenders to consumers and consumers' need for mortgage credit. Open-end line of credit data that may be relevant to underwriting decisions may also help improve the processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. The Bureau has no quantitative data that can sufficiently measure the magnitude of this impact.
As discussed above, the final rule incorporates the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implements section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA, which grants eligible financial institutions partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain transactions and extends for a period of two years the current temporary threshold for reporting data about open-
Both sets of provisions in the final rule focus on burden reduction for smaller institutions. Therefore, the Bureau believes that the benefits of this rule to depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets will be similar to the benefit to creditors as a whole, as discussed above.
Specifically, the Bureau estimates that the reduction in annual operational costs from the partial exemption for closed-end reporting under the EGRRCPA and further implemented by the 2018 HMDA Rule and this final rule will be approximately $2,300, $11,900, and $33,900 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets that are eligible for the partial exemptions of closed-end reporting. The Bureau estimates that all but about eight of the approximately 3,300 institutions that are eligible for the partial exemption from closed-end reporting are small depository institutions or credit unions with assets at or below $10 billion. About 2,672 of the partially exempt closed-end reporting small depository institutions or credit unions are low-complexity tier 3 closed-end reporters, with the rest being moderate-complexity tier 2 closed-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters. Based on these calculations, the Bureau estimates that the aggregate savings on ongoing costs for these institutions will be approximately $13.5 million annually.
The Bureau estimates that the reduction in annual operational costs starting in calendar year 2020 from the partial exemption from open-end reporting under the EGRRCPA, absent the temporary open-end threshold extension, would be approximately $4,500, $22,800, and $144,000 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets that are eligible for the partial exemptions of open-end reporting. For purposes of this final rule, the Bureau estimates that about 580 out of the approximately 600 financial institutions that are partially exempt from reporting certain data points on open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA are small depository institutions or credit unions with assets at or below $10 billion. According to the Bureau's updated estimates, which incorporate the number of applications instead of originations, about 380 of those 580 partially exempt small depository institutions or credit unions are low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 200 are moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters.
For the temporary two-year extension of the open-end coverage threshold of 500 originations in the final rule, the Bureau estimates that for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion in assets or less that will not have to report open-end lines of credit under the final rule, the reduction in annual ongoing operational costs for the excluded institutions not eligible for the partial exemption for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA will be approximately $8,800, $44,700, and $28,100 per year, for representative low-, moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively, and the reduction in annual ongoing operational costs for excluded institutions already partially exempt for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA will be approximately $4,300, $21,900, and $138,000 annually, for representative low-, moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively. The Bureau estimates that about 633 of the approximately 680 institutions that will be temporarily excluded from open-end reporting in 2020 and 2021 under this rule are small depository institutions or credit unions with assets at or below $10 billion, and about 580 of them are already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA. Combined, the Bureau estimates that the annual saving on operational costs for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets receiving the temporary exclusion for open-end reporting for two additional years under the final rule will be about $7.6 million per year in the years 2020 and 2021.
The final provisions will not directly impact consumers in rural areas. However, as with all consumers, consumers in rural areas may be impacted indirectly. This would occur if financial institutions serving rural areas are HMDA reporters (in which case the final rule will lead to decreased information in rural areas) and if these institutions pass on some or all of the cost reduction to consumers (in which case, some consumers could benefit).
Recent research suggests that financial institutions that primarily serve rural areas are generally not HMDA reporters.
However, although some research suggests that HMDA currently does not cover a significant number of financial institutions serving the rural housing market, HMDA data do contain information for some covered loans involving properties in rural areas. These data can be used to estimate the number of HMDA reporters servicing rural areas, and the number of consumers in rural areas that might potentially be affected by the changes to Regulation C. For this analysis, the Bureau uses non-MSA areas as a proxy for rural areas, with the understanding that portions of MSAs and non-MSAs may contain urban and rural territory and populations. In 2017, 5,207 HMDA reporters reported applications or purchased loans for property located in geographic areas outside of an MSA. In total, these 5,207 financial institutions reported 1,794,248 applications or purchased loans for properties in non-MSA areas. This number provides an upper-bound estimate of the number of consumers in rural areas that could be impacted indirectly by the changes. In general, individual financial institutions report small numbers of covered loans from non-MSAs, as approximately 72 percent reported fewer than 100 covered loans from non-MSAs.
Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that financial institutions will pass on reduced variable costs to future mortgage applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed costs if financial institutions are profit maximizers and the market is perfectly competitive.
The rural market may differ from non-rural markets in terms of market structure, demand, supply, and competition level. For instance some rural markets may be more likely to be served by local or community banks than a large number of national lenders. Therefore, consumers in rural areas may experience benefits and costs from the final rule that are different than those experienced by consumers in general. To the extent that the impacts of the final rule on creditors differ by type of creditor, this may affect the costs and benefits of the May 2019 Proposal on consumers in rural areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, this final rule incorporates the interpretations and procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule into Regulation C and further implements section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA, which grants eligible financial institutions partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain transactions; and it extends the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for reporting data about open-end lines of credit for two years. The section 1022(b)(2) analysis above describes how this final rule reduces the costs and burdens on covered persons, including small entities. Additionally, as described in the analysis above, a small entity that is in compliance with the law at such time when this final rule takes effect does not need to take any additional action to remain in compliance other than choosing to switch off all or parts of reporting systems and functions. Based on these considerations, the final rule does not have a significant economic impact on any small entities.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, neither an FRFA nor a small business review panel is required for this final rule.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The final rule amends 12 CFR part 1003 (Regulation C), which implements HMDA. The Bureau's OMB control number for Regulation C is 3170-0008. This final rule revises the information collection requirements contained in Regulation C that are currently approved by OMB under that OMB control number as follows: (1) Extends for two years Regulation C's current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for open-end institutional and transactional coverage, and (2) implements the new, separate EGRRCPA partial exemptions that apply to some HMDA reporting requirements.
As of October 29, 2019: These revised collections of information have been submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. A complete description of the information collection requirements, including the burden estimate methods, is provided in the information collection request (ICR) that the Bureau has submitted to OMB under the requirements of the PRA. The ICR submitted to OMB requesting approval under the PRA for the information collection requirements contained herein is available at
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Bureau will publish a separate notice in the
The Bureau has a continuing interest in the public's opinion of its collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, or by email to
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit; or
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, an insured depository institution or insured credit union that, in each of the two preceding calendar years, originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this part pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) or paragraph (c)(13) of this section is not required to collect, record, or report optional data as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section for applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, an insured depository institution or insured credit union that, in each of the two preceding calendar years, originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this
(4) A financial institution eligible for a partial exemption under paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section may collect, record, and report optional data as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section for a partially exempt transaction as though the institution were required to do so, provided that:
(i) If the institution reports the street address, city name, or Zip Code for the property securing a covered loan, or in the case of an application, proposed to secure a covered loan pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(9)(i), it reports all data that would be required by § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) if the transaction were not partially exempt;
(ii) If the institution reports any data for the transaction pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(15), (16), (17), (27), (33), or (35), it reports all data that would be required by § 1003.4(a)(15), (16), (17), (27), (33), or (35), respectively, if the transaction were not partially exempt.
(5) If, pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, a financial institution does not report a universal loan identifier (ULI) pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) for an application for a covered loan that it receives, a covered loan that it originates, or a covered loan that it purchases, the financial institution shall assign and report a non-universal loan identifier (NULI). The NULI must be composed of up to 22 characters to identify the covered loan or application, which:
(i) May be letters, numerals, or a combination of letters and numerals;
(ii) Must be unique within the annual loan/application register in which the covered loan or application is included; and
(iii) Must not include any information that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower.
(6) Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section do not apply to an insured depository institution that, as of the preceding December 31, had received a rating of “needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs” during each of its two most recent examinations or a rating of “substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs” on its most recent examination under section 807(b)(2) of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2)).
(a)
(1)(i) A universal loan identifier (ULI) or, for a partially exempt transaction under § 1003.3(d), either a ULI or a non-universal loan identifier (NULI) as described in § 1003.3(d)(5) for the covered loan or application that can be used to identify and retrieve the covered loan or application file. Except for a purchased covered loan or application described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(D) and (E) of this section or a partially exempt transaction for which a NULI is assigned and reported under § 1003.3(d), the financial institution shall assign and report a ULI that:
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
1.
2. [Reserved]
3.
4.
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or newly formed
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the institution that was previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the acquired branch office is optional for transactions taking place in the remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either institution.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
i. Assume two institutions that are eligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans merge and the surviving or newly formed institution meets all of the requirements for the partial exemption. The partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans applies for the calendar year of the merger.
ii. Assume two institutions that are eligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans merge and the surviving or newly formed institution does not meet the requirements for the partial exemption. Collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is permitted but not required for the calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an institution that does not meet the requirements for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans). When a branch office of an institution that is eligible for the partial exemption is acquired by another institution that is eligible for the partial exemption, and the acquisition results in an institution that is not eligible for the partial exemption, data collection for closed-end mortgage loans is permitted but not required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. Assume an institution that is eligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans merges with an institution that is ineligible for the partial exemption and the surviving or newly formed institution is ineligible for the partial exemption. For the calendar year of the merger, collection of optional data as defined in § 1003.3(d)(1)(iii) for closed-end mortgage loans is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously ineligible for the partial exemption. For the calendar year of the merger, collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is permitted but not required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously eligible for the partial exemption. When an institution that is ineligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans acquires a branch office of an institution that is eligible for the partial exemption, collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is permitted but not required for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iv. Assume an institution that is eligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans merges with an institution that is ineligible for the partial exemption and the surviving or newly formed institution is eligible for the partial exemption. For the calendar year of the merger, collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the previously ineligible institution that took place prior to the merger. After the merger date, collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is permitted but not required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the institution that was previously ineligible for the partial exemption. When an institution remains eligible for the partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans after acquiring a branch office of an institution that is ineligible for the partial exemption, collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take place prior to the acquisition. Collection of optional data for closed-end mortgage loans by the acquired branch office is permitted but not required for transactions taking place in the remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
4.
5.
i. Is an insured credit union or insured depository institution,
ii. In each of the two preceding calendar years originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13), and
iii. If the subsidiary is an insured depository institution, had not received as of the preceding December 31 a rating of “needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs” during each of its two most recent examinations or a rating of “substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs” on its most recent examination under section 807(b)(2) of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2)).
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
ii. An institution is considered as reporting data in a data field for purposes of § 1003.3(d)(4)(i) and (ii) when it reports not applicable for that data field for a partially exempt transaction. For example, assume an insured depository institution or insured credit union originates a covered loan that is eligible for a partial exemption and is made primarily for business or commercial purposes. The requirement to report total loan costs or total points and fees is not applicable to loans made primarily for business or commercial purposes, as comments 4(a)(17)(i)-1 and (ii)-1 explain. The institution can report not applicable for both total loan costs and total points and fees, or it can report exempt for both total loan costs and total points and fees for the loan. Pursuant to § 1003.3(d)(4)(ii), the institution is not permitted to report not applicable for total loan costs and report exempt for total points and fees for the business or commercial purpose loan.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
i. A financial institution reports these data even if the covered loans were subsequently sold by the institution.
ii. A financial institution reports data for applications that did not result in an origination but on which actions were taken—for example, an application that the institution denied, that it approved but that was not accepted, that it closed for incompleteness, or that the applicant withdrew during the calendar year covered by the loan/application register. A financial institution is required to report data regarding requests under a preapproval program (as defined in § 1003.2(b)(2)) only if the preapproval request is denied, results in the origination of a home purchase loan, or was approved but not accepted.
iii. If a financial institution acquires covered loans in bulk from another institution (for example, from the receiver for a failed institution), but no merger or acquisition of an institution, or acquisition of a branch office, is involved, the acquiring financial institution reports the covered loans as purchased loans.
iv. A financial institution reports the data for an application on the loan/application register for the calendar year during which the application was acted upon even if the institution received the application in a previous calendar year.
2.
i. Only one financial institution reports each originated covered loan as an origination. If more than one institution was involved in the origination of a covered loan, the financial institution that made the credit decision approving the application before closing or account opening reports the loan as an origination. It is not relevant whether the loan closed or, in the case of an application, would have closed in the institution's name. If more than one institution approved an application prior to closing or account opening and one of those institutions purchased the loan after closing, the institution that purchased the loan after closing reports the loan as an origination. If a financial institution reports a transaction as an origination, it reports all of the information required for originations, even if the covered loan was not initially payable to the financial institution that is reporting the covered loan as an origination.
ii. In the case of an application for a covered loan that did not result in an origination, a financial institution reports the action it took on that application if it made a credit decision on the application or was reviewing the application when the application was withdrawn or closed for incompleteness. It is not relevant whether the financial institution received the application
3.
i. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant and forwarded that application to Financial Institution B. Financial Institution B reviewed the application and approved the loan prior to closing. The loan closed in Financial Institution A's name. Financial Institution B purchased the loan from Financial Institution A after closing. Financial Institution B was not acting as Financial Institution A's agent. Since Financial Institution B made the credit decision prior to closing, Financial Institution B reports the transaction as an origination, not as a purchase. Financial Institution A does not report the transaction.
ii. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant and forwarded that application to Financial Institution B. Financial Institution B reviewed the application before the loan would have closed, but the application did not result in an origination because Financial Institution B denied the application. Financial Institution B was not acting as Financial Institution A's agent. Since Financial Institution B made the credit decision, Financial Institution B reports the application as a denial. Financial Institution A does not report the application. If, under the same facts, the application was withdrawn before Financial Institution B made a credit decision, Financial Institution B would report the application as withdrawn and Financial Institution A would not report the application.
iii. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant and approved the application before closing the loan in its name. Financial Institution A was not acting as Financial Institution B's agent. Financial Institution B purchased the covered loan from Financial Institution A. Financial Institution B did not review the application before closing. Financial Institution A reports the loan as an origination. Financial Institution B reports the loan as a purchase.
iv. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant. If approved, the loan would have closed in Financial Institution B's name. Financial Institution A denied the application without sending it to Financial Institution B for approval. Financial Institution A was not acting as Financial Institution B's agent. Since Financial Institution A made the credit decision before the loan would have closed, Financial Institution A reports the application. Financial Institution B does not report the application.
v. Financial Institution A reviewed an application and made the credit decision to approve a covered loan using the underwriting criteria provided by a third party (
vi. Financial Institution A reviewed and made the credit decision on an application based on the criteria of a third-party insurer or guarantor (for example, a government or private insurer or guarantor). Financial Institution A reports the action taken on the application.
vii. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan and forwarded it to Financial Institutions B and C. Financial Institution A made a credit decision, acting as Financial Institution D's agent, and approved the application. The applicant did not accept the loan from Financial Institution D. Financial Institution D reports the application as approved but not accepted. Financial Institution A does not report the application. Financial Institution B made a credit decision, approving the application, the applicant accepted the offer of credit from Financial Institution B, and credit was extended. Financial Institution B reports the origination. Financial Institution C made a credit decision and denied the application. Financial Institution C reports the application as denied.
4.
5.
ii. In contrast, for purposes of § 1003.4(a), a purchase does not include a temporary transfer of a covered loan to an interim funder or warehouse creditor as part of an interim funding agreement under which the originating financial institution is obligated to repurchase the covered loan for sale to a subsequent investor. Such agreements, often referred to as “repurchase agreements,” are sometimes employed as functional equivalents of warehouse lines of credit. Under these agreements, the interim funder or warehouse creditor acquires legal title to the covered loan, subject to an obligation of the originating institution to repurchase at a future date, rather than taking a security interest in the covered loan as under the terms of a more conventional warehouse line of credit. To illustrate, assume Financial Institution A has an interim funding agreement with Financial Institution B to enable Financial Institution B to originate loans. Assume further that Financial Institution B originates a covered loan and that, pursuant to this agreement, Financial Institution A takes a temporary transfer of the covered loan until Financial Institution B arranges for the sale of the covered loan to a subsequent investor and that Financial Institution B repurchases the covered loan to enable it to complete the sale to the subsequent investor (alternatively, Financial Institution A may transfer the covered loan directly to the subsequent investor at Financial Institution B's direction, pursuant to the interim funding agreement). The subsequent investor could be, for example, a financial institution or other entity that intends to hold the loan in portfolio, a GSE or other securitizer, or a financial institution or other entity that intends to package and sell multiple loans to a GSE or other securitizer. In this example, the temporary transfer of the covered loan from Financial Institution B to Financial Institution A is not a purchase, and any subsequent transfer back to Financial Institution B for delivery to the subsequent investor is not a purchase, for purposes of § 1003.4(a). Financial Institution B reports the origination of the covered loan as well as its sale to the subsequent investor. If the subsequent investor is a financial institution under § 1003.2(g), it reports a purchase of the covered loan pursuant to § 1003.4(a), regardless of whether it acquired the covered loan from Financial Institution B or directly from Financial Institution A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.
i. Assume a financial institution considers an application for a loan product to be a cash-out refinancing under an investor's guidelines because of the amount of cash received by the borrower at closing or account opening. Assume also that under the investor's guidelines, the applicant qualifies for the loan product and the financial institution approves the application, originates the covered loan, and sets the terms of the covered loan consistent with the loan product. In this example, the financial institution would report the covered loan as a cash-out refinancing for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(3).
ii. Assume a financial institution does not consider an application for a covered loan to be a cash-out refinancing under its own guidelines because the amount of cash received by the borrower does not exceed a certain threshold. Assume also that the institution approves the application, originates the covered loan, and sets the terms of the covered loan consistent with its own guidelines applicable to refinancings other than cash-out refinancings. In this example, the financial institution would report the covered loan as a refinancing for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(3).
iii. Assume a financial institution does not distinguish between a cash-out refinancing and a refinancing under its own guidelines, and sets the terms of all refinancings without regard to the amount of cash received by the borrower at closing or account opening, and does not offer loan products under investor guidelines. In this example, the financial institution reports all covered loans and applications for covered loans that are defined by § 1003.2(p) as refinancings for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(3).
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
i.
ii.
iii.
14.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
6.
7.
8.
9.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), that reflects a corrected annual percentage rate, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), that reflects a corrected annual percentage rate, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which final action is taken. The financial institution does not report the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which final action is taken, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which final action is taken.
1.
1.
i. Financial institutions are required to report lien status for covered loans they originate and purchase and applications that do not result in originations (preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted, preapproval requests that are denied, applications that are approved but not accepted, denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness). For covered loans purchased by a financial institution, lien status is determined by reference to the best information readily available to the financial institution at the time of purchase. For covered loans that a financial institution originates and applications that do not result in originations, lien status is determined by reference to the best information readily available to the financial institution at the time final action is taken and to the financial institution's own procedures. Thus, financial institutions may rely on the title search they routinely perform as part of their underwriting procedures—for example, for home purchase loans. Regulation C does not require financial institutions to perform title searches solely to comply with HMDA reporting requirements. Financial institutions may rely on other information that is readily available to them at the time final action is taken and that they reasonably believe is accurate, such as the applicant's statement on the application or the applicant's credit report. For example, where the applicant indicates on the application that there is a mortgage on the property or where the applicant's credit report shows that the applicant has a mortgage—and that mortgage will not be paid off as part of the transaction—the financial institution may assume that the loan it originates is secured by a subordinate lien. If the same application did not result in an origination—for example, because the application was denied or withdrawn—the financial institution would report the application as an application for a subordinate-lien loan.
ii. Financial institutions may also consider their established procedures when determining lien status for applications that do not result in originations. For example, assume an applicant applies to a financial institution to refinance a $100,000 first mortgage; the applicant also has an open-end line of credit for $20,000. If the financial institution's practice in such a case is to ensure that it will have first-lien position—through a subordination agreement with the holder of the lien securing the open-end line of credit—then the financial institution should report the application as an application for a first-lien covered loan.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurs. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of total loan costs in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurs, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurs. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurs, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
1.
2.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurred. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of discount points in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurred, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
1.
2.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurred. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of lender credits in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurred, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
i. Assume that a loan is secured by the entirety of a cooperative property. The financial institution would report the number of individual dwelling units in the cooperative property.
ii. Assume that a covered loan is secured by 30 individual dwelling units in a condominium property that contains 100 individual dwelling units and that the loan is not exempt from Regulation C under § 1003.3(c)(3). The financial institution reports 30 individual dwelling units.
4.
1.
2.
i. Affordable housing programs pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
ii. Public housing (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6));
iii. The HOME Investment Partnerships program (24 CFR part 92);
iv. The Community Development Block Grant program (24 CFR part 570);
v. Multifamily tax subsidy project funding through tax-exempt bonds or tax credits (26 U.S.C. 42; 26 U.S.C. 142(d));
vi. Project-based vouchers (24 CFR part 983);
vii. Federal Home Loan Bank affordable housing program funding (12 CFR part 1291); and
viii. Rural Housing Service multifamily housing loans and grants (7 CFR part 3560).
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
1.
i. The application was submitted directly to the financial institution if the mortgage loan originator identified pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(34) was an employee of the reporting financial institution when the originator performed the origination activities for the covered loan or application that is being reported.
ii. The application was also submitted directly to the financial institution reporting the covered loan or application if the reporting financial institution directed the applicant to a third-party agent (
iii. If an applicant contacted and completed an application with a broker or correspondent that forwarded the application
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
i. A financial institution that uses an AUS, as defined in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), to evaluate an application, must report the name of the AUS used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system, regardless of whether the AUS was used in its underwriting process. For example, if a financial institution uses an AUS to evaluate an application prior to submitting the application through its underwriting process, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the AUS it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system.
ii. A financial institution that uses an AUS, as defined in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), to evaluate an application, must report the name of the AUS it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system, regardless of whether the financial institution intends to hold the covered loan in its portfolio or sell the covered loan. For example, if a financial institution uses an AUS developed by a securitizer to evaluate an application and intends to sell the covered loan to that securitizer but ultimately does not sell the covered loan and instead holds the covered loan in its portfolio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the securitizer's AUS that the institution used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system. Similarly, if a financial institution uses an AUS developed by a securitizer to evaluate an application to determine whether to originate the covered loan but does not intend to sell the covered loan to that securitizer and instead holds the covered loan in its portfolio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the securitizer's AUS that the institution used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system.
iii. A financial institution that uses an AUS, as defined in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), that is developed by a securitizer to evaluate an application, must report the name of the AUS it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system, regardless of whether the securitizer intends to hold the covered loan it purchased from the financial institution in its portfolio or securitize the covered loan. For example, if a financial institution uses an AUS developed by a securitizer to evaluate an application and the financial institution sells the covered loan to that securitizer but the securitizer holds the covered loan it purchased in its portfolio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the securitizer's AUS that the institution used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system.
iv. A financial institution, which is also a securitizer, that uses its own AUS, as defined in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), to evaluate an application, must report the name of the AUS it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system, regardless of whether the financial institution intends to hold the covered loan it originates in its portfolio, purchase the covered loan, or securitize the covered loan. For example, if a financial institution, which is also a securitizer, has developed its own AUS and uses that AUS to evaluate an application that it intends to originate and hold in its portfolio and not purchase or securitize the covered loan, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of its AUS that it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that system.
2.
3.
i. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results and the AUS generating one of those results corresponds to the loan type reported pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(2), the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that AUS name and result. For example, if a financial institution evaluates an application using the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Scorecard and subsequently evaluates the application with an AUS used to determine eligibility for a non-FHA loan, but ultimately originates an FHA loan, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting TOTAL Scorecard and the result generated by that system. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results and more than one of those AUS results is generated by a system that corresponds to the loan type reported pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(2), the financial institution identifies which AUS result should be reported by following the principle set forth below in comment 4(a)(35)-3.ii.
ii. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results and the AUS generating one of those results corresponds to the purchaser, insurer, or guarantor, if any, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that AUS name and result. For example, if a financial institution evaluates an application with the AUS of Securitizer A and subsequently evaluates the application with the AUS of Securitizer B, but the financial institution ultimately originates a covered loan that it sells within the same calendar year to Securitizer A, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of Securitizer A's AUS and the result generated by that system. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results and more than one of those AUS results is generated by a system that corresponds to the purchaser, insurer, or guarantor, if any, the financial institution identifies which AUS result should be reported by following the principle set forth below in comment 4(a)(35)-3.iii.
iii. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results and none of the systems generating those results correspond to the purchaser, insurer, or guarantor, if any, or the financial institution is following this principle because more than one AUS result is generated by a system that corresponds to either the loan type or the purchaser, insurer, or guarantor, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the AUS result generated closest in time to the credit decision and the name of the AUS that generated that result. For example, if a financial institution evaluates an application with the AUS of Securitizer A, subsequently again evaluates the application with Securitizer A's AUS, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of Securitizer A's AUS and the second AUS result. Similarly, if a financial institution obtains a result from an AUS that requires the financial institution to underwrite the loan manually, but the financial institution subsequently processes the application through a different AUS that also generates a result, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the second AUS that it used to evaluate the application and the AUS result generated by that system.
iv. If a financial institution obtains two or more AUS results at the same time and the principles in comment 4(a)(35)-3.i through .iii do not apply, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of all of the AUSs used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and the results generated by each of those systems. For example, if a financial institution simultaneously evaluates an application with the AUS of Securitizer A and the AUS of Securitizer B, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of both Securitizer A's AUS and Securitizer B's AUS and the results generated by each of those systems. In any event, however, the financial institution does not report more than five AUSs and five results. If more than five AUSs and five results meet the criteria in this principle, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by choosing any five among them to report.
4.
5.
6.
7.
i. In the course of renewing an annual sales agreement the developer of the electronic tool represents to the financial institution that it has never been a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. On this basis, the financial institution does not know or reasonably believe that the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit and complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable.
ii. Based on their previous transactions a financial institution is aware that the developer of the electronic tool it is using to evaluate an application has securitized a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit in the past. On this basis, the financial institution knows or reasonably believes that the developer of the electronic tool is a securitizer and complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of that system and the result generated by that system.
1.
1.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit; or
The revisions read as follows:
1.
2. [Reserved]
3.
4.
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or newly formed institution meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered, and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the institution that was previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the acquired branch office is optional for transactions taking place in the remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either institution.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.