Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the regulations governing the sampling, inspection, weighing, and certification of rice performed under authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA), as amended, by decreasing fees by 20 percent for fiscal year (FY) 2020 and by another 20 percent for FY 2021. These revisions are necessary to lower the balance in the program's operating reserve to a level adequate to cover three to six months' expenses. AMS is implementing the standardized AMS user-fee calculations used in other AMS programs for rice inspection services beginning in FY 2022.
Effective January 30, 2020, and applicable beginning January 1, 2020.
Denise Ruggles, FGIS Executive Program Analyst, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (816) 659-8406; Email:
The AMA (7 U.S.C. 1621-1638) authorizes the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) to provide official inspection and weighing services—on a user-fee basis—for rice (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)). The AMA provides for the assessment and collection of reasonable fees from the users of the services to cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of the services rendered. AMS receives no directly appropriated funds to provide inspection and weighing services. AMS ability to provide these services depend on user fees.
The fees reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include employee salaries and benefits, and certain operating expenses, such as travel. Indirect overhead costs include expenses related to FGIS and AMS activities supporting the services provided to the industry, including administrative and supervisory expenses, rent, communication, utilities, contractual services, supplies, and equipment. The formula used to calculate the fee rates also includes the cost of building and maintaining an operating reserve, as required by AMS. Reserves are held to meet financial obligations in case of program closure or other unexpected events.
AMS invited comments on the proposed rule identifying changes to the FGIS user fees for rice inspection and weighing services (84 FR 45439). AMS received no comments.
The fees for rice inspection services were last revised in 2007 (72 FR 1931). The fee schedule at 7 CFR 868.91 provides for fee increases at set intervals, the most recent taking effect in October 2010 for the 2011 fiscal year and beyond. Although fees have not increased since then, the current fee structure has generated a recurring annual operating surplus for several years, resulting in an estimated reserve balance at the end of FY 2019 that would cover 21 months of rice inspection program expenses, exceeding AMS's target of maintaining funds to cover 3 to 6 months' expenses. Estimated monthly costs to operate the rice inspection program in FY 2019 are $457,000. Thus, AMS would consider an operating reserve of between $1.37 million and $2.74 million (3 and 6 times the monthly operating cost, respectively) at the end of FY 2019 to be appropriate. Financial data for the rice inspection program for fiscal years 2015 through 2019 is reviewed in Table 1.
As illustrated by Table 1, even though revenues have generally declined due to varying requests for service and increased efficiencies, and obligations have generally increased over the last five years due to inflation and costs of living adjustments, year-after-year surpluses have continued to increase. The result is an operating reserve running balance exceeding the range AMS deems appropriate.
AMS addresses the surplus by reducing fees for rice inspection services by 20 percent across the board for FY 2020 and by another 20 percent for FY 2021. AMS expects that reducing fees in this manner would gradually reduce the balance in the reserve fund while also allowing FGIS to continue making strategic operational expenditures to meet industry expectations and achieve United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) goals.
The rates in this rule are for Federal inspection services only. Third-party inspection service providers establish their rates independently.
Fees for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below:
For
Currently, 7 CFR 868.91—Fees for certain Federal rice inspection services—provides the fees for rice inspections. Section 868.91 lists the fees in two tables: Hourly rates or per unit rates per hundredweight for contract and noncontract services, and unit rates for inspecting, analyzing, or providing other related services. The tables give annual rates effective in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The current rates have not been adjusted since October 1, 2010. AMS is removing the two tables from § 868.91 for FY 2020. AMS will publish instead reduced fees—as described in Tables 2 and Table 3 above—on the AMS website for FY 2020 and FY 2021.
For FY 2022 and beyond, AMS adds a new § 868.91(b) specifying the formulas for calculating rice inspection fees on an annual basis. As with other programs, AMS would perform financial analyses each year to determine whether the current fees are adequate to recover the costs incurred by providing rice inspection services. AMS would use historical or prior year cost and workload data, along with applicable projections to generate estimates of future obligations and revenues. On the bases of these analyses and formulas, AMS would determine the rates necessary to sustain rice inspection program services. Using the formulas to calculate the fees, and reviewing the fees on an annual basis, would more accurately reflect the actual cost of providing inspection services each year and would provide greater transparency and predictability to the rice industry. AMS would publish the fees for each upcoming fiscal year in the annual AMS user-fee notice in the
AMS will base salary, hours, and most factors used in the calculations on the
Currently, some rice inspection service fees are charged on a per hour basis, and some are charged on a per unit basis. AMS will continue providing costs on both bases to maintain continuity. As well, AMS would provide the specific amounts used to calculate each year's rates upon request.
AMS adds a new paragraph § 868.91(b)(1) to include the formulas for calculating regular, overtime, and holiday fee rates for FY 2022 and succeeding fiscal years. AMS further adds a new paragraph § 868.91(b)(2) to include the component formulas for benefits, operating, and allowance for bad debt rates.
Finally, AMS adds a new § 868.91(b)(3), which specifies that AMS will use the most recently released OMB economic data to generate the cost of living and inflation factors used in the above formulas.
One factor that may have contributed to the operating reserve buildup over time is the incorporation of an allowance for travel expenses in the current rice inspection fee rates that may not have reflected actual travel costs. AMS addresses this by specifying in the fee calculation formulas that travel expenses related to providing inspection services, such as commercial transportation costs, mileage, and per diem, will be based on actual travel costs incurred to perform the service. The fee rate calculations in § 868.91(b) will specify that actual travel expenses for rice inspection services may be added to the cost of providing the service, consistent with current practice under most other AMS programs. This change will be applicable to fee rates beginning in FY 2022.
As a conforming change, AMS removes the language in § 868.92(a)(2)—Explanation of service fees and additional fees, which makes specific reference to the inclusion of travel expenses in the current rice inspection fee calculations, as that language would be obsolete.
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Executive Orders 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563—Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule does not meet the criteria of a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule under those Orders. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the E.O. of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).
AMS considered several alternatives to the changes in this rule, including making larger decreases to the FY 2020 and FY 2021 rates to bring the reserve balance down more quickly or making a larger fee rate decrease for FY 2020 only. Ultimately, AMS determined that the approach of making smaller—but still significant—reductions two years in a row before transitioning to the standardized fee calculations would be the alternative least disruptive to the industry while moving toward desirable reserve levels. AMS expects the changes to benefit the rice industry by reducing rates by 20% for each of the next two years and then adjusting rates as needed annually thereafter to reflect actual expenses related to rice inspections. Under the rule, rice inspection service users would likely enjoy further savings since most inspection sites are near FGIS field offices and charges for travel will be based on actual expenses rather than the standard flat amount incorporated into the current fee rates. AMS does not expect the rule to provide any environmental, public health, or safety benefits. AMS has not identified any costs related to this action.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. No administrative proceedings would be required before parties could file suit in court challenging the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-602), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.
There are approximately 169 applicants who receive rice inspection services. AMS estimates 42 percent of these users would be considered small businesses based on criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) to differentiate between large and small business entities. SBA uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to categorize various industry businesses. SBA defines small rice farmers, NAICS code 111160, as those
When the current rice inspection fees were set in 2007, an 18 percent increase was implemented to cover program deficits caused by increases in employee salaries and benefits, the replacement of aging rice inspection equipment, and upgrading the information technology system used to generate certificates. The increase also was intended to create the operating reserve. However, as explained earlier in this document, revenues have continued to exceed expenditures, indicating that an adjustment to the fee schedule is now warranted. In addition, travel expenses were built into the hourly and unit fees currently charged by the program, resulting in higher than necessary revenues to cover the actual service provided.
Changes to the fees will reduce the cost of rice inspections by 20 percent for all services in FY 2020 across the board, regardless of the business entity's size, for a projected savings of approximately $1.17 million to the industry. A further 20 percent reduction for FY 2021 will net approximately $2.13 million in savings to the industry. All entities using rice inspection services, large and small, would be expected to benefit from reduced expenses for these services. Savings would be proportionate to the number of inspection services an entity requests each year. Use of standardized AMS user-fee rate calculations for FY 2022 and beyond would benefit all inspection applicants, regardless of size, as fees would more closely reflect the current cost of inspections, and the fee calculation process would be more transparent. Through its annual review, AMS would be able to monitor the financial status of the rice inspection program to determine whether further adjustments are necessary.
AMS has determined this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities as defined under the RFA because fewer than half the applicants for rice inspection services meet the definition of small entities. Further, rice inspection and weighing services are provided upon request, and rice industry businesses are under no obligation to use these services.
Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and record keeping requirements of the rice inspection program have previously been approved by OMB under control number 0580-0013. No additional reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements would be imposed as a result of this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 868 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
The fees for services in paragraph (a) apply to Federal inspection services. Starting with fiscal year 2022, calculations provided in paragraph (b) will be used to determine annual fee rates.
(a) Fees for services are published on the Service's website.
(b) For each fiscal year, starting with 2022, the Administrator will calculate the rates for services, issue a public notice, and publish fees on the Service's website with an effective date of October 1 of each year.
(1) For each year, the Administrator will calculate the rates for services, per hour per inspection program employee using the following formulas:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2) For each year, based on previous year/historical actual costs, the Administrator will calculate the benefits, operating, and allowance for bad debt components of the regular, overtime, and holiday rates as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3) The Administrator will use the most recent economic factors released by the Office of Management and Budget for budget development purposes to derive the cost of living expenses and percentage of inflation factors used in the formulas in this section.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Correcting amendments.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is correcting an interagency final rule that appeared in the
Effective January 30, 2020.
On November 13, 2019, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the FDIC (collectively, the agencies) published a final rule “Regulatory Capital Rule: Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Organizations.”
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital adequacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State non-member banks, Savings associations.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the preamble, the FDIC hereby makes the following correcting amendments to 12 CFR part 324:
12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended by Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
(b)
(1)(i) “Well capitalized” if:
(A) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: The FDIC-supervised institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0 percent or greater; and
(B) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: The FDIC-supervised institution has a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent or greater; and
(C) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Measure: The FDIC-supervised institution has a common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5 percent or greater; and
(D) The FDIC-supervised institution has a leverage ratio of 5.0 percent or greater; and
(E) The FDIC-supervised institution is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the FDIC pursuant to section 8 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818), the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907), or the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(t)(6)(A)(ii)), or section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o), or any regulation thereunder, to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.
(ii) Beginning on January 1, 2018 and thereafter, an FDIC-supervised institution that is a subsidiary of a covered BHC will be deemed to be well capitalized if the FDIC-supervised institution satisfies paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of this section and has a supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 percent or greater. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii), a covered BHC means a U.S. top-tier bank holding company with more than $700 billion in total assets as reported on the company's most recent Consolidated Financial Statement for Bank Holding Companies (Form FR Y-9C) or more than $10 trillion in assets under custody as reported on the company's most recent Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (Form FR Y-15).
(iii) A qualifying community banking organization, as defined under § 324.12, that has elected to use the community bank leverage ratio framework under § 324.12 shall be considered to have met the capital ratio requirements for the well capitalized capital category in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(2) “Adequately capitalized” if it:
(i) Has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent or greater; and
(ii) Has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0 percent or greater; and
(iii) Has a common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5 percent or greater; and
(iv) Has a leverage ratio of 4.0 percent or greater; and
(v) Does not meet the definition of “well capitalized” in this section.
(vi) Beginning January 1, 2018, an advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institution will be deemed to be “adequately capitalized” if it satisfies paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section and has a supplementary leverage ratio of 3.0 percent or greater, as calculated in accordance with § 324.11.
(3) “Undercapitalized” if it:
(i) Has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0 percent; or
(ii) Has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio that is less than 6.0 percent; or
(iii) Has a common equity tier 1 capital ratio that is less than 4.5 percent; or
(iv) Has a leverage ratio that is less than 4.0 percent.
(v) Beginning January 1, 2018, an advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institution will be deemed to be “undercapitalized” if it has a supplementary leverage ratio of less than 3.0 percent, as calculated in accordance with § 324.11.
(4) “Significantly undercapitalized” if it has:
(i) A total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 6.0 percent; or
(ii) A Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio that is less than 4.0 percent; or
(iii) A common equity tier 1 capital ratio that is less than 3.0 percent; or
(iv) A leverage ratio that is less than 3.0 percent.
(5) “Critically undercapitalized” if the insured depository institution has a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2.0 percent.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule; correction; correcting amendment.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective January 30, 2020.
Brenda Fernandez, Office of Policy, Planning and Liaison, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205-7337;
This is a correction to a final rule published November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65647).
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
In FR Doc. 2019-25517, appearing on page 65647 in the
Accordingly, 13 CFR part 126 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p), 644 and 657a; Pub. L. 111-240, 24 Stat. 2504.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-11-11, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. AD 2006-11-11 required incorporating a new revision to the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to mandate certain repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). This AD retains those actions and requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 5, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 5, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of June 30, 2006 (71 FR 30278, May 26, 2006).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to revise AD 2006-11-11, Amendment 39-14615 (71 FR 30278, May 26, 2006) (“AD 2006-11-11”). AD 2006-11-11 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing and United Airlines concurred with the NPRM. FedEx stated that it has no issues with the proposed requirements of the NPRM.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that the FAA clarify the requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. DAL mentioned that it had complied with the requirements of AD 2006-11-11 in the year 2006. DAL then pointed out that it interprets the requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to mean that once the NPRM is adopted as a final rule, any alternative actions, intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) will require approval of an AMOC. DAL expressed concern that parties other than the FAA ACO branch or the Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) might not be aware that AD 2006-11-11 had been superseded. Additionally, DAL mentioned that the period of time between adoption of a new rule and the effective date of a new rule is typically used to get all required documentation updated. DAL then pointed out that operators attempt to incorporate newly adopted rules by the effective date of the new rule and would not be able to have all of the related documentation updated immediately upon adoption of the new rule. DAL recommended that a “grace period” be included in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD by revising to state that “. . . no alternative actions (
The FAA agrees to clarify. AMOCs provide an alternative method of compliance to the methods required to be used in the associated AD. An AMOC may only be approved after an AD has been published and only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is complete and addresses the unsafe condition. Therefore, once this AD is published, any person may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD. The FAA understands the operator's choice to comply with the AD requirements by the effective date, however, the effective date is not a deadline. The compliance time of the required actions is within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, which means that the compliance time starts on the effective date. The operator's choice to do the required actions early is commendable, but does not necessitate a grace period. Additionally, paragraph (l)(4) of this AD specifically authorizes the use of previously approved AMOCs for AD 2006-11-11 for the corresponding provisions of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
American Airlines (AAL) requested that, due to differences in verbiage between the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD, and paragraph (l) of the proposed AD, the FAA clarify whether The Boeing Company ODA may approve alternative actions (
The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. The Boeing Company ODA is able to approve AMOCs if they are within the authority delegated to them by the FAA. It is likely that the FAA will delegate some AMOC authority to the Boeing Company ODA for this AD. The FAA does not delegate AMOC authority for CDCCLs. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) requested that the FAA revise the proposed applicability to specify that STC ST01518SE affects the ability to accomplish the proposed actions. APB pointed out that STC ST01518SE requires alternative actions or inspection intervals for some of the new or updated tasks in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018. APB also stated that certain inspections and inspection intervals for the structural significant items (SSIs) contained in APB 757-200 MPD Supplements AP57.2-0604.2 and AP57.2-0604.2-DTR, and for the SSIs contained in APB 757-300 MPD Supplements AP57.3-0604.2 and AP57.3-0604.2-DTR, are alternative to those contained in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018. APB mentioned that it will revise the affected APB MPD supplements and apply for new AMOC(s) in accordance with paragraph (l) of the proposed AD. APB also suggested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be redesignated as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and add paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE affects the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE affects the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
The FAA has also redesignated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to require that, within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, airplanes with STC ST01518SE installed, must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a supplemental program to address the effect of STC ST01518SE, approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Additionally, the FAA emphasizes that for any airplane that is modified by an STC that affects any SSI inspections, an AMOC approval request is necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
The FAA reviewed Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018. This service information describes procedures for airworthiness limitations for structural inspections, fuel tank systems, safe life limits, and certification maintenance requirements.
This AD also requires the following service information, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of June 30, 2006 (71 FR 30278, May 26, 2006).
• Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subsection B. of Boeing Document D622N001-9, Revision “May 2003.”
• Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subsection B. of Boeing Document D622N001-9, Revision “June 2005.”
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 561 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
The retained and new actions specified in this AD have the same cost for revising the existing maintenance or inspection program. The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that 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
(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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 5, 2020.
This AD replaces AD 2006-11-11, Amendment 39-14615 (71 FR 30278, May 26, 2006) (“AD 2006-11-11”).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE affects the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel; 53, Fuselage; 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements (PSEs); such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2006-11-11, with no changes. Within 36 months after June 30, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-11-11), revise Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations and CMRs” of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document to incorporate Subsection B. of Boeing Document D622N001-9, Revision “May 2003;” or Revision “June 2005;” as applicable.
(1) Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018. The initial compliance time for doing the new or updated tasks is at the time specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. The compliance time for doing the unchanged tasks is at the time specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018.
(2) For airplanes with STC ST01518SE installed: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a supplemental program to address the effect of STC ST01518SE, in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or 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 (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2001-20-12, Amendment 39-12460 (66 FR 52492, October 16, 2001) and AD 2006-11-11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 5, 2020.
(i) Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision October 2018.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 30278, May 26, 2006).
(i) Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data Document, Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subsection B. of Boeing Document D622N001-9, Revision “May 2003.”
(ii) Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data Document, Section 9, “Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subsection B. of Boeing Document D622N001-9, Revision “June 2005.”
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone: 562-797-1717; internet:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the absence of a requirement to remove a certain Emergency Procedure in the existing Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) after accomplishing a certain modification or replacement. This AD requires, for airplanes on which a certain modification or replacement is done, revising the AFM by removing a certain Emergency Procedure in the AFM, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 14, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 16, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0309, dated December 19, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0309”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
This AD was prompted by the absence of a requirement to remove Emergency Procedures relating to the undue activation of Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) in the existing AFM after accomplishing the modification or replacement specified in AD 2017-16-12, Amendment 39-18989 (82 FR 40675, August 28, 2017) (“AD 2017-16-12”). The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, under certain conditions, could lead to the incorrect application of the procedure by the flight crew, possibly resulting in increased flight crew workload and consequent reduced control of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.
AD 2017-16-12 requires, among other actions, revising the AFM to incorporate procedures to advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot; and replacement of certain angle of attack (AOA) sensors with certain Thales C16291AA or C16291AB AOA sensors. AD 2017-16-12 also allows certain future approved acceptable parts as a method of compliance for certain actions. This AD requires, for airplanes on which a certain modification or replacement is done, revising the AFM by removing Emergency Procedures relating to the undue activation of Alpha Prot from the existing AFM. Accomplishment of this AD terminates the AFM revision required by paragraph (j) of AD 2017-16-12 for that airplane only.
EASA AD 2019-0309 describes procedures, for airplanes on which a certain modification or replacement (installation or replacement of certain AOA sensors) is done, for revising the existing AFM by removing Emergency Procedures relating to the undue activation of Alpha Prot from the existing AFM. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0309 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0309 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2019-0309 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0309 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0309 will be available on the internet at
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 because it has been determined that for airplanes on which a certain modification or replacement is done, the AFM procedure required by AD 2017-16-12 if not removed, could, under certain conditions, lead to the incorrect application of the procedure by the flight crew, possibly resulting in increased flight crew workload and consequent reduced control of the airplane. In addition, the removal of these AFM emergency procedures for applicable airplanes is relieving on the flight crew workload during an emergency situation. Therefore, the FAA find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists 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 precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments, without change, to
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,553 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This 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 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
(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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.
This AD affects AD 2017-16-12, Amendment 39-18989 (82 FR 40675, August 28, 2017) (“AD 2017-16-12”).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4), certificated in any category.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by the absence of a requirement to remove a certain Emergency Procedure in the existing Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) after accomplishing a certain modification or replacement. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, under certain conditions, could lead to the incorrect application of the procedure by the flight crew, possibly resulting in increased flight crew workload and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0309, dated December 19, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0309”).
(1) Where EASA AD 2019-0309 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0309 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Where EASA AD 2019-0309 specifies paragraph (19) of EASA AD 2015-0135R3, for this AD, use paragraph (r) of AD 2017-16-12, except where paragraph (r) of AD 2017-16-12 refers to “the effective date of this AD,” use June 1, 2015 (the effective date of EASA AD 2015-0087).
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD on an airplane terminates all requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-16-12 for that airplane only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0309, dated December 19, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0309, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a loud bang was heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one emergency escape slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure, due to a burst rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir, which was probably caused by a manufacturing defect. This AD requires repetitive checks of the pressure gauges on the inflation reservoir of each emergency escape slide/raft to determine the amount of pressure and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 14, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 16, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0316, dated December 23, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0316”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N and -273N airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. Model A319-153N and A320-215 airplanes are not certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
This AD was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a loud bang was heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one emergency escape slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure, due to a burst rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir, which was probably caused by a manufacturing defect. The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient reservoir pressure in an emergency escape slide/raft, which would prevent the deployment of the emergency escape slide/raft during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2019-0316 describes procedures for repetitive checks of the pressure gauge on the inflation reservoir of each emergency escape slide/slide raft to determine the amount of pressure, and applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include, among other things, replacement of any affected emergency escape slide/raft or inflation reservoir.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0316 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0316 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2019-0316 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with
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 because if a rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir of an emergency escape slide/slide raft burst it would result in a sudden loss of reservoir pressure and prevent the deployment of the emergency escape slide/raft during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants. Due to the severity of this problem, the emergency escape slide/slide raft must be inspected to ensure proper deployment using a shorter compliance interval than is practical through the notice and comment rulemaking process. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments, without change, to
The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking at that time.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,553 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this 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, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 14, 2020.
None.
This AD applies all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N and -171N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N,
-271N, -272N and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N,
-253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, 271NX, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that during airplane boarding a loud bang was heard. A subsequent inspection revealed that one emergency escape slide/raft was found with zero reservoir pressure, due to a burst rupture disk assembly in the inflation reservoir, which was probably caused by a manufacturing defect. The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient reservoir pressure in an emergency escape slide/raft, which would prevent the deployment of the emergency escape slide/raft during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0316, dated December 23, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0316”).
(1) Where EASA AD 2019-0316 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0316 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Where EASA AD 2019-0316 specifies to comply with “the instructions of the AOT,” this AD requires compliance with the procedures marked as required for compliance (RC) in the Alert Operators Transmission (AOT).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0316, dated December 23, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0316, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-19-26, which applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. AD 2018-19-26 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD continues to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 5, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 5, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226; email
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0153, dated July 3, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0153”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-19-26, Amendment 39-19427 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018) (“AD 2018-19-26”). AD 2018-19-26 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. This service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals.
This AD also requires Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 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
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2018-19-26 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA has determined that 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
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 5, 2020.
(1) This AD replaces AD 2018-19-26, Amendment 39-19427 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018) (“AD 2018-19-26”).
(2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010) (“AD 2010-26-05”).
This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2018-19-26, with no changes. Within 90 days after November 5, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-19-26), revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual; or within 90 days after November 5, 2018; whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2018-19-26, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is at the time specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-19-26, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2019-0153, dated July 3, 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 Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 5, 2020.
(i) Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated January 15, 2019, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49275, October 1, 2018).
(i) Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class D airspace at Joe Williams NOLF, Meridian, MS; Key Field, Meridian, MS; and NAS Meridian/McCain Field, Meridian, MS; the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Key Field; and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Key Field, Joe Williams NOLF, and NAS Meridian/McCain Field. This action is due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Kewanee VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The names and geographic coordinates of NAS Meridian/McCain Field and Joe Williams NOLF, and the geographic coordinates of Key Field are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 21, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class D airspace at Joe Williams NOLF, Meridian, MS; Key Field, Meridian, MS; and NAS Meridian/McCain Field, Meridian, MS; the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Key Field; and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Key Field, Joe Williams NOLF, and NAS Meridian/McCain Field to support IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA discovered a typographic error in the airspace legal description for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Key Field, Meridian, MS. The extension from the Meridian VORTAC 141° to the southeast should extend from the 7-mile radius of Key Field vice the 4.5-mile radius. That typographic error is corrected in this action.
Additionally, the FAA discovered that the proposed airspace legal description for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Meridian, MS, left gaps in the continuity of the airspace. To make the airspace continuous, the following changes are being made: The first extension reading, “. . . and within 1 mile each side of the 009° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 12.5 miles north of Key Field . . .” is being changed to, “. . . and within 1 mile west and 1.6 miles east of the 009° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 12.5 miles north of Key Field . . .” in this action; and the third extension reading, “. . . and within 2 miles each side of the 044° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 11.6 miles northeast of Key Field. . .” is being changed to, “. . . and within 2.2 miles west and 2 miles east of the 044° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 11.6 miles northeast of Key Field . . .” in this action. These changes only fill the gaps and complete the continuity of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Meridian, MS, and do not expand the airspace; therefore, these amendments to the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Meridian, MS, are included in this action.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71: Amends the Class D airspace at Joe Williams NOLF, Meridian, MS, by updating the geographic coordinates of Joe Williams NOLF to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”; Amends the Class D airspace to within a 4.5-mile radius (reduced from a 5.3-mile radius) of Key Field, Meridian, MS; updates the city in the airspace legal description to Meridian, MS, (previously Meridian Key Field, MS) to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; removes the city listed with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; updates the geographic coordinates of Key Field to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;
Amends the Class D airspace to within a 5.3-mile radius (reduced from a 5.8-mile radius) of NAS Meridian/McCain Field, Meridian, MS; updates the city in the airspace legal description to Meridian, MS, (previously Meridian NAS-McCain Field, MS) to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; removes the city listed with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; updates the name and geographic coordinates of NAS Meridian/McCain Field (previously NAS-McCain Field) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 009° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 5.5 miles north of the airport; adds an extension 1.5 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 6 miles from the airport; adds an extension 1.6 miles each side of the Meridian TACAN 331° radial extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northwest of the Meridian TACAN; and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;
Amends the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D airspace at Key Field by updating the city in the airspace legal description to Meridian, MS, (previously Meridian/Key Field, MS) to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; removes the city listed with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; updates the geographic coordinates of Key Field and the Meridian VORTAC to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 009° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 4.9-miles north of the airport; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 044° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 4.6 miles northeast of the airport; adds an extension 2.9 miles each side of the Meridian VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 11 miles southeast of the Meridian VORTAC; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 4.6 miles south of the airport; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 224° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 4.6 miles southwest of the airport; removes the extension northwest of the VORTAC; and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;
And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7-mile radius (reduced from an 8-mile radius) of Key Field; adds an extension within 1 mile west and 1.6 miles east (previously 1 mile each side) of the 009° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.5 miles north of the airport; adds an extension within 3.4 miles each side of the 009° bearing from the Key Field: RWY 19-LOC extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 11.1 miles north of the Key Field: RWY 19-LOC; adds an extension within 2.2 miles west and 2 miles east (previously 2 miles each side) of the 044° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 11.6 miles northeast of the airport; adds an extension within 3.6 miles each side of the Meridian VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 13.9 miles southeast of the Meridian VORTAC; adds an extension within 1 mile each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 12.6 miles south of the airport; adds an extension within 3.4 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the Key Field: RWY 01-LOC extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 11.2 miles south of the Key Field: RWY 01-LOC; amends the extension northwest of the Meridian VORTAC to within 1.5 miles (reduced from 2.5 miles) each side of the Meridian VORTAC 311° (previously 315°) radial extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 14.3 miles (increased from 7 miles) northwest of the Meridian VORTAC; within a 6.7 mile radius (decreased from a 7.4-mile radius) of Joe Williams NOLF, Meridian, MS; within a 7.8-mile radius (decreased from an 8-mile radius) of NAS Meridian/McCain Field; removes the extension “. . . within 4 miles each side of the 020° bearing from lat. 32°33′28″ N, long, 88°33′33″ W, extending from the 8-mile radius to 20 miles north of Meridian TACAN, and within a 25-mile radius of the Meridian VORTAC, extending clockwise from the 341° radial to the 040° radial, and within 8 miles north and 6 miles south of the Kewanee VORTAC 273° radial, extending from the VORTAC to long. 88°45′00″ W”; adds an extension 6.7 miles either side of a line from Joe William NOLF to NAS Meridian/McCain Field; updates the names of Joe William NOLF (previously Joe Williams OLF), and NAS Meridian/McCain Field (previously NAS-McCain Field) and the geographic coordinates of Key Field, Joe Williams NOLF and NAS Meridian/McCain Field to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the Meridian TACAN and Kewanee VORTAC from the airspace legal description.
This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Kewanee VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Joe Williams NOLF. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Key Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL within a 5.3-mile radius of NAS Meridian/McCain Field, and within 1 mile each side of the 009° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.3 mile radius to 5.5 miles north of the airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 6 miles south of the airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the Meridian TACAN 331° radial extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northwest the Meridian TACAN. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 009° bearing from Key Field extending from the 4.5-mile radius of Key Field to 4.9 miles north of Key Field, and within 1 mile each side of the 044° bearing from Key Field extending from the 4.5-mile radius of Key Field to 4.6 miles northeast of Key Field, and within 2.9 miles each side of the Meridian VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius of Key Field to 11 miles southeast of the Meridian VORTAC, and within 1 mile each side of the 189° bearing from Key Field extending from the 4.5-mile radius of Key Field to 4.6 miles south of Key Field, and within 1 mile each side of the 224° bearing from Key Field extending from the 4.5-mile radius of Key Field to 4.6 miles southwest of Key Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Key Field, and within 1 mile west and 1.6 miles of the 009° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 12.5 miles north of Key Field, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 009° bearing from the Key Field: RWY 19-LOC extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 11.1 miles north of the Key Field: RWY 19-LOC, and within 2.2 miles west and 2 miles east of the 044° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 11.6 miles northeast of Key Field, and within 3.6 miles each side of the Meridian VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 13.9 miles southeast of the Meridian VORTAC, and within 1 mile each side of the 189° bearing from Key Field extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 12.6 miles south of Key Field, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the Key Field: RWY 01-LOC extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 11.2 miles south of the Key Field: RWY 01-LOC, and within 1.5 miles each side of the Meridian VORTAC 311° radial extending from the 7-mile radius of Key Field to 14.3 miles northwest of the Meridian VORTAC, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Joe Williams NOLF, and within a 7.8-mile radius of NAS Meridian/McCain Field, and within 6.7 miles each side of a line from Joe Williams NOLF to NAS Meridian/McCain Field.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace legal descriptions for Huntsville, AL, by
Effective 0901 UTC, March 26, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace legal descriptions for Huntsville, AL
The FAA published a Final Rule in the
This is an administrative change updating the airport reference for Redstone AAF to include the state identified “AL” in the airspace legal descriptions to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and comply with FAA Order 7400.2M, and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace legal descriptions for Huntsville, AL, by updating the airport references for Redstone AAF to include the state identifier “AL” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and comply with FAA Order 7400.2M.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5. U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedure when the agency for “good cause” finds that these procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This is an administrative change amending the name of Redstone AAF, AL, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and comply with FAA Order 7400.2M and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 5-mile radius of the Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Redstone AAF. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field, and within 3 miles each side of the 001° bearing from Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field, and within 1.3 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field: RWY 36L-LOC extending from the 7.5 mile radius of Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field to 8.3 miles south of the Huntsville International-Carl T. Jones Field: RWY 36L-LOC, and within a 9.5-mile radius of Redstone AAF, and within a 7-mile radius of Pryor Field Regional Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Huntsville Executive Tom Sharp Jr. Field.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-148 and V-345 in the vicinity of Hayward, WI, and removes V-177 in the vicinity of Ely, MN, and Hayward, WI. The VOR Federal airways modifications and removal are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Ely, MN, and Hayward, WI, VOR navigation aids (NAVAIDs), which provide navigation guidance for portions of the affected air traffic service (ATS) routes. The Ely and Hayward VORs are being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 26, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2019-0476 in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-148 and V-345, and removing VOR Federal airway V-177. The planned decommissioning of the Ely, MN, and Hayward, WI, VORs has made these actions necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-148 and V-345, and removing VOR Federal airway V-177 has no potential to cause any significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. Therefore, this airspace action has been categorically excluded from further environmental impact review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Falcon, CO; Thurman, CO; 65 MSL INT Thurman 067° and Hayes Center, NE, 246° radials; Hayes Center; North Platte, NE; O'Neill, NE; Sioux Falls, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; to Gopher, MN. From Ironwood, MI; to Houghton, MI.
From Dells, WI; INT Dells 321° and Eau Claire, WI, 134° radials; to Eau Claire.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary rule; temporary scheduling order; extension.
The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of cyclopentyl fentanyl (
This temporary scheduling order, which extends the order (83 FR 4580, February 1, 2018), is effective February 1, 2020, and expires on February 1, 2021. If this order is made permanent, the DEA will publish a document in the
Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
On February 1, 2018, the former Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a temporary scheduling order in the
Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), provides that the temporary control of these substances expires two years from the effective date of the scheduling order,
The Acting Administrator, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
After evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on November 12, 2019, the HHS submitted to the Acting Administrator its scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Acting Administrator orders that the temporary scheduling of cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
The CSA provides for issuance of an expedited temporary scheduling order to schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis, where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. (21 U.S.C. 811(h)). That section also provides that the temporary scheduling of a substance shall expire at the end of two years from the date of the issuance of the order scheduling such substance, except that the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings to permanently schedule the substance, extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year.
Inasmuch as 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, DEA believes
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. However, even if this were a rule, pursuant to the CRA, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that update the due dates and available extensions of time to file certain tax returns and information returns. The dates are updated to reflect the statutory requirements set by section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 and section 201 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. Additionally, the regulations remove a provision for electing large partnerships that was made obsolete by section 1101(b)(1) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. These regulations affect taxpayers who file Form W-2 (series, except Form W-2G), Form W-3, Form 990 (series), Form 1099-MISC, Form 1041, Form 1041-A, Form 1065, Form 1065-B, Form 1120 (series), Form 4720, Form 5227, Form 6069, Form 8804, or Form 8870.
Isaac Brooks Fishman, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains final regulations that reflect changes in tax return due dates enacted by section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-41, 129 Stat. 443 (2015), as well as changes to information return due dates enacted by section 201 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Public Law 114-113, Div. Q, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015). On July 20, 2017, the IRS published in the
The IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128483-15 (82 FR 33467)) cross-referencing the temporary regulations in the
This Treasury Decision removes the temporary regulations and adopts the proposed regulations as final regulations with only nonsubstantive revisions. The revisions are discussed in the Explanation of Provisions.
A detailed explanation of these regulations can be found in the
Section 1.6081-2(a)(1) of the proposed regulations addresses the extension of time for a partnership to file Form 1065, “U.S. Partnership Return of Income,” or Form 8804, “Annual Return for Partnership Withholding Tax.” Similarly, § 1.6081-2(a)(2) of the final regulations in place prior to the publication of this Treasury Decision addressed the extension of time to file Form 1065-B, “U.S. Return of Income for Electing Large Partnerships.” Section 1101(b)(1) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 625 (2015), repealed part IV of subchapter K of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which, prior to repeal, provided in former sections 771 through 777 for the treatment of certain partnerships as electing large partnerships. The amendment was effective for returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. As a consequence, electing large partnerships do not exist and Forms 1065-B will not be filed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
Because § 1.6081-2(a)(2) is therefore obsolete, and the only remaining effective provision in § 1.6081-2(a) was § 1.6081-2(a)(1), this Treasury Decision removes § 1.6081-2(a)(2) and redesignates proposed § 1.6081-2(a)(1) as § 1.6081-2(a). This change is purely ministerial and has no substantive effect. Accordingly, the IRS finds good cause for dispensing with notice and public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c) and with a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this change.
These regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) it is hereby certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations only update the due dates and extensions of time to file certain collections of information and include some existing regulatory language concerning collections of information that affect small entities for the convenience of the reader.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received from the Small Business Administration.
The principal author of these regulations is Jonathan R. Black formerly of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 31 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(C)
(g)
(a) * * * (1)
(c)
(e) * * *
(2)
(f)
(a) Every bank (as defined in section 581) maintaining a common trust fund shall make a return of income of the common trust fund, regardless of the amount of its taxable income. Member banks of an affiliated group that serve as co-trustees with respect to a common trust fund must act jointly in making a return for the fund. If a bank maintains more than one common trust fund, a separate return shall be made for each.
(b) This section applies to returns filed on or after January 30, 2020. Section 1.6032-1T (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2019) applies to taxable years beginning before January 30, 2020.
(e)
(k)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(ii)
(2)
(d) * * *
(1)
(2)
(g)
(a)
(c)
(a)
(h)
(a)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) * * *
(1) Partnerships, which are required under section 6072(b) to file returns on the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year of the partnership, that keep their records and books of account outside the United States and Puerto Rico;
(f) This section applies to returns filed on or after January 30, 2020. Section 1.6081-5T (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2019) applies to applications for an automatic extension of time to file returns before January 30, 2020.
(a) * * * (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, any estate, including but not limited to an estate defined in section 2031, or trust required to file an income tax return on Form 1041, “U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts,” will be allowed an automatic five and one-half month extension of time to file the return after the date prescribed for filing the return if the estate or trust files an application under this section in accordance with
(g)
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) Be submitted on Form 7004, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns” (in the case of an extension of time to file Form 1120-POL), Form 8868, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File an Exempt Organization Return” (in the case of an extension of time to file any other return listed in paragraph (a) of this section), or in any other manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner;
(3) Show the full amount properly estimated as tentative tax for the entity for the taxable year; and
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(3)
(ii)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana on
This rule is effective on March 2, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0163. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
On October 15, 2019 (84 FR 55104), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to the State of Montana's SIP that would remove a prohibition on the open burning of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials located in the SIP-approved ARM Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 6 (ARM located at 17.8.604(1)(w)) and the similar provision in the SIP-approved Lincoln County Air Pollution Control Program (located at 75.1.405(2)(w)). The revision would also remove a corresponding cross-reference located in SIP-approved ARM Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 3 (concerning wood-waste burners) (reference located at 17.8.320(9)).
We received four comments on our proposed rule. Section II of this final rule provides a summary of the comments that were received and our corresponding responses.
We are finalizing our approval of the following revisions to the Montana SIP that were submitted on May 24, 2018: (1) Removal of ARM 17.8.604(1)(w); (2) removal of the reference to ARM17.8.604(1)(w) in ARM 17.8.320(9); and (3) removal of 75.1.405(2)(w) in the Lincoln County Air Pollution Control Program.
In this document, 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 SIP amendments described in Section I and III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 March 30, 2020. 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, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Final rule.
In August 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published an interim final rule to revise its regulations to update references to the International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM, and remove outdated references to chronic lymphocytic leukemia from Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program regulations. These technical amendments have no effect on the cancer eligibility requirement under the Program because all cancer types are eligible to receive a dose reconstruction from NIOSH. Thus, no eligible claimant will be adversely impacted by the rulemaking finalized in this document.
This rule is effective on January 30, 2020.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090 Tusculum Ave., MS: C-48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
Interested persons or organizations were invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, arguments, recommendations, and data. Comments were invited on any topic related to this rulemaking.
HHS received one public comment for this rulemaking from a professional organization of health physicists.
As discussed in the August 2019 interim final rule (84 FR 37587), the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA)
As described in the August 2019 interim final rule, EEOICPA was established to provide financial compensation and prospective medical benefits to employees for illness caused by exposure to radiation, beryllium, silica, and toxic substances during their employment at facilities of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and certain of its contractors and vendors. It is administered by the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) with radiation dose reconstructions for claims involving radiogenic cancers provided by CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). HHS regulations in 42 CFR part 81 govern the NIOSH dose reconstructions.
In the August 2019 interim final rule, HHS updated the International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes required to identify specific cancer types used in determining the likelihood that an individual's cancer is associated with workplace radiation exposures using a number of factors, including the radiation doses estimated by NIOSH. Both the public commenter and the Board concurred with updating
Although supportive of the rulemaking, the public commenter objected to HHS's explanation in the interim final rule preamble that “the definition of the term `non-radiogenic cancer' is removed because all cancers are considered radiogenic.” According to the commenter,
HHS agrees that the explanation should properly have stated that the definition is being removed because there are no types of cancer ineligible for NIOSH dose reconstruction; accordingly, the revision is accepted and the explanation for the removal of the definition is revised below. No other changes are made to the rulemaking preamble or regulatory text.
With this final rule, and for the reasons discussed in the August 2019 interim final rule, HHS adopts as final amendments to the regulations in 42 CFR part 81 allowing NIOSH to update references and ICD codes. No substantive changes are made to part 81.
In the existing definitions section, § 81.4, the term “specified cancer” includes a reference to a corresponding DOL regulation (
In existing § 81.5(b), the term “ICD-9” is replaced with “ICD-10-CM.” In §§ 81.21, 81.23, and 81.24, all references to ICD-9 codes are changed to ICD-10-CM codes. In §§ 81.21(a) and 81.24(a), outdated references to chronic lymphocytic leukemia are also removed.
Finally, Appendix A is removed in its entirety because it is a glossary of ICD-9 codes and their cancer descriptions, and such reference tables, including tables of ICD-10 codes and their cancer descriptions, are readily available online.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not being treated as a “significant” action under E.O. 12866. It updates references and ICD codes in existing 42 CFR part 81 to allow better administrative efficiency in the processing of dose reconstruction claims. The rule does not result in costs to the Program, claimants, or any other interested parties. Accordingly, HHS has not prepared an economic analysis and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.
The rule does not interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Executive Order 13771 requires executive departments and agencies to eliminate at least two existing regulations for every new significant regulation that imposes costs. HHS has determined that this rulemaking is cost-neutral because it does not require any new action by stakeholders. The rulemaking ensures that the dose reconstructions developed by the Program can be conducted efficiently.
Because OMB has determined that this rulemaking is not significant, pursuant to E.O. 12866, and because it does not impose costs, OMB has determined that this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. Thus it has not been reviewed by OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
NIOSH has obtained approval from OMB to collect information from claimants under “Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Dose Reconstruction Interviews and Forms (EEOICPA)” (OMB Control No. 0920-0530, exp. January 31, 2022), which covers information collected under 42 CFR part 81. This rulemaking does not change the reporting burden on any respondents.
As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. This rule has been
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no effect on children.
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.
Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the final rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.
Cancer, Government employees, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Radioactive materials, Workers' compensation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services adopts as final the interim final rule published on August 1, 2019, at 8 4 FR 37587 and further amends 42 CFR part 81 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7384n(c); E.O. 13179, 65 FR 77487, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p. 321.
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notification; Head Start center-based service duration requirements.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority, on or before February 1, 2020, to lower the percentage of center-based funded enrollment slots for which Head Start programs must provide 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations, based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment. The Secretary hereby gives notice of his exercise of that authority to reduce the percentage from 100 percent (all) of a Head Start program's center-based slots, to 45 percent of a Head Start program's center-based slots.
This action is effective January 30, 2020.
Office of Head Start, Mary Switzer Bldg., 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201.
Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director for Planning, Oversight and Policy, Office of Head Start,
The Office of Head Start (OHS) has long established performance requirements for Head Start programs in regulation, including duration requirements. For more than two decades, Head Start programs have been required to meet a minimum service duration of 3.5 hours per day, 4 days per week, for 128 days per year for center-based funded slots.
(1) By August 1, 2019, 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months per year for at least 50 percent of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment; and
(2) By August 1, 2021, a program must provide 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations over the course of at least eight months per year for all of its Head Start center-based funded enrollment.
Under the new regulations, this requirement is a minimum; programs can choose to operate some or all slots at a greater number of annual hours. The 1,020 hours requirement represents an increase from the existing minimum requirement of 3.5 hours per day, 4 days per week, for 128 days per year, which is equivalent to 448 annual hours. The regulation, however, authorized the Secretary to reduce those requirements, by February 1, 2018 and February 1, 2020, respectively, based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment.
As noted, the 100 percent service duration standard is one of two requirements OHS included in the performance standards to phase-in full day, full school year services for all
On January 19, 2018, the Secretary issued a document, under 45 CFR 1302.(c)(3)(i), reducing to zero the percent of Head Start center-based slots required to provide 1,020 annual hours of service by August 1, 2019.
OHS has also revisited the merits of the 100 percent service duration standard and became concerned that this requirement may be too prescriptive to afford programs flexibility to design and operate service models that best meet the needs of the families they serve, especially in light of insufficient federal appropriations for all programs to meet this requirement. Although research points to the benefits of increased service duration for an individual child and family, research cannot answer whether the population as a whole benefits more when fewer children are served for a longer period of time in high-quality early education programs as compared to more children being served for a shorter time in high-quality early education programs. Therefore, OHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2019, that proposed to remove the 100 percent service duration standard. OHS issued the NPRM with the goals of reducing regulatory burden and restoring flexibility to Head Start grantees to design programs that best meet the needs of their local communities. The public comment period has since ended, and OHS is currently reviewing the comments and considering its next steps.
In the meantime, if the 100 percent service duration standard were to go into effect without additional funding from Congress to support it, Head Start programs would be required to decrease, significantly, the number of center-based slots available in Head Start programs because they would have to extend the number of hours for which they provide classroom services. The performance standards regulation authorizes the Secretary to lower this requirement by February 1, 2020, based on an assessment of available funding, to avoid significant slots loss in Head Start due to this requirement. As OHS considers the next steps for the overall policy direction on service duration, OHS needs to consider the impact that the 100 percent service duration standard would have on the number of children that each Head Start grantee services and address any significant slot loss in those Head Start programs.
The requirements under 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(3)(ii) of the Head Start Program Performance Standards allows the Secretary to lower the 100 percent service duration requirement described in 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(2)(iv), on or before February 1, 2020, based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment in Head Start. That section provides, On or before February 1, 2020, the Secretary may lower the required percentage described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section [establishing the 100 percent service duration requirement], based on an assessment of the availability of sufficient funding to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment. 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(3)(ii).
In the January 2018
Based on the information and the Head Start program assessment provided to him, the Secretary concludes that Head Start appropriations are not sufficient to allow the requirement at 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(2)(iv), for 100 percent of each Head Start program's center-based slots to operate for 1,020 annual hours, to go into effect without resulting in a substantial reduction in Head Start center-based slots.
In fiscal year (FY) 2016, Congress appropriated $294 million to support an increase in hours of program operations across Head Start and Early Head Start. At that time, the 100 percent service duration standard was not in effect. However, eligible programs that wished to voluntarily increase hours of program operations for their Head Start or Early Head Start center-based slots could submit an application to receive supplemental funds. Head Start programs operating less than 40 percent of their center-based slots for 1,020 hours were eligible to apply for funding. Due to the limited availability of funding, OHS used the 40 percent threshold to prioritize those Head Start programs operating the fewest full day, full school year slots and to help ensure all Head Start programs had at least 40 percent of their slots operating at 1,020 annual hours. Over 600 Head Start programs were able to increase service duration for their center-based slots through this funding opportunity.
Subsequently, in FY 2018, Congress appropriated an additional $260 million to further support an increase in hours of operation for Head Start programs. Head Start programs that operated less than 45 percent of their center-based slots at 1,020 hours, and wished to increase hours of program operation, were eligible to submit an application to receive funds. Over 500 programs were able to increase service duration for 45 percent of their Head Start center-based
OHS has conducted an assessment of available funding and the percentages of slots individual programs currently operate at 1,020 annual hours. Approximately 30 percent of Head Start center-based programs currently operate all of their slots for 1,020 hours or longer per year. Conversely, approximately 10 percent of Head Start center-based programs do not operate any of their slots for 1,020 hours per year. Approximately 78 percent of Head Start center-based programs operate at least 45 percent of their slots at 1,020 hours per year. Approximately 59 percent of Head Start center-based programs operate at least 50 percent of their slots at 1,020 hours per year.
Based on this assessment, ACF/OHS estimates that full implementation of the requirement at 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(2)(iv) for the remaining programs to operate 100 percent of their Head Start center-based slots for 1,020 annual hours would cost approximately $730 million in additional funding. In the absence of additional appropriations to support longer duration, Head Start programs would have to adjust (reduce) the number of slots available, in order to be able to operate the remaining slots at 1,020 hours per year. The requirement would result in a loss of approximately 73,800 Head Start slots, which represents roughly 11 percent of existing Head Start slots. This loss would constitute a substantial reduction in Head Start funded enrollment, and therefore makes lowering the 100 percent requirement necessary.
The FY 2020 President's Budget did not request an increase in appropriations to support longer service duration in Head Start. OHS does not expect sufficient funding to become available for Head Start programs to meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards 100 percent duration standard by August 2021. However, currently 78 percent of Head Start programs (1,050 programs) operate at least 45 percent of their center-based slots at 1,020 hours. In contrast, 410 Head Start programs operate less than 45 percent of their center-based slots at 1,020 hours. If OHS were to require all Head Start programs to operate at least 45 percent of their center-based slots at 1,020, OHS assumes that approximately 20 percent of all Head Start center-based programs (290 programs, or approximately 70 percent of Head Start programs that operate less than 45 percent of their center-based slots at 1,020 hours on an annual basis) would apply for and receive a waiver of this requirement.
OHS believes lowering the 1,020 annual hour requirement from 100 percent to 45 percent reflects prior Congressional appropriations because the most recent appropriations allowed programs to increase the percentage of slots that operate for 1,020 hours up to 45 percent. This will mitigate the chance of substantial slot loss that would likely occur under a 100 percent requirement.
Based on this assessment presented by OHS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that there is insufficient funding for Head Start programs to implement a 100 percent service duration requirement of 1,020 hours per year, without a substantial reduction in funded enrollment. Accordingly, the Secretary exercises his authority to lower the required percentage from 100 percent to 45 percent, based on the assessment that there is sufficient Head Start funding available such that a requirement that 45% of center-funded slots operate at 1,020 hours per year would not result in a substantial reduction in funded enrollment. Accordingly, by this notice, HHS lowers the 100 percent duration requirement to 45 percent.
In accordance with 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(3)(ii), the Secretary determines that there is not sufficient funding available to mitigate a substantial reduction in funded enrollment resulting from the requirement described in 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(2)(iv), that 100 percent of a Head Start program's center-based funded enrollment operate for 1,020 annual hours of planned classroom operations by August 1, 2021, and hereby lowers that percentage from 100 percent to 45 percent. This determination is effective immediately. Because the performance standards govern the Secretary's discretion in this matter, and authorize the Secretary to take this action, no public comment process is required.
The service duration requirements for Head Start center-based programs described in 45 CFR 1302.21(c)(2)(i) and (ii) also remain in effect for those slots not operating at 1,020 annual hours. Under these requirements, a Head Start center-based program must provide, at a minimum, at least 160 days per year of planned class operations if it operates for five days per week, or at least 128 days per year if it operates four days per week. Classes must operate for a minimum of 3.5 hours per day. These requirements are minimums, and programs can choose to operate some slots longer each day and/or for more days per year. Additionally, the requirement that Early Head Start programs provide 1,380 annual hours of planned class operations for all center-based enrollment remains in effect.
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
This document makes amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.
Mr. James Johnson, Chief Counsel, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, 1800 M Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036; at 202-606-8788; or email at
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals was established within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. 109-163 (now codified at 41 U.S.C. 7105(b)). This document updates the CFR to reflect a change in the Board's mailing address. This final rule amends sections 6101.1(e), 6103.302(b), 6104.402(a)(3), and 6105.502(a)(2)(iv) to provide that the physical location and mailing address for the Board are the same.
The General Services Administration certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or otherwise collect information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
The final rule is exempt from Congressional review under Pub. L. 104-121 because it relates solely to agency organization, procedure, and practice and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freight forwarders, Government procurement, Travel and relocation expenses.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 6101, 6103, 6104, and 6105 as set forth below:
41 U.S.C. 7101-7109.
(e) * * * The Board's physical and mailing address is 1800 M Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. * * *
31 U.S.C. 3726(i)(1); 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109; Sec. 201(o), Pub. L. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826.
(b) * * * The Board will accept hand-delivered and mailed filings during business hours at 1800 M Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. * * *
Secs. 202(n), 204, Pub. L. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826; Sec. 211, Pub. L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535; 31 U.S.C. 3702; 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109.
(a) * * *
(3) * * * The Board will accept hand-delivered and mailed filings during business hours at 1800 M Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. * * *
31 U.S.C. 3529; 31 U.S.C. 3702; 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109; Secs. 202(n), 204, Pub. L. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826; Sec. 211, Pub. L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * * The Board will accept hand-delivered and mailed filings during business hours at 1800 M Street NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. * * *
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to add subpart D to part 708a of its regulations. This will clarify and make transparent the procedures and requirements currently in place related to combination transactions. Combination transactions include those where a federally insured credit union (FICU) proposes to assume liabilities from a non-credit union, including a bank. They also include a FICU's merger or consolidation with a non-credit union entity. Further, the proposed rule clarifies the scope of section 741.8 of the NCUA's regulations, which currently requires the NCUA to grant approval before a FICU may purchase loans or assume an assignment of deposits, shares, or liabilities from any institution that is not insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF).
Comments must be received by March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only).
•
•
•
•
Elizabeth Wirick, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or by telephone at (703) 518-6540.
The NCUA has historically seen a relatively small but consistent number of applications from FICUs seeking to engage in merger or purchase and assumption transactions with banks or other types of financial institutions. As the table below shows, the number of these transactions the NCUA approved each year
NCUA-approved transactions between FICUs and other types of institutions for calendar years 2013-2019 are as follows. None of these transactions involve the purchase of, or operation under, a bank's charter.
Because these transactions occur in relatively small numbers, the Board has not previously promulgated a detailed rule addressing them.
The experience the NCUA has gained in recent years while considering each of these transactions on a case-by-case basis informs this rulemaking. This experience has allowed the agency to identify the various issues most frequently presented in these transactions and develop processes for considering these applications. Accordingly, the Board has determined to formalize some of these requirements in this rulemaking.
During the process of developing this new regulatory language, the Board has determined that § 741.8 of the NCUA's regulations also needs to be revised to update its scope and improve its clarity. The Board is proposing to apply § 741.8 to all asset purchases, not only loan purchases and liability assumptions. The Board adopted the regulatory language currently in § 741.8 primarily to address concerns about loan purchases from institutions not insured by the NCUSIF; at the time it believed that encompassing all assets would be unnecessarily burdensome.
Section 205 of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) permits FICUs to engage in merger and purchase and assumption transactions with other types of financial institutions, as follows: Except as provided in a separate paragraph,
In granting or withholding this approval, the Board must consider six factors, which are the history, financial condition, and management policies of the credit union; the adequacy of the credit union's reserves; the economic advisability of the transaction; the general character and fitness of the credit union's management; the convenience and needs of the members to be served by the credit union; and whether the credit union is a cooperative association organized for the purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for provident or productive purposes.
Under the authority of this section, the NCUA has already issued detailed regulations governing the merger of a FICU into a bank other than a mutual savings bank
The proposed rule adds new subpart D to part 708a. The new subpart specifies the basic requirements applicable to the above-referenced combination transactions between a FICU and another type of financial institution. All transactions require NCUA approval, and state-chartered FICUs must also obtain their state regulator's approval. The proposed rule also includes provisions ensuring that the directors of a FICU proposing a combination transaction understand the nature and ramifications of the proposed transaction. Finally, the proposed rule amends § 741.8 of the NCUA's regulations. The proposed amendments to § 741.8 make the regulation's provisions applicable to all asset purchases and list the other NCUA regulations that apply to each particular type of transaction.
This section defines several terms used in subpart D. The term “combination transaction” includes several of the types of transactions authorized by Section 205(b)(1) of the FCU Act including the following: (1) A merger or consolidation with anon-credit union; (2) the assumption of liabilities from anon-credit union; or (3) the transfer of assets to anon-credit union in consideration of the assumption of certain of its liabilities. The use of the distinct term “combination transaction” differentiates these transactions from other types of transactions such as mergers between FICUs, mergers between FICUs and noninsured credit unions, FICU conversions to banks, and FICU purchases of loans that are not part of a merger or consolidation.
The Board has determined to exclude mergers where one party is a FICU and one party is a noninsured credit union from the definition of combination transaction because part 708b of the NCUA's regulations already addresses these mergers.
The term “credit union” means any credit union insured by the NCUSIF, so the rule generally applies to both federally insured state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) and federal credit unions (FCUs).
The term “non-credit union” means any institution that is not an FCU or a state credit union (whether or not federally insured), as those terms are defined in the FCU Act. Most of the combination transactions contemplated under this proposal have been between FICUs and other depository institutions, such as banks. In a few cases, however, FICUs have proposed a transaction with a non-depository financial company, such as a mortgage bank. The plain language of the FCU Act does not limit the types of institutions with which FICUs can combine, but allows transactions with any “noninsured credit union or institution.”
The Board invites comments on the terms it proposes to use to address the transactions and the parties to these transactions under Section 205(b) of the FCU Act. The Board particularly solicits comments regarding the comprehensiveness and scope of the various terms, and whether commenters would recommend alternative, or additional, defined terms.
Paragraph (a) of this section requires the NCUA's advance approval of combination transactions, and it requires a FICU proposing a combination transaction to submit its request to the Regional Director. FISCUs must obtain the advance approval of their state regulator in addition to the NCUA's approval.
Paragraph (b) of this section recites the statutory factors the NCUA must weigh in its consideration of a combination transaction application. While the first four of the six statutory factors relate to safety and soundness, the list also includes other considerations. In particular, the last two factors on the list require the NCUA to consider the proposed transaction's effect on FICU members and potential FICU members and whether the proposed transaction is in keeping with the FICU's mission. Accordingly, the NCUA reserves the right to object to a transaction, or portions of a transaction, even absent safety and soundness concerns.
Paragraph (c) of this section clarifies that the FICU's board of directors must vote to approve a proposed combination transaction before the FICU submits its application package. While board of directors' votes are a common practice in these transactions, the NCUA believes that an explicit requirement will ensure that FICU management continues to keep the FICU's directors informed. In similar circumstances, the FICU-to-FICU merger rule in part 708b requires a vote of the board of directors of the continuing credit union.
The proposal does not impose a limit on the length of time the NCUA may take to consider combination transactions. While the agency continues to gain experience with these transactions, it may be preferable to approach each transaction without a deadline that could impede the NCUA's full understanding of the transaction's potential consequences. In this regard, the Board notes there is also no deadline for agency action in the FICU-to-FICU merger rule. Because, however, the Board is also aware that a specified timeline can be helpful for planning purposes, the Board seeks comment on whether there should be a deadline for agency action after receipt of a complete application package and, if so, what would be the appropriate period for agency action.
The Board also invites comment on the other requirements for approval of a combination transaction. In particular, the Board asks commenters to consider whether the proposed requirements provide sufficient detail for applicants to understand the process and the criteria by which the NCUA evaluates applications.
This section highlights critical elements of the application package. In particular, it addresses requirements related to features that distinguish FICUs from other types of financial institutions. These features include FICU membership, permissible powers, and the duties of FICU boards.
The applying FICU must specify how it plans to make non-credit union customers FICU members. Membership is important because, with limited exceptions, FICUs may only serve members. The Board determined to include this reminder in the regulatory text so that FICUs do not lose sight of the importance of membership, particularly in light of NCUSIF insurance coverage limitations discussed later in this proposal. Even where the FCU Act would permit service to non-members, such as the acceptance of public unit deposits or the acceptance of non-member deposits by low-income designated FICUs, the FICU's goal should always be to make the customers of the other institution members.
The applying FICU must provide basic information about the transaction that enables NCUA staff to evaluate it. NCUA Regional Office staff involved in evaluating these transactions have observed that an application often lacks a succinct summary of very basic information. The NCUA's National Supervision and Policy Manual will detail more specific requirements in this regard, but the Board agrees with NCUA staff that the regulation should list the minimum information required to be disclosed in connection with every transaction. This information includes the balance sheet and income statements for both institutions; a combined financial statement showing the transaction's potential impact on the FICU's net worth; information about the FICU's due diligence assessment of the proposed transaction, including analysis to support the proposed transaction price; a delinquent loan summary; analysis of the adequacy of the FICU's allowance for loan and lease losses; and a list of the other institution's assets that would be impermissible for the FICU to hold under the FCU Act or state law, with the plan for excluding these assets.
This section also includes a requirement that each member of the FICU's board of directors that votes in favor of the combination transaction
The Board seeks comment on all aspects of the requirements for combination transaction applications set forth in this section. The Board particularly solicits commenters' views on whether it would be helpful to have more detailed information in the regulation.
Paragraph (a) of this section requires a FICU proposing a combination transaction to demonstrate that any customer deposits it assumes will be insured by the NCUSIF as of the transaction close. With certain limited exceptions, FICUs do not have authority to hold non-insured deposits. Further, the NCUA understands that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will not approve a transaction in which a bank transfers customer deposits to a FICU unless it ascertains that the deposits transferred will have immediate NCUSIF coverage. The availability of federal insurance is a critical consideration in determining whether a proposed transaction meets the “convenience and needs of the members.”
Paragraph (b) of this section describes methods by which a FICU proposing a combination transaction can ensure consumer deposits will have NCUSIF coverage. First, a FICU with a low-income designation may hold non-member deposits from any source and they are insured up to applicable limits. FICUs may also hold public unit deposits that are insured up to applicable limits, to the extent permitted by state law for state-chartered FICUs. Also, the state regulator of a state-chartered FICU can provide a statement confirming that the customers of the institution will become members of the FICU, pursuant to state law, at the transaction close. Finally, an FCU that does not have a low-income designation must demonstrate that the depositors are within its field of membership and that they have taken action to become members of the FCU.
This section reiterates the two-step process for joining an FCU. The first step, covered in paragraph (a), is determining that a potential member falls within the FCU's field of membership. The second step, covered in paragraph (b), is how the potential member becomes an actual member.
The NCUA's long held position has generally required that to become a member of the FCU the other entity's customer must affirmatively act through an authoritative vote or individual consent before the closing of a combination transaction. In the case of a vote, the other entity's regulator, charter and bylaws must permit such a process, whereby the vote of a certain percentage of customers will demonstrate affirmative approval for all affected customers and thereby meet the requirement to subscribe to FCU membership. This approach is analogous to the voting required in FICU-to-FICU merger transactions, where a majority vote of the whole allows the transaction to proceed without an affirmative act by each individual. The Board invites comments on this aspect of the proposed rule.
Section 741.8 is the implementing regulation for some of the transactions permitted by § 205(b) of the FCU Act. Section 741.8 also addresses loan purchases, as permitted for FCUs under § 107(13) of the FCU Act. The proposal amends paragraph (a) to include purchases of assets other than loans to the list of authorized transactions. The proposal also revises paragraph (c) to delineate the other NCUA regulations that apply to each particular type of transaction. The NCUA's longstanding position is that § 741.8, on its own, is not additional or separate authority, but simply states that the NCUA must approve certain types of transactions that are otherwise permitted by the FCU Act and other NCUA regulations.
The proposal also adds a paragraph (d) to § 741.8 to enumerate the statutory factors the NCUA must consider when evaluating transactions. The FCU Act requires the NCUA to consider these factors when evaluating transactions authorized under § 205(b) of the FCU Act. The loan and asset purchase transactions addressed in § 741.8, which are authorized by the investment and eligible obligations authority of the FCU Act, do not currently require analysis of these factors. Nonetheless, these factors address the two major issues at stake in any transaction: (1) Whether it is safe and sound, and (2) whether it helps the credit union serve its members. Accordingly, the Board has determined that it is prudent and appropriate to use these factors in evaluating all transactions under § 741.8.
The Board seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to § 741.8, including whether additional amendments to § 741.8 would improve transparency or clarity.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
NCUA proposes to add new Subpart D to Part 708a to clarify and make transparent the procedures and requirement currently related to combination transactions with an institution other than a FICU and
Current § 741.8 prescribes that a credit union must submit a request to NCUA for approval to purchase assets and assumption of liabilities. This section is being revised to delineate the other NCUA regulations that apply to each particular type of transaction. The information collection requirements associated the submission of a request under subpart D will be covered by the new OMB control number. The information collection requirements currently cleared under OMB control number 3133-0169 will continue to address of the reporting requirement outside of those covered by subpart D, with no changes at this time.
This is a request for a new OMB control number to cover the information collection requirements of Subpart D to Part 708a.
The NCUA invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and cost of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments are a matter of public record. Comments regarding the information collection requirements of this rule should be sent to (1) Dawn Wolfgang, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 6032, Alexandria, VA 22314, or email at
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the Executive Order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has, therefore, determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive Order.
The NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Charter conversions, Credit unions.
Bank deposit insurance, Credit unions.
For the reasons stated above, the NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 708a and 741 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1785(b), and 1785(c).
As used in this subpart D:
(a)
(b)
(1) The history, financial condition, and management policies of the credit union;
(2) The adequacy of the credit union's reserves;
(3) The economic advisability of the transaction;
(4) The general character and fitness of the credit union's management;
(5) The convenience and needs of the members to be served by the credit union; and
(6) How the transaction fits into the credit union's purpose as a cooperative association organized for the purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for provident or productive purposes.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)(1)
(i) A balance sheet and income statement for each institution;
(ii) A combined financial statement showing the transaction's potential impact on the credit union's net worth;
(iii) A summary of the credit union's due diligence assessment process for the proposed transaction, including analysis to support the proposed transaction price;
(iv) A delinquent loan summary for any assets involved in the transaction;
(v) An analysis of the adequacy of the credit union's allowance for loan and lease losses;
(vi) A list of the other institution's assets that would be impermissible for a credit union to hold under the Act and, for state-chartered credit unions, state law, and an explanation of the plan to dispose of these assets in advance of, or separately from, the transaction; and
(vii) A list of bank shareholders.
(2)
(d)
(1) A statement that each director signing the certification supports the proposed combination transaction and believes the proposed combination transaction is in the best interests of the current and potential members of the credit union;
(2) A statement that credit union management has adequately explained the transaction's expected effect on the credit union's net worth and balance sheet, as well as how the purchase price was determined;
(3) A description of all materials submitted to the Regional Director with the notice and certification;
(4) A statement that each director signing the certification had the opportunity to review all relevant facts about the transaction before voting on it; and
(5) A statement that each director signing the certification, as well as any corporation, partnership or association (other than the credit union) in which the director has a direct or indirect interest, does not have a pecuniary or personal interest in the transaction.
(a)
(b)
(1) The credit union has a low-income designation, as permitted by § 701.34 of this chapter.
(2) The deposits are from a public unit or a political subdivision thereof, as those terms are defined in § 745.1 of this chapter.
(3) The State Supervisory Authority of a state-chartered credit union provides a written statement confirming, subject to the NCUA's satisfaction, that the depositors will be credit union members at the transaction close under the relevant state law.
(4) A federal credit union demonstrates, pursuant to § 708a.405, that the depositors are within the federal credit union's field of membership and that the depositors have consented to become members of the federal credit union.
(a)
(b)
12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), 1781-1790, and 1790d; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any credit union insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) must receive approval from the NCUA before purchasing assets, including loans, or assuming an assignment of deposits, shares, or liabilities from:
(c)
(1) For a transaction that is a merger or consolidation with an institution of the type listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the credit union must comply with subpart D of part 708a of this chapter.
(2) For a transaction that is a merger or consolidation with an institution of the type listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the credit union must comply with part 708b of this chapter.
(3) For assumptions of deposits or other liabilities, not part of a merger or consolidation, from an institution of the type listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the credit union must comply with subpart D of part 708a.
(4) For purchases of loans, not part of a merger or consolidation, from an institution of the type listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, the credit union must comply with § 701.23 of this chapter.
(5) For purchase of other assets, not part of a merger or consolidation, from an institution of the type listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, the credit union must comply with parts 703 or 721 of this chapter, as applicable.
(d)
(1) The history, financial condition, and management policies of the credit union;
(2) The adequacy of the credit union's reserves;
(3) The economic advisability of the transaction;
(4) The general character and fitness of the credit union's management;
(5) The convenience and needs of the members to be served by the credit union; and
(6) How the transaction fits into the credit union's purpose as a cooperative association organized for the purpose of promoting thrift among its members and creating a source of credit for provident or productive purposes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harrison County Airport, Cadiz, OH; Noble County Airport, Caldwell, OH; and Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, OH. The FAA is proposing these actions as the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Newcomerstown VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of Harrison County Airport and Noble County Airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1041/Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-27, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Harrison County Airport, Cadiz, OH; Noble County Airport, Caldwell, OH; and Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, OH, to support IFR operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-1041/Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile radius) of the Harrison County Airport, Cadiz, OH; removing the city associated with the airport to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the exclusionary language from the airspace legal description as it is no longer required;
Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Noble County Airport, Caldwell, OH, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the city associated with the airport to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2M; and removing the exclusionary language from the airspace legal description as it is no longer required;
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (decreased from a 7.5-mile radius) of Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, OH.
These actions are the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Newcomerstown VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Harrison County Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Noble County Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Cambridge Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D airspace at Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bourland Field, Fort Worth, TX, and Mesquite Metro Airport, Mesquite, TX, which are contained within the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description, and Stephenville Clark Regional Airport, Stephenville, TX. The FAA is proposing these actions as the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Glen Rose VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at Bourland Field and Stephenville Clark Regional Airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program, and to bring the airspace legal description for Mesquite Metro Airport into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The geographic coordinates for Fort Worth Spinks Airport; Bridgeport Municipal Airport, Bridgeport, TX; and Stephenville Clark Regional Airport and the names of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Lancaster Regional Airport, Lancaster, TX; Bourland Field, and Stephenville Clark Regional Airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1030, Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-17 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace at Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bourland Field, Fort Worth, TX, and Mesquite Metro Airport, Mesquite, TX, which are contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description, and Stephenville Clark Regional Airport, Stephenville, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-1030, Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending the Class D airspace at Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX, by updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Fort Worth Spinks Airport, TX” to “Fort Worth, TX” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport; and replacing the outdated term
Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, by updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Dallas/Fort Worth, TX” to “Dallas-Fort Worth, TX” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; updating the name of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (previously Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport), Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the cities associated with McKinney National Airport, McKinney, TX; Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport, Rockwall, TX; and Mesquite Metro Airport, Mesquite, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; removing the Mesquite NDB and the associated extension from the airspace legal description as the associated instrument procedure has been cancelled and the extension is no longer needed; updating the name of the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC (previously Mesquite Metro ILS Localizer) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the extension south of the airport associated with the Mesquite Metro ILS Localizer; adding an extension 4 miles west and 7.9 miles east of the 001° bearing from the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the Mesquite Metro Airport to 10 miles north of the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC; updating the name of Lancaster Regional Airport (previously Lancaster Airport), Lancaster, TX, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and removing the city associated with Lancaster Regional Airport contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; removing the city associate with Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the city associated with Cleburne Regional Airport, Cleburne, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; updating the name of Bourland Field (previously Bourland Field Airport), Fort Worth, TX, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database and removing the city associated with the airport contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; removing the cities associated with Granbury Regional Airport, Granbury, TX, and Parker County Airport, Weatherford, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; removing the city associated with Bridgeport Municipal Airport, Bridgeport, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the city associated with the Decatur Municipal Airport, Decatur, TX, contained in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M;
And updating the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stephenville Clark Regional Airport (previously Clark Field Municipal Airport), Stephenville, TX, by updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M; and adding an extension 4 miles each side of the 329° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Fort Worth Spinks Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 173° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 4.8 miles south of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 30-mile radius of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of McKinney National Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 002° bearing from McKinney National Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 010° bearing from Ralph M. Hall/Rockwall Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.8 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Mesquite Metro Airport, and within 4 miles west and 7.9 miles east of the 001° bearing from the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the Mesquite Metro Airport to 10 miles north of the Mesquite Metro: RWY 18-LOC, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Lancaster Regional Airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of the 140° bearing from Lancaster Regional Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.2 miles southeast of the airport, and within 8 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the 144° bearing from the Point of Origin extending from the 30-mile radius of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport to 35 miles southeast of the Point of Origin, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Fort Worth Spinks Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 178° bearing from Fort Worth Spinks Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 21 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.9-mile radius of Cleburne Regional Airport, and within 3.6 miles each side of the 292° bearing from the Cleburne Regional Airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 12.2 miles northwest of airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Bourland Field, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Granbury Regional Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Parker County Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 177° bearing from Parker County Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 21.4 miles south of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Bridgeport Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 040° bearing from Bridgeport Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 001° bearing from Bridgeport Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.7 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Decatur Municipal Airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the 263° bearing from Decatur Municipal Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.2 miles west of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Stephenville Clark Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 329° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth at Avenger Field Airport, Sweetwater, TX. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Sweetwater non-directional radio beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates for the airport and the name of the airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0787; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Avenger Field Airport, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views,
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Avenger Field Airport, Sweetwater, TX, and within 2 miles each side of the 174° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 12.1 miles southeast of the airport, and by removing the Sweetwater NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and removing the city associated with the airport from the airspace legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Avenger Field Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 174° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 12.1 miles southeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Owyhee Airport, Owyhee, NV. The establishment of airspace facilitates the airport's transition from visual flight rules to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. The airspace, to the extent possible, contains a new IFR area navigation (RNAV) approach and IFR departure procedures at the airport. The first proposed area extends upward from 700 feet above the surface. The second proposed area extends upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action would ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0012; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-86, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support a new RNAV procedure and IFR departures at Owyhee Airport, Owyhee, NV.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0012; Airspace Docket No. 19-AWP-86”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at the Owyhee Airport, Owyhee, NV. The establishment of airspace facilitates the airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations. Specifically, to the extent possible, it will contain IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface.
The first proposed airspace area extends upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 241° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of the Owyhee Airport.
The second proposed airspace area extends upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 15-mile radius of the Owyhee Airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.0 miles each side of the 241° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 15-mile radius of the Owyhee Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Coffeyville Municipal Airport, Coffeyville, KS. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Coffeyville non-directional beacon (NDB), which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1039/Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-15 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Coffeyville Municipal Airport, Coffeyville, KS, to support IFR operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 7.6-mile radius) of the Coffeyville Municipal Airport, Coffeyville, KS; and updating the name (previously Coffeeyville Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Coffeyville NDB, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Coffeyville Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E surface area airspace at McAlester Regional Airport, McAlester, OK, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Henryetta Municipal Airport, Henryetta, OK; McAlester Regional Airport; and Robert S. Kerr Airport, Poteau, OK. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the McAlester VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports. The geographic coordinates of the McAlester Regional Airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1044/Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-19 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E surface area airspace at McAlester Regional Airport, McAlester, OK, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Henryetta Municipal Airport, Henryetta, OK; McAlester Regional Airport; and Robert S. Kerr Airport, Poteau, OK, to support IFR operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-1044/Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending the Class E surface area airspace at McAlester Regional Airport, McAlester, OK, by adding an extension within 1 mile each side of the 020° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.1 miles north of the airport; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Amending the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.3-mile radius (decreased from a 7.1-mile radius) at Henryetta Municipal Airport, Henryetta, OK; and removing the Henryetta Medical Center Heliport and associated airspace from the Henryetta, OK, airspace legal description as the instrument procedures at the heliport have been cancelled and the airspace is no longer required;
Amending the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at McAlester Regional
And amending the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Robert S. Kerr Airport, Poteau, OK, by removing the Rich Mountain VORTAC and associated extension from the airspace legal description as it is no longer required; removing the Eastern Oklahoma Medical Center Heliport and associated airspace contained within the Poteau, OK, airspace legal description as the instrument procedures at the heliport have been cancelled and the airspace is no longer required; and removing the city associated with Robert S. Kerr Airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
These actions are the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the McAlester VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4-mile radius of McAlester Regional Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 020° degree bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.1 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Henryetta Municipal Airport.
McAlester Regional Airport, OK
(Lat. 34°52′57″ N, long. 95°47′01″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of McAlester Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 020° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.4 miles north of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 200° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles south of the airport.
(Lat. 35°01′18″ N, long. 94°37′17″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Robert S. Kerr Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of the decommissioning of the
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1040/Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-18 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-1040/Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK; updating the name of the airport (previously Ada Municipal Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; extending the extension to the north of the airport to 10.4 miles north of the airport (increased from 10.3 miles); and removing the Ada VOR and associated extension from the airspace legal description.
These actions are the result of airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Ada VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Ada Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 000° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 180° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.9 miles south of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E surface area airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ely Municipal Airport, Ely, MN. The FAA is proposing these actions as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Ely VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-1043/Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-29 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E surface area airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ely Municipal Airport, Ely, MN, to support IFR operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending the Class E surface area airspace at Ely Municipal Airport, Ely, MN, by updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the Ely VOR/DME and all associated extensions from the airspace legal description; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 120° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.6 miles southeast of the airport; and updating the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement;”
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7.7-mile radius) of the Ely Municipal Airport; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
These actions are the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Ely VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4-mile radius of the Ely Municipal Airport and within 1 mile each side of the 120° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 4.6 miles southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter the continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Ely Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace within Prohibited Area P-204.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing cyclopentyl fentanyl (
Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before March 2, 2020.
Interested persons may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before March 2, 2020.
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-565” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. (21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D). Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
On February 1, 2018, DEA published an order in the
The Acting Administrator, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), is initiating proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
In a letter dated September 6, 2019, DEA notified HHS that it no longer needed scientific and medical evaluations for cyclopropyl fentanyl and
On November 12, 2019, the Assistant Secretary submitted HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation
As discussed in the background section, the Acting Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), to add cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
1.
The abuse potential of cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
Cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
2.
3.
There are no FDA-approved marketing applications for drug products containing cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
4.
5.
NFLIS and STARLiMS data indicate that law enforcement encounters for isobutyryl fentanyl and valeryl fentanyl have increased over the years, with valeryl fentanyl nearly doubling from 2018 to 2019. Cyclopentyl fentanyl was found in three exhibits in 2017 and
6.
7.
8.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. (21 U.S.C. 812(b)). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for HHS and review of all other available data, the Acting Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:
1. Cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
2. Cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
i. The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;
ii. there must be adequate safety studies;
iii. there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
iv. the drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
v. the scientific evidence must be widely available.
57 FR 10499 (1992).
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
Based on these findings, Acting Administrator of DEA concludes that cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
If this rule is finalized as proposed, cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
6.
7.
8.
9.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This proposed rule does not meet the definition of an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, and the repeal and cost offset requirements of Executive Order 13771 have not been triggered. OMB has previously determined that formal rulemaking actions concerning the scheduling of controlled substances, such as this rule, are not significant
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On February 1, 2018, the DEA published an order to temporarily place cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
There are currently 34 registrations authorized to handle one or more of the following substances: Cyclopentyl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl,
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, drug traffic control, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is proposing to amend the foreign filing license rules to facilitate use of ePCT (a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) online web-based service) to prepare an international application for filing with the USPTO in its capacity as a Receiving Office under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). ePCT offers many benefits to users, including real time up-to-date validation features to help users properly complete the PCT Request. ePCT resides on WIPO's servers abroad and is accessed via an internet browser on the user's system. While the current foreign filing license rules would authorize the export of technical data to ePCT for purposes of preparing an international application for filing in a foreign PCT Receiving Office, the current rules do not authorize the export of technical data to ePCT for purposes of preparing an international application for filing with the USPTO as a Receiving Office. The USPTO is thus proposing to amend the foreign filing license rules to provide that a foreign filing license from the USPTO would authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes relating to the use of ePCT to prepare an international application for filing with the USPTO in its capacity as a Receiving Office under the PCT.
Written comments must be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Comments should be sent by email addressed to:
Comments further may be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal website (
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the USPTO prefers to receive comments by email. Emailed comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in Adobe® portable document format or Microsoft Word® format. Comments not submitted by email or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into Adobe® portable document format.
The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's website (
Michael Neas, Deputy Director, International Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 272-3289, or Boris Milef, Senior Legal Examiner, International Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 272-3288.
WIPO also makes available and maintains PCT Secure Applications Filed Electronically (PCT-SAFE) software, which must be installed on the user's system. Both PCT-SAFE and ePCT include validation features to help users properly complete the PCT Request. Since the PCT-SAFE validation can only be made against the version of the software installed on the user's system, the most up-to-date version of PCT-SAFE is required in order to ensure accurate validation. In contrast to PCT-SAFE, validation in the ePCT system is made in real time and does not require software updates. Furthermore, like PCT-SAFE, the zip file generated by ePCT, which contains a PCT Request in character coded format, also entitles the applicant to the same reduction in international filing fees as indicated in item 4(b) of the PCT Schedule of Fees (
By using ePCT, an international application will be associated with the user's ePCT account, even before the application is filed, thereby allowing users to share access rights with others prior to filing, if needed. In addition, after the record copy is received by the IB, the application file may be viewed online via ePCT without the need to separately request access rights.
Applicants who are residents and/or nationals of the United States and its territories can file international applications directly with the Receiving Office of the IB via ePCT or other means, provided that any national security provisions have been met prior to filing, including obtaining any required foreign filing license.
The changes to the regulations proposed in this document would permit applicants having a foreign filing license from the USPTO to use ePCT to prepare an international application for filing with the RO/US without having to separately comply with the regulations set forth in 37 CFR 5.11(b). In addition, the information that the USPTO collects from a PCT Request form electronically prepared via ePCT is the same information that it collects from the paper PCT Request form, which has been reviewed and previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0651-0021.
The following is a discussion of proposed amendments to Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 5.
Section 5.11(b) is proposed to be amended to provide that a license from the Commissioner of Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 referred to in § 5.11(a) (“foreign filing license”) would additionally authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes relating to the use of a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) online service for preparing an international application for filing with the USPTO as a Receiving Office (RO/US) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
The proposed amendment would authorize applicants having a foreign filing license from the USPTO to use ePCT to prepare an international application for filing with the RO/US without having to separately comply with the regulations identified in § 5.11(b),
Section 5.11(e)(3) is proposed to be amended to change “foreign patent application” to “foreign application” for consistency with the definition of foreign application in § 5.1(b)(2).
Sections 5.15(b) and 5.15(e) are proposed to be amended consistent with the proposed amendments to § 5.15(a).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for these proposed changes are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law).
The changes proposed in this document will facilitate use of WIPO's ePCT system to prepare international applications for filing with the United States Receiving Office and will apply to any entity, including a small or micro entity, that uses ePCT to prepare an international patent application under the PCT for filing with the RO/US. The changes proposed in this document will not result in a change in the burden imposed on any patent applicant, including a small entity.
For the foregoing reasons, the changes proposed in this document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Classified information, Exports, Foreign relations, Inventions and patents.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 5 is proposed to be amended as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 41, 181-188, as amended by the Patent Law Foreign Filing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1567; the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2751
(b) * * *
(2) Foreign application as used in this part includes, for filing in a foreign country or in a foreign or international intellectual property authority (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361, 37 CFR 1.412) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382, 37 CFR 1.1002)) any of the following: An application for patent, international application, international design application, or application for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model.
(a) A license from the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 is required before filing any application for patent including any modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto or divisions thereof or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model, in a foreign country or in a foreign or international intellectual property authority (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361, 37 CFR 1.412) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382, 37 CFR 1.1002)), if the invention was made in the United States, and:
(1) An application on the invention has been filed in the United States less than six months prior to the date on which the application is to be filed; or
(2) No application on the invention has been filed in the United States.
(b) The license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section would also authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes relating to (i) the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application and (ii) the use of a World Intellectual Property Organization online service for preparing an international application for filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office (35 U.S.C. 361, 37 CFR 1.412) without separately complying with the regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce), and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy).
(e) * * *
(3) For subsequent modifications, amendments and supplements containing additional subject matter to, or divisions of, a foreign application if:
(a) Filing of an application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on an invention made in the United States will be considered to include a petition for license under 35 U.S.C. 184 for the subject matter of the application. The filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a license is granted. If the initial automatic petition is not granted, a subsequent petition may be filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Applications or other materials reviewed pursuant to §§ 5.12 through 5.14, which were not required to be made available for inspection by defense agencies under 35 U.S.C. 181, will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. This license permits subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements containing additional subject matter to, or divisions of, a foreign application, if such changes to the application do not alter the general nature of the invention in a manner that would require the United States application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181. Grant of this license authorizes the export of technical data pursuant to § 5.11(b) and the filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign or international intellectual property authority when the technical data and the subject matter of the foreign application corresponds to that of the application or other materials reviewed pursuant to §§ 5.12 through 5.14 upon which the license was granted. This license includes authority:
(1) To export and file all duplicate and formal application papers in foreign countries or with foreign or international intellectual property authorities;
(b) Applications or other materials which were required to be made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. Grant of this license authorizes the export of technical data pursuant to § 5.11(b) and the filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign or international intellectual property authority. Further, this license includes authority to export and file all duplicate and formal papers in foreign countries or with foreign or international intellectual property authorities and to make amendments, modifications, and supplements to, file divisions of, and take any action in the prosecution of the foreign application, provided subject
(e) Any paper filed abroad or transmitted to a foreign or international intellectual property authority following the filing of a foreign application that changes the general nature of the subject matter disclosed at the time of filing in a manner that would require such application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 or that involves the disclosure of subject matter listed in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must be separately licensed in the same manner as a foreign application. Further, if no license has been granted under § 5.12(a) on filing the corresponding United States application, any paper filed abroad or with a foreign or international intellectual property authority that involves the disclosure of additional subject matter must be licensed in the same manner as a foreign application.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's proceeding listed below by Angie Kronenberg, on behalf of INCOMPAS, and Paula Boyd, on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 14, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before February 10, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Michael Ray, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-0357.
The full text of the Petitions are available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Petitions also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Department of Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of the Administration's commitment to improving customer service delivery, the Department of Agriculture, has under OMB review the following proposed Information Collection Request “Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation)” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Submit comments on or before: March 2, 2020.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 0503-XXXX, Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation), by any of the following methods:
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Ruth Brown, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Resources Management Center, 1200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250 or via email to:
This proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving customer service delivery as discussed in Section 280 of OMB Circular A-11 at
As discussed in OMB guidance, agencies should identify their highest-impact customer journeys (using customer volume, annual program cost, and/or knowledge of customer priority as weighting factors) and select touchpoints/transactions within those journeys to collect feedback.
These results will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on
As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Department of Agriculture will only submit collections if they meet the following criteria.
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes
• Upon agreement between OMB and the agency all or a subset of information may be released as part of A-11, Section 280 requirements only on
• Additional release of data must be done coordinated with OMB.
These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency, its customers and stakeholders, and OMB as it monitors agency compliance on Section 280. These responses will inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on services will be unavailable.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments will be available for public inspection
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC Program or WIC) is issuing this Request for Information to obtain input from WIC State agencies, authorized vendors, food manufacturers, technology partners, and other interested stakeholders regarding the direction of the National Universal Product Code (NUPC) database. The NUPC database can be used by WIC State agencies delivering benefits via Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) to develop, update and maintain their Authorized Product Lists (APLs). FNS is specifically interested in obtaining stakeholder perspectives on the role of the NUPC database to the program community, and different options for operating, maintaining, and/or enhancing the database. FNS welcomes comments from all interested stakeholders.
Written comments must be received on or before March 30, 2020.
Comments are accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
Dana Rasmussen, Senior Technical Advisor, Supplemental Food Programs Division, at (703) 305-1628.
The WIC Program, authorized under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-642), provides low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five with nutritious supplemental foods, nutrition education, including breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals to health and social services. The program is administered by USDA FNS. FNS provides grant funds which are used by WIC State agencies to operate the WIC Program and distribute benefits through local WIC clinics. The program operates throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and through 33 Indian Tribal Organizations.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, Pub. L. 111-296) requires all WIC State agencies to implement EBT systems by October 1, 2020, or seek an exemption. To implement EBT, some State agencies must update their management information systems to issue benefits via EBT and must ensure the necessary EBT infrastructure is in place for clinics and vendors. To date, over half of all WIC State agencies have implemented EBT statewide, with the remaining State agencies engaged in the EBT planning and implementation processes pursuant to the statutory mandate.
Section 352(e) of the HHFKA directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an NUPC database for use by all WIC State agencies in implementing EBT. HHFKA provides $1 million each fiscal year, to remain available until expended, for NUPC database development, hosting, hardware and software configuration, and database support. Program regulations at 7 CFR 246.12(cc) require WIC State agencies with EBT to use the NUPC database. The NUPC database is intended to be used by WIC State agencies with EBT as a tool to help create and manage their APLs. Only State agencies have access to the NUPC database. The database provides a source of information about WIC-authorized foods which other State agencies may use in creating their APLs.
Each WIC State agency is responsible for developing a list of food items available for WIC participants for purchase consistent with Program requirements defined in 7 CFR 246.10. WIC State agencies determine the types, brands, and physical forms of WIC-eligible foods. State agencies may also consider State-specific nutrition criteria (
For WIC State agencies using EBT, the State agency-approved foods are set forth on an electronic APL, which lists the WIC food item, food category, size, Universal Product Code (UPC), and
WIC State agencies update their APLs on a regular basis. Consistent with 7 CFR 246.12 and per WIC EBT operating rules, WIC-authorized vendors are required to retrieve a State agency's APL and apply it to their cash register systems at least every 48 hours, but most do so on a nightly basis.
WIC State agencies send a copy of their individual APLs to the NUPC database. After passing a screening and once additional nutritional product information is gathered, the individual products on the State agency's APL are added to the NUPC database. A State agency's raw APL file is not available for download via the NUPC database.
The NUPC database currently includes but is not limited to the following information by food item from WIC EBT State agencies, as applicable: UPC or Price Lookup Code (PLU), the latter for fresh fruits and vegetables; product category (
WIC State agencies may optionally choose to submit pricing data into the NUPC database, but this data is for individual State agency use only. Most State agencies do not enter pricing data, due to the significant effort required to enter and maintain it given pricing fluctuations, coupled with the limited benefit of use. Most prices are sensitive to local market conditions.
A WIC State agency can use the NUPC database to obtain product information helpful in developing or modifying its APL. The NUPC database reduces the need to separately gather this same information from manufacturers, food retailers, food distributors or industry food databases.
NUPC does
The original intent of the NUPC database was to support statewide implementation of EBT. As more WIC State agencies achieve statewide EBT, FNS seeks input regarding the use of the NUPC database by the program community and different options for operating, maintaining, and/or enhancing the database. FNS poses the questions below to prompt stakeholder responses.
USDA FNS is seeking information from stakeholders on the following questions:
1. For WIC State agency input only, is the current NUPC database useful in its current form in creating and managing APLs and implementing EBT? Please explain.
2. Within HHFKA statutory requirements, should USDA FNS re-envision its approach to the NUPC database to the benefit of program stakeholders? Please explain.
3. Given currently available NUPC database information, what are the advantages and disadvantages of providing NUPC database access to, or sharing WIC State agency NUPC-related information with, other entities such as food manufacturers and/or WIC authorized vendors?
4. Although current statute requires USDA to operate an NUPC database for use by WIC EBT States, do WIC State agencies prefer to create and manage their APLs without the use of the Federal NUPC database? Please explain.
FNS appreciates your thoughtful and responsive replies to all questions. Your feedback is essential to help FNS ensure administration of the WIC Program is effective and efficient as possible. Together, we can strive to improve operations and outcomes to best serve participants, stakeholders, and American taxpayers.
The Core Fields contain information that is set on the National level and cannot be edited at the WIC State Agency level. Only FNS staff or the FNS contractor may edit these fields.
These fields are generally specific to each WIC State Agency and can only be edited by that State agency. Some of these fields (Product Size through Benefit Unit Description Type) may be adopted from a national entry or an entry by another State agency and then edited to reflect current State-specific authorized foods. These fields generally do not have any national attributes—they are specific to each State agency. The only State agency field that cannot be edited by the WIC State agency is the Product Unit of Measure (UOM). Most fields,
* Cannot be edited by State agency.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program for Children. These adjustments address changes in the Consumer Price Index, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The 2020 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. The 2020 rates are also presented individually, as separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, to show the effect of the Consumer Price Index adjustment on each rate.
J. Kevin Maskornick, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1320
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR, 415 and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR part 225 of the SFSP regulations.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761, of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR part 225, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2020.
The 2020 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rates” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.
Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served, multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.
The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.
The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the
Presentation of the 2020 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.
The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)(iii).
The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals at the SFSP site or at a central facility instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.
Sections 9, 13, and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a, respectively.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 280 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
On September 27, 2019, the Calhoun/Victoria Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 155, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Caterpillar, Inc., within FTZ 155, in Victoria, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
PPC Broadband, Inc. (PPC Broadband) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Dewitt, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 22, 2020.
PPC Broadband already has authority to produce coaxial cable connectors within FTZ 90. The current request
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt PPC Broadband from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status components noted below and in the existing scope of authority, PPC Broadband would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to hardline coaxial cables, without connectors (duty rate—5.3%). PPC Broadband would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Polyethylene jacket foam; copper clad aluminum wire (10% copper by area); aluminum tape; and, copper clad steel center conductors (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that the 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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Canada is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
David Goldberger or Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1993, respectively.
On September 10, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in September and October 2019, we conducted verifications of the sales and cost information submitted by Beauce-Atlas and Canatal for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Beauce-Atlas and Canatal.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Beauce-Atlas and Canatal. For a discussion of these changes,
In addition, we revised the margin calculation for Canatal to reflect the application of partial facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776 of the Act. For a discussion of this change,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be 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
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Commerce
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fabricated structural steel from Canada, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada no later than 75 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products are steel products that have been fabricated for erection or assembly into structures, including, but not limited to, buildings (commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential); industrial and utility projects; parking decks; arenas and convention centers; medical facilities; and ports, transportation and infrastructure facilities. Fabricated structural steel is manufactured from carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange shapes (including manufactured structural shapes utilizing welded plates as a substitute for rolled wide flange sections), channels, hollow structural section (HSS) shapes, base plates, and plate-work components. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting, molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and riveting and may include items such as fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, hinges, or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing antidumping duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8-2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side +/− 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches +/− 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches +/− 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements for steel poles. The exclusion for steel electric distribution poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Distribution arms and cross-arms; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (2) any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO highway sign, luminaries, and traffic signals requirements, or (3) American National Standard Institute (ANSI) C136—American National Standard for Roadway and Area Lighting Equipment standards. The exclusion for steel traffic signal poles, steel roadway lighting poles, steel parking lot lighting poles, and steel sports lighting poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plates that connect to either the shaft or the arms; mast arm clamps; mast arm tie rods; transformer base boxes; formed full base covers that hide anchor bolts; step lugs; internal cable guides;
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope of the investigation. No language included in this exclusion should be read or understood to have applicability to any other aspect of this scope or to have applicability to or to exclude any product, part, or component other than those specifically identified in the exclusion.
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm x 600mm to 3000mm x 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
Manuel Rey or Benjamin Luberda, 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) 482-2185, respectively.
On September 10, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in September 2019, we conducted verifications of the sales and factors of production (FOP) data reported by JCG and Wison. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by JCG and Wison.
In addition, as provided in section 782(i) of Act, in September 2019, we also attempted to verify the sales and factors information submitted by Modern Heavy, using standard verification procedures. However, as explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we were unable to validate the accuracy of Modern Heavy's FOP reporting.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made certain changes to the antidumping duty margin calculations for Modern Heavy, JCG, and Wison. As a result of the changes to the respondents' calculated rates, Commerce has revised the rate for those companies entitled to a separate rate, and the China-wide entity. For a discussion of these changes,
In determining Modern Heavy's dumping margin, we find that the application of facts available is appropriate under sections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act because Modern Heavy withheld information requested by Commerce, did not submit requested information by the established deadline in the form or manner requested, and provided information that was unable to be verified. Further,
For the reasons explained in the
For the final determination, we continue to find that JCG, Modern Heavy, and Wison are eligible for separate rates. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate rate respondents that we did not individually examine. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding zero or
In the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fabricated structural steel from JCG, Modern Heavy, Wison, the separate rates companies, and the China-wide entity.
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion CVD proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce makes an affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce offsets the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). In this case, we have made a negative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through for all respondents, but have also found export subsidies for all respondents. However, suspension of liquidation for provisional measures in the companion CVD case has been discontinued; therefore, we are not instructing CBP to collect cash deposits based upon the adjusted estimated weighted-average dumping margin for those export subsidies at this time.
In addition, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above or in Appendix III will be the rate identified for that combination in that table or Appendix III; (2) for all combinations of exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above or in Appendix III, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products are steel products that have been fabricated for erection or assembly into structures, including, but not limited to, buildings (commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential); industrial and utility projects; parking decks; arenas and convention centers; medical facilities; and ports, transportation and infrastructure facilities. Fabricated structural steel is manufactured from carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange shapes (including manufactured structural shapes utilizing welded plates as a substitute for rolled wide flange sections), channels, hollow structural section (HSS) shapes, base plates, and plate-work components. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting, molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and riveting and may include items such as fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, hinges, or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing antidumping duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8—2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side ± 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches ± 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches ± 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements for steel poles. The exclusion for steel electric distribution poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Distribution arms and cross-arms; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope of the investigation. No language included in this exclusion should be read or understood to have applicability to any other aspect of this scope or to have applicability to or to exclude any product, part, or component other than those specifically identified in the exclusion.
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm X 600mm to 3000mm X 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Mexico. The period of investigation is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
Maliha Khan, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0895.
On July 12, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The products covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
For purposes of this final determination, we relied on facts available, and because certain respondents did not act to the best of their ability in responding to Commerce's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in August 2019, Commerce verified the subsidy information reported by BSM, Corey, and the GOM. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Commerce's application of adverse facts available to certain companies. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for BSM and Corey and established subsidy rates for the 5 companies that failed to respond to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire by applying AFA. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually examined, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce has found a
Commerce determines the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be the following:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fabricated structural steel from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return 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.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing countervailing duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8—2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side ± 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches ± 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches ± 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements for steel poles. The exclusion for steel electric distribution poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Distribution arms and cross-arms; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (2) any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO highway sign, luminaries, and traffic signals requirements, or (3) American National Standard Institute (ANSI) C136—American National Standard for Roadway and Area Lighting Equipment standards. The exclusion for steel traffic signal poles, steel roadway lighting poles, steel parking lot lighting poles, and steel sports lighting poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plates that connect to either the shaft or the arms; mast arm clamps; mast arm tie rods; transformer base boxes; formed full base covers that hide anchor bolts; step lugs; internal cable guides; lighting cross arms; lighting service platforms; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm X 600mm to 3000mm X 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
Darla Brown or William Miller, 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) 482-1791 or (202) 482-3906, respectively.
On July 12, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in August and September 2019, Commerce verified the subsidy information reported by Modern Heavy and Shanghai Matsuo. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for Modern Heavy and Shanghai Matsuo. As a result of the changes to the respondents' calculated rates, Commerce has revised the all-others rate. Commerce has also revised the adverse facts available (AFA) rate. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated individual estimated subsidy rates for Modern Heavy and Shanghai Matsuo, and established subsidy rates for the 12 companies that failed to respond to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire by applying AFA. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce determines the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be the following:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we intend to issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fabricated structural steel from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products are steel products that have been fabricated for erection or assembly into structures, including, but not limited to, buildings (commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential); industrial and utility projects; parking decks; arenas and convention centers; medical facilities; and ports, transportation and infrastructure facilities. Fabricated structural steel is manufactured from carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange shapes (including manufactured structural shapes utilizing welded plates as a substitute for rolled wide flange sections), channels, hollow structural section (HSS) shapes, base plates, and plate-work components. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting, molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and riveting and may include items such as fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, hinges, or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing countervailing duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8—2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side ± 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches ± 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches ± 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (2) any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO highway sign, luminaries, and traffic signals requirements, or (3) American National Standard Institute (ANSI) C136—American National Standard for Roadway and Area Lighting Equipment standards. The exclusion for steel traffic signal poles, steel roadway lighting poles, steel parking lot lighting poles, and steel sports lighting poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plates that connect to either the shaft or the arms; mast arm clamps; mast arm tie rods; transformer base boxes; formed full base covers that hide anchor bolts; step lugs; internal cable guides; lighting cross arms; lighting service platforms; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope of the investigation. No language included in this exclusion should be read or understood to have applicability to any other aspect of this scope or to have applicability to or to exclude any product, part, or component other than those specifically identified in the exclusion.
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm X 600mm to 3000mm X 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Canada. The period of investigation is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
Whitley Herndon or Jacob Garten, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement
On July 12, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in July and September 2019, Commerce verified the subsidy information reported by Beauce-Atlas, Canatal, the Government of Québec, the GOC, Caisse de dépôt et Placement du Québec, and Énergir, L.P. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for both respondents. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated individual estimated subsidy rates for Beauce-Atlas and Canatal. We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:
Because the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates are
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In the
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products are steel products that have been fabricated for erection or assembly into structures, including, but not limited to, buildings (commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential); industrial and utility projects; parking decks; arenas and convention centers; medical facilities; and ports, transportation and infrastructure facilities. Fabricated structural steel is manufactured from carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange shapes (including manufactured structural shapes utilizing welded plates as a substitute for rolled wide flange sections), channels, hollow structural section (HSS) shapes, base plates, and plate-work components. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting, molding, grooving, adhesion, beveling, and riveting and may include items such as fasteners, nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, hinges, or joints.
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing countervailing duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8-2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side +/− 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches +/− 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches +/− 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements for steel poles. The exclusion for steel electric distribution poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Distribution arms and cross-arms; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (2) any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO highway sign, luminaries, and
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope of the investigation. No language included in this exclusion should be read or understood to have applicability to any other aspect of this scope or to have applicability to or to exclude any product, part, or component other than those specifically identified in the exclusion.
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm × 600mm to 3000mm × 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain fabricated structural steel (fabricated structural steel) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
Krisha Hill or Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-3147, respectively.
On September 10, 2019, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is fabricated structural steel from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
In addition, certain interested parties commented on Commerce's preliminary scope decisions. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal comments submitted to the record for this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in September and October 2019, we conducted verifications of the sales and cost information submitted by BSM and Corey for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by BSM and Corey.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the dumping margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
In addition, we revised the margin calculation for BSM to reflect the application of partial facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to section 776 of the Act. For a discussion of this change,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In the
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) and C of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fabricated structural steel from Mexico, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
In addition, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin identified for that company in the table; (2) if the exporter is not a company listed in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that producer of the subject merchandise in the above table; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies determined in a companion CVD proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce makes an affirmative determination for export subsidies, Commerce offsets the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). In this case, we have found export subsidies for certain respondents. However, suspension of liquidation for provisional measures in the companion CVD case has been discontinued; therefore, we are not instructing CBP to collect cash deposits based upon the estimated weighted-average dumping margin adjusted for export subsidies at this time.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) of subject merchandise for importation no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as a final reminder to the parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is carbon and alloy fabricated structural steel. Fabricated structural steel is made from steel in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is two percent or less by weight. Fabricated structural steel products are steel
The inclusion, attachment, joining, or assembly of non-steel components with fabricated structural steel does not remove the fabricated structural steel from the scope.
Fabricated structural steel is covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether it is painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other metallic or non-metallic substances and regardless of whether it is assembled or partially assembled, such as into modules, modularized construction units, or sub-assemblies of fabricated structural steel.
Subject merchandise includes fabricated structural steel that has been assembled or further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, punching, bending, beveling, riveting, galvanizing, coating, and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the fabricated structural steel.
All products that meet the written physical description of the merchandise covered by the investigation are within the scope of the investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing antidumping duty order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
1. Fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) if: (i) It is a unitary piece of fabricated rebar, not joined, welded, or otherwise connected with any other steel product or part; or (ii) it is joined, welded, or otherwise connected only to other rebar.
2. Fabricated structural steel for bridges and bridge sections that meets American Association of State and Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge construction requirements or any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO bridge construction requirements.
3. Pre-engineered metal building systems, which are defined as complete metal buildings that integrate steel framing, roofing and walls to form one, pre-engineered building system, that meet Metal Building Manufacturers Association guide specifications. Pre-engineered metal building systems are typically limited in height to no more than 60 feet or two stories.
4. Steel roof and floor decking systems that meet Steel Deck Institute standards.
5. Open web steel bar joists and joist girders that meet Steel Joist Institute specifications.
6. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation is scaffolding, and parts and accessories thereof, that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.8—2011—Scaffolding Safety Requirements, and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at 29 CFR part 1926 subpart L—Scaffolds. The outside diameter of the scaffold tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 25mm to 150mm.
7. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are access flooring systems panels and accessories, where such panels have a total thickness ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches and consist of concrete, wood, other non-steel materials, or hollow space permanently attached to a top and bottom layer of galvanized or painted steel sheet or formed coil steel, the whole of which has been formed into a square or rectangle having a measurement of 24 inches on each side ± 0.1 inch; 24 inches by 30 inches ± 0.1 inch; or 24 by 36 inches ± 0.1 inch.
8. Excluded from the investigation are the following types of steel poles, segments of steel poles, and steel components of those poles:
• Steel Electric Transmission Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48 or (2) the USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-214 Guide specification for standard class Steel Transmission Poles. The exclusion for steel electric transmission poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Transmission arms which attach to poles; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Substation Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 113. The exclusion for steel electric substation poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Substation dead end poles; substation bus stands; substation mast poles, arms, and cross-arms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; pole bases; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Electric Distribution Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)—Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48, (2) USDA RUS bulletin 1724E-204 Guide specification for steel single pole and H-frame structures, or (3) ANSI 05.1 height and class requirements for steel poles. The exclusion for steel electric distribution poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Distribution arms and cross-arms; pole bases; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; steel vangs, steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Steel Traffic Signal Poles, Steel Roadway Lighting Poles, Steel Parking Lot Lighting Poles, and Steel Sports Lighting Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (2) any state or local derivatives of the AASHTO highway sign, luminaries, and traffic signals requirements, or (3) American National Standard Institute (ANSI) C136—American National Standard for Roadway and Area Lighting Equipment standards. The exclusion for steel traffic signal poles, steel roadway lighting poles, steel parking lot lighting poles, and steel sports lighting poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plates that connect to either the shaft or the arms; mast arm clamps; mast arm tie rods; transformer base boxes; formed full base covers that hide anchor bolts; step lugs; internal cable guides; lighting cross arms; lighting service platforms; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
• Communication Poles, or segments of such poles, that meet (1) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-222 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, or (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. The exclusion for communication poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Luminaire arms; hand hole rims; hand hole covers; base plate that connects the pole to the foundation or arm to the pole; safety climbing cables; ladders; service ground platforms; step lugs; pole steps; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″, coax, and safety brackets; subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; service platforms; ice bridges; stainless steel hand hole door hinges and wind restraints; and steel templates.
• OEM Round or Polygonal Tapered Steel Poles, segments or shaft components of such poles, that meet the (1) ASCE 48 or AASHTO, (2) ANSI/TIA 222, (3) ANSI 05.1, (4) RUS bulletin 1724E-204, or (5) RUS bulletin 1724E-214. The exclusion for OEM round or polygonal tapered steel poles also encompasses the following components thereof: Subcomponent kits for antenna mounts weighing 80 lbs. or less; mounts and platforms; steel brackets, steel flanges, and steel caps; angles that do not exceed 8″ x 8″ x 0.75″; bridge kits; safety climbing cables; ladders; and steel templates.
The inclusion or attachment of one or more of the above-referenced steel poles in a structure containing fabricated structural steel (FSS) does not remove the FSS from the scope of the investigation. No language
9. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are Shuttering, Formworks, Propping and Shoring and parts and accessories thereof that comply with ANSI/ASSE A10.9—Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry Work and ACI-347—Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork. For Shoring and propping made from tube, the outside diameter of the tubing covered by this exclusion ranges from 48mm to 250mm. For Shuttering and Formworks, the panel sizes covered by this exclusion range from 25mm X 600mm to 3000mm X 3000mm.
10. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are consumer items for do-it-yourself assembly that are prepackaged for retail sale. For the purposes of this exclusion, prepackaged for retail sale means that, at the time of importation, all components necessary to assemble the merchandise, including all steel components, all accessory parts (
The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, and 7308.90.9590.
The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7222.40.6000, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite), a producer/exporter of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from India, did not sell subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018.
Applicable January 30, 2020.
George Ayache, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2623.
On March 14, 2019, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 from India.
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise subject to the
We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV 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, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for Pidilite for the period December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018.
We intend 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 no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS and must also be served on interested parties.
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.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 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.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess upon issuance of the final results, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
If Pidilite's calculated weighted-average dumping margin is above
In accordance with our “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Pidilite for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate.
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 Pidilite 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.
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).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of the Black Abalone (
Comments and information on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on March 30, 2020.
You may submit comments on this document by either of the following methods:
•
•
The draft recovery plan is available online at:
NMFS West Coast Region Protected Resources Division: Susan Wang at (562) 980-4199 or
On January 14, 2009, we, NMFS, listed the black abalone as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (74 FR 1937). This determination was based on the high risk of extinction faced by black abalone due to low abundance, low growth and productivity, compromised spatial structure and population connectivity, loss of genetic diversity, and the continued threat of the disease called withering syndrome. This disease was identified as the primary threat contributing to the decline of black abalone. This determination was based on a suite of risks that black abalone face, including: (1) A disease called withering syndrome that caused mass mortalities of populations throughout a large portion of the species' range; (2) low adult densities below the critical threshold needed for successful spawning and recruitment; (3) elevated water temperatures that accelerate the spread of withering syndrome; (4) loss of genetic diversity making populations less able to adapt to environmental changes; and (5) illegal harvest. On October 27, 2011, we designated critical habitat for black abalone throughout the coast of California (76 FR 66806). In 2013, we convened a recovery team to assist the NMFS West Coast Region with developing the draft recovery plan. We completed a recovery outline in 2016. In 2016, we announced initiation of a five-year review for black abalone (81 FR 93902). We completed the five-year review in 2018 and determined that black abalone should remain listed as endangered under the ESA. The five-year review is available at:
Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS West Coast Region developed the Plan for black abalone in cooperation with a recovery team made
NMFS' goal is to restore black abalone populations in the wild to the point where it is a self-sustaining species that no longer needs the protections of the ESA. The Plan gives a brief background on the natural history, status, and threats to black abalone. The Plan lays out a recovery strategy to address the threats based on the best available science, identifies site-specific actions with time lines and costs, and includes demographic and threats-based recovery criteria to gauge progress toward recovery. Demographic recovery criteria describe the characteristics of recovered, viable black abalone populations, and threats-based recovery criteria represent the conditions needed to minimize the impacts of threats and support the species' long-term viability.
The Plan is not regulatory, but presents guidance for use by agencies and interested parties to assist in the recovery of black abalone. To recover black abalone, the recommended recovery actions within the Plan aim to restore populations in southern California and Baja California that have experienced significant declines; maintain healthy populations in Central and North-Central California; promote planning, coordination, and research to address threats such as disease, contaminant spills and spill response activities, illegal take, and ocean acidification; and facilitate outreach and education with the public and law enforcement to support recovery efforts. Continued long-term monitoring of black abalone populations throughout their range will be critical to assessing the species' status and the effectiveness of the recovery actions.
We expect the Plan to inform section 7 consultations with Federal agencies under the ESA and to support other ESA decisions, such as considering research and enhancement or incidental take permits under section 10. NMFS and our partners have already begun implementation of several actions as described in the Plan. For example, many partners have been monitoring black abalone populations along the California coast for decades, since the mid-1970s at some sites. Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California at Davis have been conducting disease research since the 1990s. In addition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife coordinates with NMFS to address enforcement issues and spill response plans. After public comment and the adoption of the Final Recovery plan, we will continue to implement actions for which we have authority, encourage other Federal and state agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have authority, and work cooperatively with them to implement those actions.
The total time and cost to recovery are difficult to predict. The total time to recovery will depend on several factors. Those include: (1) Our ability to address threats such as disease and spills, which are difficult to manage with much certainty; (2) the species' biological constraints, such as episodic recruitment events; (3) the effectiveness of the recommended actions to achieve the Recovery Criteria and any adaptations needed as we learn more through implementation; and (4) the availability of funding to carry out the recovery actions.
We can predict that recovery will likely take decades and at a minimum about 20 years. To generate a minimum cost estimate, we assumed that annual costs for each activity would be similar to those estimated for the first five years of implementation. For the minimum time frame of 20 years, we estimate that recovery will cost approximately $16 million.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt and request for public comment on ten permit renewal applications, one permit modification, and five new permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received sixteen scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon and steelhead, rockfish, and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) under the authorization of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is seeking to modify a permit that allows them to annually take adult and juvenile SnkR spring/summer Chinook salmon and SnkR steelhead while conducting research in a number of the tributaries to the Imnaha River (Cow, Lightning, Horse, Big Sheep, Camp, Little Sheep, Freezeout, Grouse, Crazyman, Mahogany, and Gumboot Creeks), the Grande Ronde River (Joseph Creek, Wenaha and Minam rivers), the Clearwater River (South Fork Clearwater River and Lolo Creek), and the Snake River (Lower Granite Dam adult trap). The Imnaha and Grande Ronde Rivers are in northeastern Oregon, the Clearwater is in Idaho, and the work in the Snake River would take place in Washington. The NPT has been conducting this work for more than two decades in the Pacific Northwest. The NPT is seeking to modify the permit in one way: They would like to be able to capture a number of adult steelhead at temporary weirs in the Salmon River subbasin in Idaho—primarily at a small number of locations in the lower Salmon River below the town of Riggins. The purpose of the research is to acquire information on the status (escapement abundance, genetic structure, life history traits) of juvenile and adult steelhead in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, Clearwater, and Salmon River subbasins. The research would benefit the listed species by providing information on current status that fishery managers can use to determine if recovery actions are helping increase Snake River salmonid populations. Baseline information on steelhead populations in the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, and Clearwater River subbasins would also be used to help guide future management actions. Adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be observed, handled, and marked. The researchers would use temporary/portable picket and resistance board weirs and rotary screw traps to capture the fish and would then sample some of them for biological information (fin tissue and scale samples). They may also mark some of the fish with opercule punches, fin clips, dyes, and PIT, floy, and/or Tyvek disk tags. Adult steelhead carcasses would also be collected and sampled. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking to renew a permit that currently allows it to take juvenile and adult OC coho salmon while studying fish abundance, distribution, and habitat preference in the Umpqua River. The ODFW would also study the distribution of non-native invasive species, interspecific competition, and predator-prey interactions. The information would benefit OC coho by helping to improve management plans. The researchers would use backpack and boat electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. Stunned fish would be recovered in a soft mesh dipnet and immediately put in an aerated holding tank. The fish would then be measured, weighed, recorded by species, and swiftly returned to the water. The researchers would avoid adult coho, but a few may be encountered. In the event that an adult coho is encountered, the ODFW would shut off the electrical current and allow the fish to swim away, and no more electrofishing would occur in that location. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number of juvenile coho may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The KWIAHT Center for the Historical Ecology of the Salish Sea (KWIAHT) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon. Sampling sites would occur offshore of Decatur, Lopez, and Waldron island beaches in the San Juan Island archipelago in Puget Sound (San Juan County, WA). The purpose of this research is to understand long-term changes in the food web that supports Salish Sea salmon populations that annually congregate in the San Juan Islands basin. Since 2010, this study has been analyzing trends in juvenile Chinook salmon, their prey species (sand lance and Pacific herring), and their changing environment (
West Fork Environmental, Inc. (WFE) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead on the South Fork of the Tolt River (Snoqualmie River sub-basin; King County, WA). The purpose of the study is to better understand the seasonal use of the Tolt River and its tributaries by juvenile PS steelhead prior to their outmigration. Since 2010, this study has increased our knowledge of size- and age-based movements in the upper reaches of the South Fork Tolt River. Further research would benefit PS steelhead by including an additional PIT-tag array to provide a better understanding of population-specific age structure, genetic structure, and movement patterns for both juveniles and returning adults. The WFE researchers propose capturing fish using backpack electrofishing and hook and line angling. The listed steelhead would be captured, anesthetized, measured, weighed, have a tissue sample taken (sample scale and fin clip), PIT tagged, and returned to an aerated holding bucket until they are ready for release. All other fish would be captured, identified to species, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and PS/GB bocaccio. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon and juvenile and adult PS/GB yelloweye rockfish, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place throughout the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal, WA. The purposes of the study are to (1) determine how much genetic variation exists between coastal and PS/GB DPS bocaccio populations; (2) investigate how characteristics (patch size and level of nearby urbanization) of rocky reef habitats, kelp forests, and eelgrass beds affect the relative quality of these habitats as nursery habitat for rockfishes in Puget Sound; and (3) examine the trophic relationships of rockfish in Puget Sound and their reliance on productivity from rocky reef habitats, kelp forests, and eelgrass beds. Since 2012, this study has been collecting genetic samples from ESA-listed rockfish to determine whether or not the PS/GB DPS rockfish designations are supported. For yelloweye and canary rockfish, enough genetic information was collected to support the PS/GB DPS designation for yelloweye rockfish but suggested that canary rockfish in Puget Sound were not a unique DPS. For bocaccio, not enough individuals were captured to support a determination. Further research would benefit these ESA-listed rockfish by collecting more biological samples to better understand DPS/species uniqueness and their habitat (
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Fisheries and Wildlife Division is seeking to renew for a five years a permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult CCV steelhead in the lower Mokelumne River in the San Joaquin Valley, CA. Fish would be observed (video monitoring in the fish ladder, escapement surveys, snorkel surveys, and redd surveys), captured (boat and backpack electrofishing, rotary screw traps, fish ladder trap, fyke traps, beach seines, smolt bypass trap, hook and line, trawling), handled (anesthetize, weigh, measure, and check for marks or tags), and released. A subsample may be marked, tagged, and/or sampled for stomach content or biological tissue. The purpose of the research is to collect scientific data on anadromous fish, resident fish, and fish habitat on the lower Mokelumne River as part of an ongoing process to measure the success of the flow requirements and non-flow measures set forth in the 1998 Joint Settlement Agreement (JSA) between EBMUD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW) as part of the 1991 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license proceeding. Data will also be used to develop and implement Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans for operation of the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery's fall run Chinook salmon program and Central Valley steelhead program. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but a small number of individuals may be killed as an inadvertent result of the activities.
The Idaho Power company is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to annually capture juvenile and adult SnkR fall-run and SnkR spring/summer run Chinook salmon, SnkR sockeye and SnkR steelhead. The researchers are targeting juvenile white sturgeon in Lower Granite Reservoir, Idaho. The researchers currently use small-mesh gill nets and d-ring nets to capture white sturgeon. They also employ a benthic (near-bottom) trawl in Lower Granite Reservoir and do some gill-netting upstream from that reservoir. The gill net fishing would continue to take place at times (October and November) and in areas (the bottom of the reservoir and river) that have purposefully been chosen to have the least possible impact on listed fish. When the nets are pulled to the surface, listed species would immediately be released (including by cutting the net, if necessary) and allowed to return to the reservoir. The d-ring fishing would take place in June and July, but the same restrictions (immediately releasing listed fish, etc.) would still apply. The purpose of the research is to document sturgeon survival in early life stages in the mainstem Snake River. The research targets a species that is not listed, but the research would benefit listed salmonids by generating information about the habitat conditions near and in Lower Granite Reservoir and by helping managers develop conservation plans for the species that inhabit those areas. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but a small number of individuals may be killed as an inadvertent result of the activities.
The USFWS Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to annually capture juvenile and adult UCR spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, and juvenile MCR steelhead. Sampling would take place throughout the Yakima, Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan river basins in WA. The researchers currently use backpack electrofishing, hand/dip nets, and hook and line to capture fish. The purpose of this project is to (1) determine the distribution and status of Pacific lamprey, bull trout, and other native fish species and (2) implement and assess recovery actions associated with passage at existing structures and at lamprey passage engineered structures. During this research, non-target species, including Chinook salmon and steelhead will be released with minimal handling. In some study areas, Chinook salmon and steelhead may be anesthetized and identified to species, measured, and scanned for PIT tags. The research targets Pacific lamprey and bull trout, but the research would benefit listed salmonids by providing presence/absence data and helping inform habitat
The Northwest Straits Foundation (NSF) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The researchers may also take adult S eulachon, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place at up to 30 sites in the eastern Puget Sound from Saratoga Passage (in the south) to Fidalgo Bay (to the north) (Island and Skagit counties, WA). The purpose of the study is to monitor ecosystem response to restoration efforts (pre- and post-) and determine their effectiveness at reestablishing habitat as a natural functioning ecosystem. The research would benefit the listed species by determining the effectiveness of these restoration efforts and applying them to future efforts which directly benefits listed salmon by increasing habitat. The NSF proposes capturing fish using a beach seine. Fish would be captured, identified to species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
Long Live the Kings (LLTK) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile HCS chum salmon, PS Chinook salmon, and PS steelhead in the Hamma Hamma River (Mason County, WA). The purpose of the study is to assess the long-term effects and effectiveness of PS steelhead supplementation when utilizing low-impact, innovative wild steelhead supplementation techniques in streams throughout the Hood Canal region. Further research would benefit the listed species by determining what legacy effects the PS steelhead hatchery program have had on natural steelhead populations (abundance, genetic diversity, life history diversity). The researchers propose capturing fish using a rotary screw trap. PS steelhead would be captured, anesthetized, weighed, measured, have a tissue sample taken (sample scale and fin clip), and returned to an aerated holding bucket until they are ready for release. All other fish will be captured, identified to species, and released downstream of the trap. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (WEIS) is seeking to renew for five years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the Lower Duwamish River waterway (King County, WA). Under a Consent Decree settled through U.S. District Court (Western District of Washington), The Boeing Company agreed to construct two habitat restoration projects near Boeing Plant 2 in the Lower Duwamish Waterway to restore and create off-channel and riparian habitats in an area where they have been largely eliminated due to channelization and industrialization. The purpose of this study is to determine if fish, including ESA listed juvenile salmonids, are using the newly created/restored habitat. This is a planned ten-year study, and this renewal would cover the last five years of the study. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The researchers propose to capture fish using fyke nets during the spring salmonid outmigration (March through June). Fish would be anaesthetized, identified to species, measured for length, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
Stillwater Sciences is seeking a five-year research permit to take juvenile CCC steelhead in Rector Creek extending 1.7 miles downstream from Rector Dam in Napa County, CA. Sampling would be for a period of 1 week during both the Spring (March-June) and again during Fall (September-October) in 2020, followed by repeat surveys in 2021-2024. The purpose of this study is to assess instream flow needs in Rector Creek. The license to operate Rector Dam does not include specific instream flow release requirements; however, California Fish and Game Code Section 5937 requires the owner or operator of any dam to allow sufficient flow to pass through or over the dam to keep fish downstream of the dam in good condition. Data will be collected to assess species composition, distribution, abundance, age-class distribution, and individual fish condition (size, growth rate, and presence of disease, parasites, or lesions) to evaluate the condition of fish in Rector Creek downstream of Rector Dam. Results of this study will be used to refine the conditions of the Rector Creek release schedule to improve habitat conditions for fish species downstream. Fish survey methods used will include direct observation using multi-pass snorkeling methods, beach seining, dip-netting, and single-pass backpack electrofishing. These methods will follow standard guidelines to reduce injury to steelhead and other native fish species. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The University of Washington (UW) is seeking a three-year research permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, and PS/GB bocaccio throughout the Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA. The UW research may also cause them to take adult PS/GB yelloweye rockfish, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the study is to investigate the ecology and movement of broadnose sevengill shark (
The USFWS is seeking a five-year permit to capture juveniles from several species of native lamprey in Abernathy Creek, WA. The researchers would use backpack electrofishing units to capture the lamprey. Because the researchers are
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is seeking a five-year permit to tag—with acoustic tags—adult MCR steelhead at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River and monitor their subsequent migration patterns and routes. The fish would be taken and tagged as they pass through the Bonneville Dam adult fish facility. Captured adult steelhead would be anesthetized, held in an oxygenated, river-temperature tank, and implanted with an acoustic transmitter once they are fully anesthetized and deemed ready. Following their recovery from anesthesia, tagged adult steelhead would be released immediately upstream of the adult fish trap and allowed to proceed up the fish ladder to cross Bonneville Dam. The fish would then be tracked by acoustic receiver arrays in upstream reservoirs and dams and at a location near the confluence of the Columbia and John Day Rivers.
The research is intended to generate information about adult MCR steelhead migration and, in particular, it is intended to help managers address the question of why so many steelhead that originate in the John Day River tend to swim past that river and continue up the Columbia River when they return as adults. Currently, approximately 60% of the returning steelhead overshoot the John Day River when they return as adults. If managers can figure out why that is the case and develop measures to reduce that percentage (
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult UWR Chinook salmon, and adult and juvenile SONCC coho in the Willamette (Coast Fork and Middle Fork), North and South Santiam, McKenzie and Upper Rogue rivers in OR. The purpose of this study is to evaluate contaminants, particularly mercury in reservoirs/lakes and the relationships between contaminants in sediment and biota, water quality, and fish tissue mercury concentrations. Researchers will capture fish with back pack and boat electrofishing, hook and line, gill nets, beach seines and minnow traps. Captured listed fish will be quickly handled and released. A subset of other fish will be anesthetized, tissue sampled, allowed to recover and released. This research will benefit listed species by providing information to assess factors that influence contaminant exposure and allow researchers to evaluate contaminant exposure, bioaccumulation, and effects in aquatic ecosystems. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but a small number some may die as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
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 March 2, 2020.
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. 3038-0025.”
• By email addressed to:
• By mail addressed to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0025.”
•
• 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
John Dolan, Counsel for General Law, Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5337; email:
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.
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 March 2, 2020.
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. 3038-0013.”
• By email addressed to:
• By mail addressed to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington DC 20503.
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0013.”
• By mail addressed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581;
• 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
Steven Haidar, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5611; email:
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 November 19, 2019, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
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 Science Board (DSB) will take place.
Closed to the public Tuesday, February 11, 2020 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, February 12, 2020 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The address of the closed meeting is the Executive Conference Center at 4075 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203.
Mr. Kevin Doxey, (703) 571-0081 (Voice), (703) 697-1860 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on February 11 thru 12, 2020 of the Defense Science 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.
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.
The mission of the DSB is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the DoD's scientific and technical enterprise. The objective of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the DSB's mission. DSB members will meet to discuss classified future dimensions of conflict that might be exploited by our near-peer competitors and adversaries in response to the DSB's 2020 Summer Study on New Dimensions of Conflict tasking.
The DSB meeting will begin on February 11, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. with opening remarks by Mr. Kevin Doxey, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), and Dr. Craig Fields, DSB Chairman. The members of the study will meet to discuss classified future dimensions of conflict that might be exploited by our near-peer competitors and adversaries. Following break, the members will resume their meeting. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On February 12, 2020, the meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. with a discussion of classified future dimensions of conflict that might be exploited by our near-peer competitors and adversaries. Following break, the members will resume their meeting. The meeting will adjourn at 4:00 p.m.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the DSB meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting will be closed to the public because it will consider matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). The determination is based on the consideration that it is expected that discussions throughout will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such classified material is so intertwined with the unclassified material that it cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meetings. To permit the meeting to be open to the public would preclude discussion of such matters and would greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the DSB's findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering).
In accordance with Section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the DSB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DSB DFO provided in the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's website at
The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on February 19, 2020. Public registration will begin at 7:15 a.m.
The Inland Waterways Users Board meeting will be conducted at the Fort Smith Convention Center, 55 South 7th Street, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901, 479-788-8932.
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), 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 March 2, 2020.
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 Clifton Jones, 202-205-2204.
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.
The U.S. Department of Education is seeking OMB approval for an electronic collection for the application for the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 March 30, 2020.
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; (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 Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE), U. S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda for an upcoming public meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE). Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and is intended to notify members of the public who may be interested in attending.
The NACIE meeting will be held on February 13-14, 2020 at the National Museum of the American Indian, Fourth Street & Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20560, 4th Floor Meeting Room on February 13, 2020-10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EST) and February 14, 2020-9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.(EST).
Angeline Boulley, Director of the Office of Indian Education (OIE)/Designated Federal Official, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-453-7042, Email:
(1) Welcome and Introductions; (2) Update from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; (3) Presentation-White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education (WHIAIANE); (4) Presentation-Director of the National Indian Education Association(NIEA); (5) Presentation-National Comprehensive Center
(1) Presentation-Office of Indian Education; (2) Presentation-Expanding Education Options for Indian Children; (3) Presentation-Bureau of Indian Education; (4) Discussion of Data Requests for the 2020 NACIE Annual Report to Congress; (5) Discussion on NACIE Vacancies; (6) Confirmation of NACIE Calendar for 2020-2021; and (7) Public Comments.
To copy and paste the hyperlink into browser:
To join by telephone use call-in toll-free number 1-800-832-0736.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
§ 6141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7471).
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNH) Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.031N (Alaska Native) and 84.031W (Native Hawaiian). This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1840-0810.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Robyn Wood, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 268-42, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7744. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to address supporting instruction in personal financial literacy, knowledge of markets and economics, knowledge of higher education financing and repayment (
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1. a.
This program is authorized by title III, part A, of the HEA. At the time of submission of their applications, applicants must certify their total undergraduate headcount enrollment and that either 20 percent of the IHE's enrollment is Alaska Native or 10 percent is Native Hawaiian. An assurance form, which is included in the application materials for this competition, must be signed by an official for the applicant and submitted.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the ANNH Program, an institution must—
(i) Be accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;
(ii) Be legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree;
(iii) Be designated as an “eligible institution,” as defined in 34 CFR 600.2, by demonstrating that it: (1) Has an enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (2) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student as described in 34 CFR 607.4.
b.
A grantee under the HSI Program, which is authorized under title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A program. The title III, part A programs are: The Strengthening Institutions Program; the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities program; the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions program; the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions program; and the Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions program. Furthermore, a current HSI program grantee may not give up its HSI grant in order to be eligible to receive a grant under ANNH or any title III, part A program as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).
An eligible HSI that is not a current grantee under the HSI program may apply for a FY 2020 grant under all title III, part A programs for which it is eligible, as well as receive consideration for a grant under the HSI program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant as described in 34 CFR 607.2(g)(1).
An eligible IHE that submits applications for an Individual Development Grant and a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant in this competition may be awarded both in the same fiscal year. However, we will not award a second Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant to an otherwise eligible IHE for an award year for which the IHE already has a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant award under the ANNH Program. A grantee with an Individual Development Grant or a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant may be a subgrantee in one or more Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. The lead institution in a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant must be an eligible institution. Partners or subgrantees are not required to be eligible institutions.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract and the bibliography. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(a)
(1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;
(2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;
(3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and
(4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.
(b)
(1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and
(2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice).
(d)
(1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;
(2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and
(3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.
(e)
(1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and
(2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.
(f)
(1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and
(2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.
(g)
(1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and
(2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(h)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws
A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the peer review and from the competitive preference priority.
In tie-breaking situations for development grants, 34 CFR 607.23(b) requires that we award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has an endowment fund of which the current market value, per FTE enrolled student, is less than the average current market value of the endowment funds, per FTE enrolled student, at comparable type institutions that offer similar instruction. We award one additional point to an application from an IHE that has expenditures for library materials per FTE enrolled student that are less than the average expenditure for library materials per FTE enrolled student at similar type institutions. We also add one additional point to an application from an IHE that proposes to carry out one or more of the following activities—
(1) Faculty development;
(2) Funds and administrative management;
(3) Development and improvement of academic programs;
(4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;
(5) Joint use of facilities; and
(6) Student services.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2018-2019 data.
If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
(a) The percentage change, over the five-year period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (
(b) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution;
(c) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the
(d) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within six years of enrollment; and
(e) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within three years of enrollment.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Docket Numbers: ER16-1257-002; ER10-1328-004; ER10-1330-008; ER10-1331-004; ER10-1332-004; ER10-2522-005; ER10-2567-005; ER12-1502-006; ER12-1504-006; ER12-2313-006; ER16-61-004; ER16-63-004; ER16-64-004; ER17-2-004; ER17-2336-006; ER17-360-003; ER17-361-003; ER17-362-003; ER17-539-002; ER17-540-002.
Accession Number: 20200123-5020.
Docket Numbers: ER19-1635-001.
Accession Number: 20200123-5061.
Docket Numbers: ER20-865-000.
Accession Number: 20200123-5069.
Docket Numbers: ER20-866-000.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 174 and 378 to be effective 12/27/2019.
Accession Number: 20200123-5077.
Docket Numbers: ER20-867-000.
Accession Number: 20200123-5078.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, 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.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
The Cornell Project is operated in a run-of-river mode and bypasses an 1,800-foot-long reach of Fall Creek that extends from the toe of the dam to the powerhouse tailrace. From 2013 through 2018, the average annual generation was 4,599 megawatt-hours.
m. 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
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish
You may also register online at
n.
o.
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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears 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.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d (2018), and 18 CFR part 35 (2019), require, among other things, that all rates, terms, and conditions for jurisdictional services be filed with the Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its public utility filing requirements and established a requirement for public utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly Reports.
2. The Commission requires sellers with market-based rate authorization to file Electric Quarterly Reports summarizing contractual and transaction information related to their market-based power sales as a condition for retaining that authorization.
3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,
4. The Commission further stated that,
5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the market-based rate tariffs of market-based rate sellers that failed to submit their Electric Quarterly Reports.
6. Sellers must file Electric Quarterly Reports consistent with the procedures set forth in Order Nos. 2001, 768,
7. In the event that any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers has already filed its Electric Quarterly Reports in compliance with the Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is inadvertent. Such market-based rate seller is directed, within fifteen days of the date of issuance of this order, to make a filing with the Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
8. If any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers does not wish to continue having market-based rate authority, it may file a notice of cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of the FPA to cancel its market-based rate tariff.
(A) Within fifteen days of the date of issuance of this order, each public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If a public utility subject to this order fails to make the filings required in this order, the Commission will revoke that public utility's market-based rate authorization and will terminate its electric market-based rate tariff. The Secretary is hereby directed, upon expiration of the filing deadline in this order, to promptly issue a notice, effective on the date of issuance, listing the public utilities whose tariffs have been revoked for failure to comply with the requirements of this order and the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
(B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
By the Commission.
On November 1, 2019, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) filed an application in Docket No. CP20-10-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, own, and operate a new meter station. The Wick Meter and Regulator Station Project (Project) would allow for the delivery of natural gas supplies from gathering facilities, under development by Eureka Midstream, LLC, for transportation on the Rover pipeline system, and it would be located along Rover's Sherwood Lateral Pipeline in Tyler County, West Virginia.
On November 19, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Wick Meter and Regulator Station Project would consist of an ultrasonic meter skid and other ancillary facilities in Tyler County, West Virginia. The ancillary facilities would include piping and valves, electronic flow measurement devices, flow conditioners, instrumentation, telemetry, gas analysis devices, gas quality monitoring devices, flow control valves, condensate storage tank, and other related equipment. Rover would use about 2.1 acres of land to construct the station, of which 0.9 acre would be fenced and maintained for operation of the station.
On January 21, 2020, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is thirty (30) days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
j.
k.
The project has not been operational for at least five years. On May 30, 2018, the Licensee filed an application for a subsequent license for the project. Commission staff rejected the licensee's application for failing to cure deficiencies and respond to additional information requests. Subsequently, on May 3, 2019, Commission staff issued a notice soliciting applications from other potential applicants for the project. No filings or requests were received. By letters dated September 25, 2019, November 4, 2019, and December 12, 2019, Commission staff requested the licensee to file their plan and schedule for a license surrender. The licensee did not file the requested information. On January 16, 2020, Commission staff sent a letter notifying the licensee that the Commission will open a proceeding to terminate their license by implied surrender.
l. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
m.
n.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b. Project No.: 10855-322.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 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.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff is soliciting public comment on the reinstatement and revision of the FERC-922, Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs. The Commission is submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission, as explained below.
Comments on the information collection are due March 2, 2020.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0262, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
•
•
Darren Sheets may be reached by email at
In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report recommending that the Commission, among other actions, work with Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs), stakeholders, and other experts to develop standardized metrics to track the performance of RTO/ISO operations and markets and publicly report those metrics.
In December 2017, the GAO issued a report on the RTOs/ISOs with
In response to the 2017 GAO Report, Commission staff has proposed changes to the Common Metrics information collection. First, Commission staff proposes to improve the data collection process by creating a standardized information collection Input Spreadsheet (
The update eliminates previously-collected metrics on reliability, RTO/ISO billing controls and customer satisfaction, interconnection and transmission processes, and system lambda. Commission staff proposes eliminating these metrics because they provide limited information, do not significantly help Commission staff or the public draw any conclusions regarding the benefits of an RTO/ISO, and to reduce the reporting burden for respondents. The revised data collection, after additions and deletions, consists of twenty-nine Common Metrics.
In addition to eliminating certain metrics and adding new ones, the Common Metrics are now organized into three groups:
• Group 1 metrics are designed to be collected from all respondents (
• Group 2 metrics pertain to organized energy markets and, thus, are designed to be collected only from respondents with such energy markets (
• Finally, the new Group 3 metrics pertain to organized capacity markets and, thus, are designed to be collected only from respondents with such capacity markets (
A table showing the revised Common Metrics organized by the three groups can be found at the end of this notice.
The updated User Guide for the information collection, as well as the standardized information collection reporting form, are also attached to this notice. These attachments will not be published in the
Commission staff has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.
The Number of Respondents (1) in the first column varies by Group because all respondents do not provide information on each of the twenty-nine Common Metrics.
Commission staff has estimated the number of respondents for the first three Groups based on the assumption that the six jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs and the five non-RTO/ISO utilities (eleven total respondents) that previously responded to the FERC-922 information collection will provide responses to this revised FERC-922 information collection. Therefore, the estimated number of respondents in Group 1 is eleven, because all respondents can report on the Group 1 metrics. The estimated number of respondents for Group 2 is six because only the jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with energy markets can respond to the Group 2 metrics. Likewise, the estimated number of respondents in Group 3 is four because only the jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with capacity markets can respond to the Group 3 metrics. Finally, the table includes a burden estimate for potential new respondents. Since all the jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs previously responded to FERC-922, any potential new respondent would be a non-RTO/ISO utility and, thus, would only submit responses to the Group 1 metrics. The burden estimate for new respondents reflects the fact that a potential new respondent would be submitting for the first time, therefore requiring more hours and cost per new response. Commission staff conservatively estimates that one new non-RTO/ISO utility may respond to this revised FERC-922 information collection.
The second column (2), Number of Responses in Years 1 & 3, is characterized by the number of Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) each respondent would be reporting on, as the respondent would provide a response to each metric for each of its BAAs. Each RTO/ISO is a single BAA and, therefore, will only provide responses to each metric for one BAA, but non-RTO/ISO utilities may report for multiple BAAs. Therefore, the estimated number of responses for Group 1 (all RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities) is the number of BAAs in the RTOs/ISOs (
The Annual Frequency of Filings (3) is 0.67 for all groups. This fraction reflects that there will be two information collections, one each during Year 1 and Year 3 of the three-year OMB authorization period. Therefore,
The Total Number of Annual Responses (4) is the product of the second column, Number of Responses in Years 1 and 3 (2), multiplied by the third column, the Annual Frequency of Filings (3). Thus, for the first group of respondents, this value is 16 × 0.67, or 10.72.
The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) reflects the total number of estimated burden hours, separated into the three reporting categories (collect, write, review) for each group of respondents. The total estimated burden hours for the first 3 groups of respondents are the same (401 hours) as determined in the previous FERC-922 information collection burden estimates. An increased estimate of the burden hours, 427 hours, is for Potential New Respondents, in recognition of the fact that the burden on a new respondent is likely higher. The number of hours in each reporting category has been adjusted in this collection, as compared to the previous FERC-922 collection burden estimate, to reflect less emphasis on the writing category, as Commission staff has developed a structured data collection tool that will decrease the amount of written text that respondents will provide in the information collection.
The Estimated Cost per Response (6) is the product of the following three variables: The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) for a category, multiplied by the labor rate (wages plus benefits) for each category (which is not shown in the table), multiplied by the proportion of total hours attributable to a given Group that reports on a category,
The Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours (7) is the product of the Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5). For the first row of the first group of respondents, this value is 2,905 hours (or 10.72 × 271 hours).
Finally, the Estimated Total Annual Cost (8) reflects the total burden to the industry and is calculated by multiplying the Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Cost per Response (6) for each category for all groups and produces an estimated total cost in the last row of the table. The wage rates utilized in this burden estimate have been updated to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates for the same categories as used in the prior burden estimates for the FERC-922 information collection (
In general, commenters, including APPA, California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Independent Market Monitor (PJM market monitor), the ISO/RTO Council (IRC), Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), and the Competitive Transmission Developers,
The CAISO Department of Market Monitoring (CAISO market monitor) requests the addition of four additional Group 2 metrics regarding the efficiency of congestion revenue rights (CRR) auctions. APPA requests additional Group 2 and Group 3 metrics, including: (1) A metric addressing transmission costs comprehensively; (2) a metric addressing whether existing capacity is over- or under-recovering its costs in the RTO/ISO-operated markets; (3) a metric addressing the concentration of ownership of capacity resources; and (4) a metric regarding the participation and profitability of financial entities in RTO/ISO-operated markets. APPA also recommends that Commission staff retain the RTO/ISO governance metric it proposed deleting from the information collection. The Competitive Transmission Developers recommend inclusion of a transmission metric on constructions costs, comparing initial RTO/ISO cost estimates to actual costs at the time the project went into service, and identifying whether a project was competitive or designated to incumbents. In contrast, IRC does not believe that expansion of the metrics beyond Commission staff's proposal is warranted.
APPA recommends substantive changes to Metrics #13, #16, #18, #22, and #25 on the basis that its proposed changes would increase the accuracy of the metrics, increase comparability, or otherwise add useful data to the information collection. TAPS recommends that sub-part ten of Metric #25 be expanded to include data on generation capacity owned by load serving entities, to allow for greater comparability across markets. The PJM market monitor recommends substantive changes to Metrics #3, #5, #6, #10, #11, #16, #19, #20, and #26, on the basis that its proposed changes would enhance the metrics, better align them with the PJM market monitor's own calculations, or otherwise add useful data to the information collection. The PJM market monitor argues that Metrics #13 and #14 are not useful measures of market performance.
Commission staff also believes that adding some of the proposed additional metrics, without allowing significant time for further research, outreach, and refinement, would be premature. However, staff commits to continuing to research and discuss additional metrics of interest to commenters in the ongoing voluntary and collaborative process with participating RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities, and to consider adding additional metrics to the next iteration of this information collection.
Commission staff does not agree with APPA that the customer satisfaction metric staff proposed to eliminate should be retained. Historically, responses to this metric have not provided meaningful data, and therefore the metric has served only to increase the reporting burden on respondents. Staff commits to continuing to research and discuss additional metrics of interest to commenters in the ongoing voluntary and collaborative process, which could include organizational effectiveness.
Commission staff has reviewed the substantive changes recommended by commenters to the proposed metrics and has determined not to make significant modifications to the metrics at this time. Among other considerations, Commission staff believes some of the proposed changes: (1) Would significantly increase the data collection and reporting burden on respondents; (2) would undermine the commonality and comparability of certain metrics across RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities; and (3) do not support the general purpose of the Common Metrics information collection.
Commenters, including CAISO, MISO, the PJM market monitor, and IRC, note that certain respondents may not be able to provide responsive information or data for each metric addressed in the information collection, or may collect data in a manner that deviates from the metric as requested. IRC comments that the wording of Metric #17 implies that the ability of RTOs/ISOs to manage the growth rate of administrative costs will be commensurate with the growth rate of system load—a presumption with which IRC disagrees. APPA and TAPS both recommend certain clarifying edits to the description and calculation of Metric #16. Specifically, with regard to Metric #16, TAPS recommends that Commission staff: (1) Clarify the definition of “congestion revenue”; (2) clarify the definition of “congestion charge”; (3) clarify the information to be submitted in sub-part 5 of Metric #16; and (4) clarify that in reporting congestion revenues returned to load, RTOs should take into account all revenues and charges associated with Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs) and Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs). APPA supports TAPS' comments requesting an improved definition of congestion revenue and congestion charges and also recommends reversing the numerator and denominator of the calculation in sub-part 5 of Metric #16. APPA also recommends that Metric #16 document how the payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the revenues paid to the instrument holders. The PJM market monitor recommends that Commission staff clarify: (1) The method of calculating new entrant net revenues in Metric #18; (2) the intent of Metric #19; (3) whether Metric #21 is intended to include aggregate import and exports limits for the RTO/ISO as a whole; and (4) whether Metric #24 should be calculated for each Locational Deliverability Area that price separates in PJM and for PJM as a whole.
Commission staff did not intend for the wording of Metric #17 to imply that administrative costs will always be commensurate with the system load growth; therefore, Commission staff has revised Metric #17 to read:
Commission staff agrees with APPA and TAPS that enhancing the definitions of congestion charges and congestion revenue in Metric #16 would ensure consistent reporting across RTOs/ISOs, and Commission staff has updated the User Guide and Input Spreadsheet accordingly. Commission staff also agrees that adding a line omitted from the original Input Spreadsheet and reversing the numerator and denominator of sub-part 5 of Metric #16 will improve the metric's clarity, and Commission staff has updated the Input Spreadsheet accordingly. Commission staff does not agree that Metric #16 should examine how payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the revenues paid to the instrument holders because the Commission does not generally assess the effectiveness of a market by examining how well specific types of market participants are profiting from participation in the market. Commission staff also does not agree that congestion charges should be reported separately for the day-ahead and balancing markets because only
Commission staff recognizes there are varying methodologies for calculating new entrant net revenues in Metric #18 and requests that respondents explain in the Explanatory Text field any clarifications they wish to provide. The intent of Metric #19 is to measure the impact that shortage events will have on reserve market clearing prices. If respondents would like to provide more granular data or improvements to the methodology, these can be submitted in the Input Spreadsheet and described in the Explanatory Text field provided. The intent of Metric #21 is to measure the maximum importable external capacity into a capacity zone for the purpose of resource deliverability in the capacity auction and should therefore focus on imports by zone. Commission staff confirms Metric #24 should be calculated both by zone and for the RTO as a whole.
Finally, Commission staff notes that this information collection is a voluntary, collaborative process. To the extent respondents have outstanding or additional questions about the twenty-nine Common Metrics, including the relevant definitions and calculations, Commission staff is available to provide guidance.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Outlaw Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 12, 2020.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on January 17, 2020, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) a request for confirmation that Iroquois' current and ongoing practices of monitoring its pipeline right of way (ROW) satisfy the environmental condition that Iroquois conduct a yearly walkover of its pipeline ROW that was incorporated by reference in the Commission's 1990 order granting Iroquois' original certificate to construct, own, and operate its interstate natural gas pipeline system (1990 Certificate Order) in the alternative, Iroquois requests that the Commission approve a limited amendment to Iroquois' certificate granted in the 1990 Certificate Order to remove the requirement that Iroquois perform and annual walkover of its pipeline ROW (Amendment Application) all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. Iroquois requests that the Commission grant Iroquois' request (or alternatively, issue a final order granting the Amendment Application) by February 17, 2020.
The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions regarding the request or Amendment Application may be directed to Kimberly A.E. Pritchard, Senior Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company, One Corporate Drive, Suite 600, Shelton, Connecticut 06484, phone: 203-944-7032, email:
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.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Production Capacity Amendment, proposed by Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia LNG) in the above-referenced docket. Magnolia LNG requests authorization to increase the liquefied natural gas (LNG) production capacity of the previously authorized Magnolia LNG Project in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana (Docket No. CP14-347-000) from 8 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 8.8 MTPA. The increased LNG production capacity would be achieved through the optimization of Magnolia LNG's final design for the terminal, including additional and modified process equipment.
The final supplemental EIS assesses the potential changes to the air and noise emissions, and our reliability and safety engineering analyses associated with the construction and operation of the Production Capacity Amendment from what was presented in the final EIS in Docket No. CP14-347-000 for the Magnolia LNG Project. The FERC staff concludes that the proposed modifications, with the additional mitigation measures recommended in the supplemental EIS, would continue to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Department of Energy participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the supplemental EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the analysis conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On January 6, 2020, Gridflex Energy, LLC (Gridflex) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Eldorado Pumped Storage Project to be located in Clark County, Nevada. Gridflex subsequently amended its application on January 10, 2020. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An upper reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre feet at elevation of 3,520 feet mean sea level (msl), and a surface area of 104 acres; (2) two upper reservoir dams, the first dam would be 110-foot-high and the second would be 60-foot-high, each upper reservoir dam would have a crest length of 1,100 feet; (3) a lower reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre feet at elevation of 2,100 msl and a surface area of 102 acres (Alternative A) or a lower reservoir having a total storage capacity of 5,500 acre feet at elevation of 2,420 msl and a surface area of 95 acres (Alternative B); (4) a lower reservoir dam with a maximum height of 55 feet and a crest length of 8,720 feet (Alternative A) or a lower reservoir dam with a maximum height of 120 feet and having a crest length of 5,600 feet (Alternative B); (5) a 1,300-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter vertical power shaft, a 5,000-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter headrace tunnel, and a 7,000-foot-long, 25-foot-diameter tailrace tunnel (Alternative A) or a 1,000-foot-long, 19-foot-diameter vertical power shaft, a 4,000-foot-long, 19-foot-diameter headrace tunnel, and a 5,000-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter tailrace tunnel (Alternative B); (6) an underground 400-foot-long, 80-foot-wide, 120-foot-high, underground powerhouse (Alternative A) or a 350-foot-long, 80-foot-wide, 120-foot-high, underground powerhouse (Alternative B); (7) three 250-Megawatt (MW) variable speed reversible pump turbines and motor-generators (Alternative A) or three 200-Megawatt (MW) variable speed reversible pump turbines and motor-generators (Alternative B), with a 1,420-feet or 1,100-feet of operating head, respectively; (8) a new twin circuit 230 kilovolt (kV), 5.5-mile-long transmission line with an interconnection at the Eldorado Substation near Boulder City, Nevada; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The applicant is considering multiple sources of water for the initial fill and makeup water including the Southern Nevada Water Authority. The estimated annual generation of the Project would be 1,314,000 Megawatt-hours MWh (Alternative A) or 1,051,200 MWh (Alternative B).
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's website at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the following meetings:
Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:
For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-8529, or
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants (EPA ICR Number 1078.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0111), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2020. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 2, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0314, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act notice is hereby given that the Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS) will meet on March 31, 2020. The MSTRS is a subcommittee under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. This is an open meeting. The meeting will include discussion of current topics and presentations about activities being conducted by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The preliminary agenda for the meeting and any notices about change in venue will be posted on the Subcommittee's website:
Tuesday, March 31, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting is currently scheduled to be held at The Residence Inn Arlington Capital View Hotel at 2850 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, Virginia 22202. However, this date and location are subject to change and interested parties should monitor the Subcommittee website (above) for the latest logistical information.
Courtney McCubbin, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail code 6401A, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; Phone number: 202-564-2436; email:
Background on the work of the Subcommittee is available at:
Individuals or organizations wishing to provide comments to the Subcommittee should submit them to Ms. McCubbin at the address above by March 17, 2020. The Subcommittee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.
During the meeting, the Subcommittee may also hear progress reports from some of its workgroups as well as updates and announcements on activities of general interest to attendees.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 2, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691, online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ms. Leigh Herrington, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 541-0882 or by email at
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The ICR finalized with the PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of a document titled,
The PA will be made available on or about January 27, 2020.
This document will be available primarily via the internet at
Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-1167; fax number: 919-541-5315; email:
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”; “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources”; and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A)-(C)). Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
Presently, the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM. The EPA's overall plan for this review is presented in the
The PA, when final, is intended to “bridge the gap” between the scientific and technical information available in the review and the judgments required of the Administrator in determining whether to retain or revise the existing PM NAAQS. The EPA released the draft PA in September 2019 (84 FR 47944, September 11, 2019). The draft PA was reviewed by the chartered CASAC on October 24-25, 2019 at a public meeting held in Cary, NC. Public comments on the draft PA were received via a separate public teleconference on October 22, 2019 (84 FR 51555, September 30, 2019). A public meeting to discuss the CASAC letter and response to charge questions on the draft PA was held in Cary, NC on December 3, 2019 (84 FR 58713, November 1, 2019), and the CASAC provided its advice on the draft PA in a letter to the EPA Administrator dated December 16, 2019.
The documents briefly described above do not represent, and should not be construed to represent, any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 30, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
This information collection is being revised to: (1) Extend some of the existing information collection requirements for the Healthcare Connect Fund and Telecommunications (Telecom) Programs; (2) revise some of the information collection requirements for the Healthcare Connect Fund and Telecom Programs and (3) add some new information collection requirements applicable to both the Healthcare Connect Fund Program and the Telecom Program as a result of the
The Healthcare Connect Fund Program currently includes FCC Forms 460, 461, 462, and 463 and the Telecom Program currently includes FCC Forms 465, 466, and 467. The revisions to these FCC Form templates, where applicable, are intended to make the RHC Program information requests consistent between the programs, to the extent possible, and help to ensure and verify that RHC Program participants are not engaging in fraudulent conduct or otherwise violating the Commission's rules. Some of the changes to the FCC Form templates have different effective dates. Therefore, for administrative ease, we have indicated the applicable funding year of the FCC Form template, and where a specific form includes changes applicable to funding year 2020 and others to funding year 2021, we have provided separate forms applicable to each funding year. In the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the second meeting of the third term of its Disability Advisory Committee (DAC or Committee).
Wednesday, February 26, 2020. The meeting will come to order at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Will Schell, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at (202) 418-0767 (voice) or
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with open captioning at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission clarifies its interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule, finding that the
Effective January 30, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Rhonda Lien, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, via phone at 202-418-1540 or email at
This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Order on Remand and Declaratory Ruling, in WC Docket No. 10-90, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 19-131, adopted on December 12, 2019 and released December 17, 2019. A full-text version of the document can be found at the following internet address:
1. One of the foundational missions of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is to ensure that communications networks are available to Americans throughout the country. And for decades, the Commission has indirectly subsidized the deployment and expansion of local voice telephone networks through its intercarrier compensation system. These rules allowed, for example, local exchange carriers (or LECs) to collect end office switching charges or charges recovered from long-distance carriers (known as interexchange carriers or IXCs) for terminating long-distance calls to the LECs' local customers.
2. Calls were traditionally delivered over the legacy system of interconnected voice telephone networks known as the public-switched telephone network, or PSTN. For nearly the last decade, the Commission has worked to facilitate the
3. Several years later, the Commission offered an interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule that allowed LECs that partner with over-the-top VoIP providers to collect end office switching charges on their VoIP-PSTN traffic. This
4. To provide certainty to carriers, promote the deployment of modern all-IP networks, and advance competition in the voice services market, we now clarify our interpretation of the VoIP symmetry rule and reaffirm our commitment to well-established Commission precedent that takes account of the functions a LEC or its VoIP provider partner are actually performing. Accordingly, we interpret our VoIP Symmetry Rule to permit LECs to assess end office switched access charges only if the LEC or its VoIP partner provides a physical connection to the last-mile facilities used to serve an end user. If neither the LEC nor its VoIP provider partner provides such physical connection to the last-mile facilities used to serve the end user, the VoIP-LEC partnership is not providing the functional equivalent of end office switched access and the LEC may not assess end office switched access charges.
5. The IP transition has generated a great deal of regulatory uncertainty. In early 2011, the Commission resolved a formal complaint brought by AT&T alleging that YMax Communications Corp., a competitive LEC, was improperly assessing switched access charges for voice services it provided in conjunction with its partner magicJack, LP. magicJack provided consumers “the ability to use the internet to make and receive calls throughout most of North America” through a device—the eponymous “magicJack”—that plugged into a computer's USB port and a telephone jack “into which an ordinary landline telephone can be plugged.” Customers had to “separately procure high speed internet access service from a third-party ISP in order to use the magicJack device to place or receive calls.” YMax provided access to numbers and to the PSTN for magicJack's customers, but “did not provide any physical transmission facilities” connecting YMax to the premises of any non-carriers/non-internet Service Provider (ISP) persons or entities. In its complaint, AT&T alleged that YMax violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by assessing switched access charges not authorized by its tariff, because YMax did not provide services such as “Switched Access Service” or “End Office Switched Access” to “end users” as defined in its tariff.
6. The Commission examined the YMax tariff provisions in question “according to their common meaning in the industry.” The Commission held that the terms “termination” of “End User station loops” and “end user lines” have well-established meanings within the telecommunications industry, in Commission orders, and in court decisions. In all of those contexts, the terms generally refer to a physical transmission facility that provides a point-to-point connection between an individual home or business and a telephone company office. The Commission held that YMax was not providing “end office switched access” because it did not provide a “physical transmission facility that provides a point-to-point connection.” In reaching its decision, the Commission rejected YMax's argument that it was providing “virtual loops” via the customer's internet access.
7. In the
8. Specifically, the VoIP Symmetry Rule “permit[s] a LEC to charge the relevant intercarrier compensation for functions performed by it and/or by its retail VoIP partner, regardless of whether the functions performed, or the technology used correspond precisely to those used under a traditional TDM (time division multiplexing) architecture.” The VoIP Symmetry Rule specifies that, “a local exchange carrier shall be entitled to assess and collect the full Access Reciprocal Compensation charges prescribed by this subpart that are set forth in a local exchange carrier's interstate or intrastate tariff for the access services defined in § 51.903 regardless of whether the local exchange carrier itself delivers such traffic to the called party's premises or delivers the call to the called party's premises via contractual or other arrangements with an affiliated or unaffiliated provider of interconnected VoIP service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(25), or a non-interconnected VoIP service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(36), that does not itself seek to collect Access Reciprocal Compensation charges prescribed by this subpart for that traffic.” 47 CFR 51.913(b). Among the categories of services defined in section 51.903 is End Office Access Services, which are
9. In 2012, YMax sought clarification about “the minimum functionality required” for a competitive LEC to collect full access for VoIP-PSTN traffic pursuant to the then-new VoIP Symmetry Rule. YMax asserted that the Commission should affirm that “a LEC is performing the functional equivalent of ILEC access service . . . whenever it is providing telephone numbers and some portion of the interconnection with the PSTN, and regardless of how or by whom the last-mile transmission is provided.” The Wireline Competition Bureau rejected YMax's arguments and explained that “ ‘although access services might functionally be accomplished in different ways . . . the right to [assess] charge[s] [pursuant to the VoIP Symmetry Rule] does not extend to functions not performed by the LEC or its retail VoIP service provider partner.’ ” The Bureau explained that YMax's interpretation could lead to double billing and that the Commission was careful to “prevent double billing and charging for functions not actually provided.” As a result, the Bureau rejected YMax's proposed rule interpretation.
10. In the
11. AT&T appealed the
12. After the court remanded the
13. Litigation and other disputes regarding access charges related to the VoIP Symmetry Rule continue. In its Petition, CenturyLink details ongoing litigation regarding the interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule. According to O1 Communications and Peerless Network, the
14. Upon consideration of the record in this proceeding and consistent with Commission precedent, we reaffirm the long-standing definition of what constitutes “end office switching”: A VoIP-LEC partnership that interconnects a call with a customer's last-mile facility performs the functional equivalent of end office switching and may charge for that functionality. By contrast, a VoIP provider, or a VoIP-LEC partnership, that transmits calls to an unaffiliated ISP for routing over the internet does not provide the functional equivalent of end office switching, and may not impose an end office switching access charge on IXCs that receive or deliver traffic to or from the VoIP-LEC partnership. Today's ruling provides carriers with certainty and predictability about the applicability of the VoIP Symmetry Rule, while helping to resolve past disputes.
15. In reaching our conclusion, we also conclude that the
16. The Commission has historically analyzed end office switching in the context of regulating traditional voice services. The Commission has consistently recognized that interconnection is a hallmark of end office switching, and that interconnection involves connecting “subscriber line to subscriber line or subscriber line to trunk.” As the D.C. Circuit and commenters explain, prior Commission and Bureau orders demonstrate that the Commission has always understood physical interconnection to be the hallmark of end office switching. As AT&T points out, “all of the relevant precedents from the Commission and courts . . . uniformly provide that the core and distinguishing function of an end office switch is the interconnection of calls on trunks to and from last-mile customer loop facilities.” In particular, as the D.C. Circuit observed,
17. We thus conclude that a physical interconnection continues to be the critical and defining characteristic of end office switching. LECs and their VoIP provider partners merely transmitting calls to unaffiliated ISPs for routing over the public internet are not performing this essential function of end office switching. In adopting the VoIP Symmetry Rule in 2011, the Commission demonstrated no intention to rethink that key aspect of end office switching. Therefore, we decline to continue pursuing the Commission's misguided decision in 2015 to depart from this well-understood interpretation of end office switching. Returning to that historical understanding in our application of the VoIP Symmetry Rule here also fully addresses the D.C. Circuit's concerns with the
18. In adopting the VoIP Symmetry Rule, the Commission reaffirmed its practice of determining whether a carrier can impose access charges by considering whether the service being provided is functionally equivalent to a service for which LECs have been allowed to impose access charges. As the Commission explained, “under the Commission's historical approach in the access charge context, when relying on tariffs, LECs have been permitted to charge access charges to the extent that they are providing the functions at issue.” Although the Commission did not expressly discuss physical connections, it used the traditional test, and re-codified it, in order to clarify that a LEC could collect access charges when it transmitted a call using a format other than TDM (such as IP); and that a LEC could collect access charges for functions performed not only by itself but also by its VoIP partner.
19. Our interpretation is consistent with the Commission's statement in the
20. Our conclusion that the VoIP Symmetry Rule allows recovery of end office switching charges only where the LEC or its VoIP provider partner provides the physical connection furthers the Commission's goal of promoting IP investment, particularly last-mile investment, by rewarding investment in last-mile connections. We disagree with CenturyLink's assertion that our actions in this
21. Relatedly, we conclude that that our reading of the VoIP Symmetry Rule is the better interpretation in the overall context of trying to promote competition in the voice marketplace than the approach taken by the Commission in the
22. We also conclude that because our approach is better aligned with the approach taken by the Commission in the
23. Indeed, in the
24. Our decision today is fundamentally technologically neutral. As Verizon explains, “distinguishing between facilities-based and over-the top VoIP providers is technology neutral—the different treatment has nothing to do with the providers' choice of technology . . . but with the fact that the former are doing work that the latter
25. In departing from the Commission's interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule in the
26. In the interest of further clarity, we find that this Declaratory Ruling should have retroactive effect. As a general matter, declaratory rulings are adjudicatory and are presumed to have retroactive effect. Clarifying the law and applying that clarification to past behavior are routine functions of adjudications. As various commenters point out, the applicability of the VoIP Symmetry Rule has not been clear. This retroactive clarification is necessary to provide clarity on the meaning of the VoIP Symmetry Rule. As such, we reject the assertion that the interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule adopted in this Order may not be applied retroactively because such interpretation would result in “manifest injustice” and that our revised interpretation of the VoIP Symmetry Rule may be applied only prospectively. Instead, retroactivity is necessary to prevent an undue hardship being worked upon those parties who properly interpreted the VoIP Symmetry Rule and have been in disputes ever since.
27. Accordingly,
28.
29.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 30, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The following are the information collection requirements in connection with the amended provisions of Appendix B of Part 1 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR pt.1, App. B):
• Stipulation VII.C of the amended Collocation Agreement provides that proposals to mount a small antenna on a traffic control structure (
The First Amendment to the Collocation Agreement established new exclusions from the Section 106 review process for physically small deployments like DAS and small cells, fulfilling a directive in the Commission's
Facilitating these deployments thus directly advances efforts to roll out 5G service in communities across the country.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Location:
Location:
Location:
Location:
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 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 February 17, 2020.
1.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 established the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee to provide comments and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on physician payment models and gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing its members. GAO is now accepting nominations of individuals for this committee.
Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than February 28, 2020, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment. Appointments to fill open spots on PTAC are expected to be made in June 2020. Other appointments will be made in October 2020.
Submit letters of nomination and resumes by either of the following methods: Email:
Greg Giusto at (202) 512-8268 or
Pub. L. 114-10, Sec. 101(e), 129 Stat. 87, 115 (2015).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The CDC within the HHS announces the next meeting of the CPSTF on February 12, 2020.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
The CPSTF meeting will be held via web conference. Information regarding meeting logistics will be available on the Community Guide website (
Onslow Smith, Community Guide Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-E-69, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone: (404) 498-6778, email:
To register for the afternoon session, individuals should send an email to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop US8-1, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027; Telephone: (404) 718-8833;
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240
The meeting will be held on March 17, 2020, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT and March 18,2020, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244.
Traci Ramirez, Program Specialist, CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782; telephone: (301) 458-4454;
Please refer to the posted agenda for updates one month prior to the meeting.
Attendees who wish to attend the March 17-18, 2020, ICD-10-CM C&M meeting must submit their name and organization by March 6, 2020, for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by security to admit visitors to the meeting. To request reasonable accommodation, please contact the CMS Reasonable Accommodation Program at Email
Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish attend.
Please register to attend the meeting on-line at:
Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510) or
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Office on Trafficking in Persons; Administration for Children and Families; Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comment.
The Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting to continue data collection with an increased number of respondents to the previously approved information collection, National Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Center (NHTTAC) Evaluation Package (OMB #0970-0519, expiration 10/31/2021). This request was originally approved under expedited review and increased the estimated burden hours from 689 hours to 9,497 hours.
In addition, the previously approved Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to human trafficking (SOAR) Online Participant Feedback Form was restructured into a long and short form to reduce burden for information collected on SOAR Online training participants outside of the NHTTAC learning management system. There are no changes requested to the items on any forms.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
The NHTTAC delivers training and technical assistance (T/TA) to inform and deliver a public health response to trafficking. In applying a public health approach, NHTTAC holistically builds the capacity of communities to identify and respond to the complex needs of all individuals who have been trafficked, and addresses the root causes that put individuals, families, and communities at risk of trafficking. This will ultimately help improve the availability and delivery of coordinated and trauma-informed services before, during, and after an individual's trafficking exploitation, regardless of their age, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or type of exploitation. NHTTAC hosts a variety of services, programs, and facilitated sessions to improve service provision to individuals who have been trafficked, or who are at risk of trafficking, including the Human Trafficking Leadership Academy (HTLA); the Survivor Fellowship Program; the NHTTAC Call Center; both short-term and specialized T/TA requests (requests that take less than 3 hours or 3 or more hours to fulfill, respectively); OTIP-funded grantees; and information through NHTTAC's website, resources, and materials about trafficking.
The following instruments have an increased number of respondents. The number of respondents for all other previously approved instruments remains the same. The increase in respondents increases the overall burden under OMB #0970-0519 from 689 hours to 9,497 hours. See
22 U.S.C. 7104 and 22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4).
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-Day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed collection of information; Development Disabilities State Plan Information Collection.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 2, 2020.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information by:
(a) Email to:
(b) fax to 202.395.5806, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL; or
(c) by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW, Rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.
Sara Newell-Perez, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, 202-795-7413
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, ACL has submitted the following proposed extension information collection to OMB for review and clearance.
The State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils) are authorized in Subtitle B, of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act), as amended, [42 U.S.C. 15001
Additionally, data is collected in the State Plan and submitted to Office on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (OIDD) for compliance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). In the State Plans, the Councils provide to OIDD future year targets for outcome performance measures. These targets are reported to Congress under GPRAMA.
As required by the statute, the Council is responsible for the development and submission of the State plan, and is then responsible for implementation of the activities described in the plan. Further, the Council updates the Plan annually during the five years. The State plan provides information on individuals with developmental disabilities in the State, and a description of the services available to them and their families. The plan further sets forth the goals and specific objectives to be achieved by the State in pursuing systems change and capacity building in order to more effectively meet the service needs of this population. It describes State priorities, strategies, and actions, and the allocation of funds to meet these goals and objectives.
The State Plan is used in three ways. First, it is used by the individual Council as a planning document to guide its planning and execution processes. Secondly, it provides a mechanism in the State whereby individual citizens, as well as the State government, are made aware of the goals and objectives of the Council and have an opportunity to provide comments on them during its development. Finally, the State plan provides to the Department a stewardship tool; the staff of the Department provides some technical assistance to Councils and monitor compliance with Subtitle B of the DD Act, as an adjunct to on-site monitoring. The stewardship role of the State plan is useful both for providing technical assistance during the planning process, during the execution process, and also during program site visits.
ACL received 18 comments in response to the 60-day
The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL website for review at
ACL estimates the burden associated with this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides recommendations to stakeholders developing human gene therapy (GT) products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance provides recommendations on the clinical trial design and related development of coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) and IX (hemophilia B) activity assays, including how to address discrepancies in factor VIII and factor IX activity assays. The guidance also includes recommendations regarding preclinical considerations to support development of GT products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jessica Walker Udechukwu, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides recommendations to stakeholders developing GT products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance provides recommendations on the clinical trial design and related development of coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) and IX (hemophilia B) activity assays, including how to address discrepancies in factor VIII and factor IX activity assays. The guidance also includes recommendations regarding preclinical considerations to support development of GT products for the treatment of hemophilia.
Hemophilia therapy in the United States has progressed from replacement
Elsewhere in this issue of the
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance 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. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0765; and the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations.” The draft guidance document provides FDA's current thinking on the criteria to determine sameness of human gene therapy products for the purpose of orphan drug designation and orphan drug exclusivity. The draft guidance is intended to assist stakeholders, including industry and academic sponsors who seek orphan drug designation and orphan drug exclusivity, in the development of gene therapies for rare diseases.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 29, 2020 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 Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jenifer Roe, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations.” The draft guidance provides FDA's current thinking on the criteria to determine sameness of human gene therapy products for the purpose of orphan drug designation and orphan drug exclusivity. The draft guidance is intended to assist stakeholders, including industry and academic sponsors who seek orphan drug designation and orphan drug exclusivity, in the development of gene therapies for rare diseases. The draft guidance focuses specifically on factors FDA intends to consider when determining sameness for gene therapy products and does not address sameness determinations for other types of products.
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 “Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products Under the Orphan Drug Regulations.” 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 FDA collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 316 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0167, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St. North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs); Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides sponsors of human gene therapy INDs with recommendations regarding CMC information to be submitted in an IND. The guidance document informs sponsors how to provide sufficient CMC information required to assure product safety, identity, quality, purity, and strength (including potency) of the investigational product. The guidance applies to human gene therapy products and to combination products that contain a human gene therapy in combination with a drug or device.
The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018 and supersedes the document entitled “Guidance for FDA Reviewers and Sponsors: Content and Review of Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs),” dated April 2008 (April 2008 guidance).
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential
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 guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Sana F. Hussain, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs); Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides sponsors of human gene therapy INDs with recommendations regarding CMC information to be submitted in an IND. The guidance document informs sponsors how to provide sufficient CMC information required to assure product safety, identity, quality, purity, and strength (including potency) of the investigational product (21 CFR 312.23(a)(7)(i)). The guidance applies to human gene therapy products and to combination products that contain a human gene therapy in combination with a drug or device.
The field of gene therapy has progressed rapidly since FDA issued the April 2008 guidance. Therefore, FDA is updating the guidance to provide current FDA recommendations regarding the CMC content of a gene therapy IND. In addition, the guidance is organized to follow the structure of the FDA guidance on the Common Technical Document.
In the
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance 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. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 and Form FDA 1571 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 1271 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0543.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
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 guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Melissa Segal, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides sponsors of retroviral vector-based human gene therapy products recommendations regarding the testing for RCR during the manufacture of retroviral vector-based gene therapy products, and during follow-up monitoring of patients who have received retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. Recommendations are also provided for RCR testing during manufacture, including identification and amount of material to be tested, and general testing methods. In addition, recommendations are provided on monitoring patients for evidence of retroviral infection after administration of retroviral vector-based gene therapy products. The guidance supersedes the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Supplemental Guidance on Testing for Replication Competent Retrovirus in Retroviral Vector Based Gene Therapy Products and During Follow-up of Patients in Clinical Trials Using Retroviral Vectors” dated November 2006. The guidance also supplements two other final guidance
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on testing of retroviral vector-based human gene therapy products for replication competent retrovirus during product manufacture and patient follow-up. 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.
The 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. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for voting members, excluding consumer representative, to serve on the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (the Committee) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Nominations will be accepted for current and upcoming vacancies effective with this notice. FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Nominations received on or before March 30, 2020, will be given first consideration for membership on the Committee. Nominations received after March 30, 2020, will be considered for nomination to the Committee as later vacancies occur.
All nominations for membership should be submitted electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5407, 301-796-8398, email:
FDA is requesting nominations for voting members to fill current and upcoming vacancies on the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee. This Notice does not include consumer and industry representative nominations. The Agency will publish two separate notices announcing the vacancy of a representative of consumer interests and vacancy of representatives of interests of the device manufacturing industry.
The Committee provides relevant skills and perspectives in order to improve communication of benefits, risks, and clinical outcomes, and increase integration of patient perspectives into the regulatory process for medical devices. It performs its duties by identifying new approaches, promoting innovation, recognizing unforeseen risks or barriers, and identifying unintended consequences that could result from FDA policy. The Committee provides advice on complex scientific issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. Agency guidance and policies, clinical trial or registry design, patient preference study design, benefit-risk determinations, device labeling, unmet clinical needs, available alternatives, patient reported outcomes, and device-related quality of life measure or health status issues are among the topics that may be considered by the Committee. Members are knowledgeable in areas such as clinical research, primary care patient experience, healthcare needs of patient groups in the United States, or are experienced in the work of patient and health professional organizations, methodologies for eliciting patient preferences, and strategies for communicating benefits, risks, and clinical outcomes to patients and research subjects.
The Committee consists of a core of nine voting members, including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs or designee from among authorities who are knowledgeable in areas such as clinical research, patient experience, healthcare needs of patient groups in the United States, or are experienced in the work of patient and health professional organizations, scientific methodologies for patient-reported outcomes and eliciting patient preferences, and strategies for communicating benefits, risks, and clinical outcomes to patients and research subjects.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Prospective members should also have
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the Committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a cover letter; a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business and/or home address, telephone number, and email address, if available; and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Rare Diseases; Guidance for Industry.” The final guidance document provides recommendations to stakeholders developing a human gene therapy (GT) product intended to treat a rare disease in adult and/or pediatric patients regarding the manufacturing, preclinical, and clinical trial design issues for all phases of the clinical development program. Such information is intended to assist sponsors in designing clinical development programs for such products, where there may be limited study population size and potential feasibility and safety issues as well as issues relating to the interpretability of bioactivity/efficacy outcomes that may be unique to rare diseases or to the nature of the GT product itself. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Shruti Modi, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (Pub. L. 97-414) defines a rare disease as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States. Since most rare diseases have no approved therapies, there is a significant unmet need for effective treatments. However, developing safe and effective products to treat rare diseases can be challenging. For example, it may be more difficult to find and recruit such patients into clinical trials, and many rare diseases exhibit a number of variations or subtypes. Consequently, patients may have highly diverse clinical manifestations and rates of disease progression with unpredictable clinical courses. Despite these challenges, GT-related research and development continue to grow at a rapid rate, with several products advancing in clinical development.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Rare Diseases; Guidance for Industry.” This guidance provides recommendations to stakeholders developing human GT product intended to treat a rare disease in adult and/or pediatric patients regarding the manufacturing, preclinical, and clinical trial design issues for all phases of the clinical development program. Such information is intended to assist sponsors in designing clinical development programs for such products, where there may be limited study population size and potential feasibility and safety issues as well as issues relating to the interpretability of bioactivity/efficacy outcomes that may be unique to rare diseases or to the nature of the GT product itself.
In the
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on recommendations for stakeholders developing human GT products for retinal disorders affecting adult and pediatric patients. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0765; and the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products.” The guidance document provides sponsors, who are developing a human gene therapy (GT) product, recommendations regarding the design of long term follow-up (LTFU) observational studies for the collection of data on delayed adverse events following administration of a GT product. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018 and supersedes the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Gene Therapy Clinical Trials—Observing Subjects for Delayed Adverse Events” dated November 2006. This guidance also supplements the guidance entitled “Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus during Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Guidance for Industry.”
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jessica Walker Udechukwu, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products; Guidance for Industry.” This guidance provides a brief introduction of the product characteristics, patient-related factors, and the preclinical and clinical data that should be considered when assessing the need for LTFU observations for your GT product. This guidance also describes the Agency's current recommendations for the conduct of LTFU studies, specifically the information/data to support a sponsor's rationale for the duration and design of a LTFU protocol when clinical trials are initiated. Also included this guidance are GT product-specific clinical considerations for monitoring subjects under a LTFU protocol and recommendations on patient monitoring for licensed GT products. This guidance is intended to supersede the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Gene Therapy Clinical Trials—Observing Participants for Delayed Adverse Events” dated November 2006. This guidance supplements the guidance entitled “Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus during Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Draft Guidance for Industry”.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Long Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance 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. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Retinal Disorders; Guidance for Industry.” The final guidance provides recommendations to stakeholders developing human gene therapy (GT) products for retinal disorders affecting adult and pediatric patients. The guidance focuses on issues specific to GT products for retinal disorders and provides recommendations related to product development, preclinical testing, and clinical trial design for such GT products. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2018.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Jenifer Stach, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Human Gene Therapy for Retinal Disorders; Guidance for Industry.” This guidance provides recommendations to stakeholders developing human GT products for retinal disorders affecting adult and pediatric patients. These disorders vary in etiology, prevalence, diagnosis, and management, and include genetic as well as age-related diseases. These disorders manifest with central or peripheral visual impairment and often with progressive visual loss. This guidance focuses on issues specific to GT products for retinal disorders and provides recommendations related to product development, preclinical testing, and clinical trial design for such GT products.
In the
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Human Gene Therapy for Retinal Disorders.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance 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. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0765; and the collections of information in the guidance entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the 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 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 will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this Notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 2, 2020.
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
A 60-day notice was published in the
The revised information collection request includes a new form and updates to existing forms for the Nurse Corps LRP in order to expand the service options for awarded participants, promote the use of telehealth for delivering care throughout the nation especially in rural areas, and to reduce the application burden on respondents.
New Form #1—Applicants will be asked to submit a Disadvantaged Background Form. This new form asks the applicant's site Point of Contact to certify whether the applicant is from a disadvantaged background. The form provides eligibility criteria for the determination.
Updated Form #1—The Participant Semi-Annual Employment Verification Form will be updated to include additional information about the participant's service including information about telehealth services and whether they work at multiple CSF sites. Telehealth helps expand the reach of providers especially in rural areas where medical service sites are more remote. The information collected will assist Program with determining the impact and utilization of telehealth services in various health care settings which will be used to inform our telehealth policies. Enabling multiple CSF site service will also allow greater flexibility for providers who rotate or split time between multiple sites which
Updated Form #2—The Nurse Corps LRP application will include questions for applicants to provide information regarding telehealth services, multiple CSF sites, and verification of base salary to determine the debt to salary ratio used to rank applicants for award consideration. The application will also be updated to identify applicants eligible for Nurse Corps LRP psychiatric nurse practitioner funding.
The estimates of reporting for Participants are as follows:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Immunobiology of Xenotransplantation (U01/U19, Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
Date: February 24-25, 2020.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
Contact Person: Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into NIH buildings. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 26, 2020, 5:00 p.m. to March 27, 2020, 4:00 p.m., Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Rd., Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting times. The meeting will now be held from March 26, 2020, 8:00 a.m. to March 27, 2020, 7:00 p.m. at the Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Rd., Rockville, MD 20850. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of Public Assistance customer satisfaction survey responses and information for assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to States, Local and Tribal governments, and eligible non-profit organizations.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2020.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Kristin Brooks, Statistician, Customer Survey Analysis Section, Reporting and Analytics Division, Recovery Directorate, at (940) 891-8579 or
This collection is in accordance with Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal agencies to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires Federal agencies to set missions and goals and to measure agency performance against them.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 574 Tribal entities recognized by and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. The list is updated from the notice published on February 1, 2019 (84 FR 1200).
Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally acknowledged Indian Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. This list includes the addition of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Other amendments to the list include formatting edits, name changes, and name corrections.
To aid in identifying Tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of intent.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency in cooperation with the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (Moapa Band) and other agencies, intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that will evaluate the expansion of the previously approved Moapa Solar Energy Center (MSEC) Project on the Moapa River Indian Reservation (Reservation). This project is now referred to as the Arrow Canyon Solar Project (Project) and this notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify potential issues related to the expansion. It also announces that two public scoping meetings will be held in Nevada to identify potential issues, alternatives, and mitigation to be considered in the SEIS.
Written comments on the scope of the Project or implementation of the proposal must arrive by Monday, March 2, 2020. The dates and locations of the public scoping meetings will be published in the
You may mail, email, or hand carry written comments to Mr. Chip Lewis, BIA Western Regional Office, 2600 North Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, Arizona 85004; email:
Mr. Chip Lewis, BIA Western Regional Office; telephone: (602) 379-6750; email:
The proposed Federal action, taken under 25 U.S.C. 415, is BIA's approval of an amendment of the solar energy ground lease and related agreements entered into by the Moapa Band with Moapa
The purposes of the proposed Project are, among other things, to: (1) Help to provide a long-term, diverse, and viable economic revenue base and job opportunities for the Moapa Band; (2) meet the terms of the existing PPA for the output of the Project; (3) help Nevada and neighboring States to meet their State renewable energy needs; and (4) allow the Moapa Band, in partnership with the Applicant, to optimize the use of the lease site while maximizing the potential economic benefit to the Tribe. BIA will prepare the SEIS in cooperation with the Moapa Band, BLM, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). In addition, the National Park Service (NPS) will provide input on the analysis. The resulting SEIS will aim to; (1) provide agency decision makers, the Moapa Band, and the general public with a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of the proposed expansion of the solar field on the Reservation; (2) describe the cumulative impacts of increased development on the Reservation; and (3) identify and propose mitigation measures that would minimize or prevent significant adverse impacts. Consistent with these objectives, the SEIS will focus on the expansion of the solar field and analyze the proposed expansion and appurtenant features, viable alternatives, and the No Action alternative. Other alternatives may be identified in response to issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will provide a framework for BIA to make decisions and determine whether to amend the existing lease agreement to include the expanded Project footprint. In addition, BIA will use and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Tribal consultation will be conducted in accordance with policy, and Tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Other Federal agencies may rely on the SEIS to make decisions under their authority and the Moapa Band may also use the SEIS to make decisions under their Tribal Environmental Policy Ordinance. USFWS will review the SEIS for consistency with the Endangered Species Act, as amended, and other implementing acts and may rely on the SEIS to support its decisions and opinions regarding the Project. Issues to be addressed in the SEIS analysis may include, but would not be limited to, Project impacts on water resources, biological resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, and aesthetics. In addition to those resource topics identified above, Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BIA's decision on the proposed Project, are invited to participate in the scoping process to identify additional issues to be addressed.
Please include your name, return address, and the caption “SEIS, Arrow Canyon Solar Project,” on the first page of any written comments. You may also submit comments at the public scoping meetings. The public scoping meetings will be held to further describe the Project and identify potential issues and alternatives to be considered in the SEIS. The first public scoping meeting will be held on the Reservation and the other public scoping meeting will be held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The dates of the public scoping meetings will be included in notices to be posted in the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Review-Journal, and Moapa Valley Progress 15 days before the meetings.
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the Council of Environmental Quality regulations and 43 CFR 46.235 of the Department of the Interior regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 2, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kurt Rausch, Acting Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On June 5, 2019, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
The regulations codified in 36 CFR part 51 primarily implement Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (54 U.S.C., 101911
Furthermore, 54 U.S.C., 101911
We collect the following information associated with the administration of concessions:
• Description of how respondent will conduct operations to minimize disturbance to wildlife; protect park resources; and provide visitors with a high quality, safe, and enjoyable visitor experience.
• Organizational structure and history and experience with similar operations.
• Details on violations or infractions and how they were handled.
• Financial information and demonstration that respondent has credible, proven track record of meeting obligations.
The Concessioner Annual Financial Report provides concessioner financial information as required by each concession contract. This information is necessary to comply with the requirements placed on the Secretary of the Interior by Congress. Title IV, Section 407 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-391) requires that “a concessions contract shall provide for payment to the Government of a franchise fee or other such monetary consideration as determined by the Secretary, upon consideration of the probable value to the concessioner of the privileges granted by the particular contract involved. Such probable value shall be based upon a reasonable opportunity for net profit in relation to capital invested and the obligations of the contract.” In accordance with 36 CFR part 51, subpart I concession contracts are required to “provide for payment to the Government of a franchise fee or other monetary consideration as determined by the Director upon consideration of the probable value to the concessioner of the privileges granted by the contract involved.” In order to verify the
• Cover sheet provides identifying information and the concessioner's certification as to the accuracy of the accompanying report.
• Schedule A is an income statement summarizing the financial activity (gross receipts, expenses, and net income) of the period being reported on.
• Schedule A-1 is a worksheet for calculating the comprehensive income.
• Schedule B is a worksheet for calculating the franchise fee.
• Schedule C is a balance sheet comparing the sources (liabilities and equity) with the uses (assets) of the capital of the company at the end of the fiscal year.
• Schedule D is a detail of the fixed assets reported on the balance sheet with a special listing of possessory interest or leasehold improvement assets (potential obligations of the Government).
• Schedule E is a statement of cash flows.
• Schedule F is space reserved for explanatory notes to the report.
• Schedule G is a breakdown of gross receipts by major departments.
• Schedule H is a detail of departmental income and expenses.
• Schedule I is a detail of general and administrative expenses.
• Schedule J lists ownership and compensation to officers and owners.
• Schedule K details the additions and disposals of fixed assets during the year.
• Schedule L is a supporting schedule for any amounts that need further explanation or detail.
• Schedule M contains various operational statistics commonplace for the major services provided in parks.
• Schedule P provides an accounting for those concessioners who have a contractual repair and maintenance reserve requirement.
• Schedule Q lists the projects from that reserve.
• Schedule N provides an accounting for those concessioners who have Special Accounts.
• Schedule O lists expenditures from Special Accounts.
• Schedule R provides an accounting for those concessioners who have approved rate add-ons.
The public solicitation process begins with the issuance of a prospectus to invite the general public to submit proposals for the contract. The prospectus describes the terms and conditions of the concession contract to be awarded, the procedures to be followed in the selection of the best proposal, and the information that must be provided. We collect the following information from every offeror:
•
•
In addition to this standard information, we also collect additional information in narrative and form format. The amount of information or degree of detail requested varies widely, depending upon the size and scope of the business opportunity. For example, a much greater amount of detailed information would be required for a multi-unit lodging and food service operation (such as that at Yellowstone), than would be required for a small firewood sales operation. This additional information includes the following which coincide with the five principal selection factors:
• Proposals to protect, conserve and preserve resources of the park. These proposals respond to specific resource management objectives and issues at the park and contract in question.
• Proposals to provide necessary and appropriate visitor services at reasonable rates. These proposals respond to specific visitor service questions at the park and contract in question.
• The experience and related background of the offeror, including past performance and expertise of the offeror in providing the same or similar
• The financial capability of the offeror to carry out its proposal. In particular, we ask for projected financials including initial investments, startup expenses, income statement, operating assumptions, cash flow statement, recapture of investments, and all associated assumptions.
• The amount of the proposed minimum franchise fee and other forms of financial consideration.
We use the information provided to objectively evaluate offers received for a particular business opportunity, assure that the park resources will be adequately protected, and determine which offeror will provide the best service to visitors.
In accordance with 36 CFR 51.15, an offeror may not amend or supplement a proposal after the submission date unless requested by the Director to do so and the Director provides all offerors that submitted proposals a similar opportunity to amend or supplement their proposals. Permitted amendments must be limited to modifying particular aspects of proposals resulting from a general failure of offerors to understand particular requirements of a prospectus or a general failure of offerors to submit particular information required by a prospectus.
In accordance with 36 CFR 51.32, if the Director determines that a proposal other than the responsive proposal submitted by a preferred offeror is the best proposal submitted for a qualified concession contract, then the Director must advise the preferred offeror of the better terms and conditions of the best proposal and permit the preferred offeror to amend its proposal to match them. An amended proposal must match the better terms and conditions of the best proposal. If the preferred offeror amends the proposal within the time period allowed, and the Director determines that the amended proposal matches the better terms and conditions of the best proposal, then the Director must select the preferred offeror for award of the contract.
Regulations in 36 CFR 51.47 state that any person may appeal to the Director, a determination that a concessioner is not a preferred offeror for the purposes of a right of preference in renewal and that the appeal must specify the grounds for the appeal. If the appellant does not identify the specific grounds on which it objects to the Director's initial preferred offeror determination, the Director could make a final determination without fully understanding the appellant's concerns or without taking into consideration important information the appellant may wish to submit in support of its position.
In accordance with 36 CFR 51.54, a request for approval to construct a capital improvement must include appropriate plans and specifications for the capital improvement. The request must also include an estimate of the total construction cost of the capital improvement. The estimate of the total construction cost must specify all elements of the cost in such detail as is necessary to permit the Director to determine that they are elements of construction cost. The approval requirements of this and other sections of 36 CFR part 51 also apply to any change orders to a capital improvement project and to any additions to a structure or replacement of fixtures.
In accordance with 36 CFR 51.55, a concessioner obtaining a leasehold surrender interest must submit a construction report to the NPS. The construction report must be supported by actual invoices of the capital improvement's construction cost together with, if requested by the NPS, a written certification from a certified public accountant (CPA). The construction report must document, and any requested certification by the certified public accountant must certify, that all components of the construction cost were incurred and capitalized by the concessioner in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that all components are eligible direct or indirect construction costs. Invoices for additional construction costs of elements of the project that were not completed as of the date of substantial completion may subsequently be submitted to the Director for inclusion in the project's construction cost.
36 CFR part 51, subpart J, provides that a concessioner must obtain NPS approval to assign, sell, convey, grant, contract for, or otherwise transfer: any concession contract; any rights to operate under or manage the performance of a concession contract as a subconcessioner or otherwise; any controlling interest in a concessioner or concession contract; or any leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest obtained under a concession contract. The amount and type of information to be submitted varies with the type and complexity of the proposed transaction. Information includes, but is not limited to:
• Instruments proposed to implement the transaction.
• Narrative description of the proposed transaction.
• Opinion of counsel that the proposed transaction is lawful under all applicable Federal and State laws.
• Statement as to the existence and nature of any litigation relating to the proposed transaction.
• Description of the management qualifications, financial background, and financing and operational plans of any proposed transferee.
• Description of all financial aspects of the proposed transaction.
• Prospective financial statements (proformas).
• Schedule that allocates in detail the purchase price (or, in the case of a transaction other than an asset purchase, the valuation) of all assets assigned or encumbered. In addition, the applicant must provide a description of the basis for all allocations and ownership of all assets.
In accordance with 36 CFR 51.98, a concessioner (and any subconcessioner) must keep and make available to NPS, records for the term of the concession contract and for 5 years after the termination or expiration of the concession contract.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 2, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR by mail contact Shean Rheams, Chief, Personnel Security & Identity Management Group, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On October 4, 2019, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
To conform with regulations mandated by OPM and the Department of the Interior (DOI), the NPS Personnel Security Branch utilizes the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) System. Form 10-152, “Background Clearance Initiation Request” is used to create e-QIP accounts necessary to initiate background investigations for all individuals requiring access to NPS property or to receive a DOIAccess PIV badge.
Applicants for federal employment will complete form 10-152. This includes non-federal personnel, contractors and individuals not otherwise directly employed by the Federal Government—those who perform work for or on behalf of the Federal Government and will require access to NPS property and/or receive a DOIAccess PIV badge. The following information is collected from each proposed candidate requiring a background clearance:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 2, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR contact Marlene Haynes, Acting Bureau Office of Property and Fleet Management, National Park Service, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171-3272; or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On October 4, 2019, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
Unclaimed property must be stored for a minimum period of 60 days and, unless claimed by the owner or an authorized representative, may be claimed by the finder, provided the finder is not an employee of the NPS. Found property not claimed by the owner, an authorized representative of the owner, or the finder, shall be deemed abandoned and disposed of in accordance with Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations.
In order to comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 2.22, the NPS uses Form 10-166, “Lost—Found Report,” to allow the park to properly identify personal property reported as lost or found and to return found items to the legitimate owner, when possible, or to the finder if the item is not claimed by the owner or their authorized representative. NPS Form 10-166 collects the following information from the visitor filing the report:
• Park name, receiving station (if appropriate), and date item was lost or found;
• Name, address, city, state, zip code, email address, and contact phone numbers (cell and home);
• Type of item, detailed description of item, and location where the item was last seen or found; and
• Photograph of item (if available).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 2, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Brian Goeken, Chief, Technical Preservation Services, 1849 C St. NW, Room 2255, Washington, DC 20240; or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On July 3, 2019, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code requires that the Secretary of the Interior certify to the Secretary of the Treasury upon application by owners of historic properties for Federal tax benefits: (a) The historic significance of the property, and (b) that the rehabilitation work is consistent with its historic character. The NPS administers the program with the Internal Revenue Service in partnership with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The NPS uses the information collected in the Historic Preservation Certification Application (Forms 10-168, 10-168a, 10-168b, and 10-168c) to evaluate the condition and historic significance of buildings undergoing rehabilitation, and to evaluate whether the rehabilitation work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Regulations codified in 36 CFR part 67 contain a requirement for completion of an application form. The NPS needs the information required on the application form to allow the authorized officer to determine if the project is qualified to obtain historic preservation certifications from the Secretary of the Interior. These certifications are necessary for an applicant to receive substantial federal tax incentives authorized by Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code. These incentives include a 20% federal income tax credit for the rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings and an income tax deduction for the charitable donation of easements on historic properties. The Internal Revenue Code also provides a 10% federal income tax credit for the rehabilitation of non-historic, nonresidential buildings built before 1936. An owner of a non-historic building in a historic district must also use the application to obtain a certification from the Secretary of the Interior that his or her building does not contribute to the significance of the historic district before claiming this lesser tax credit for rehabilitation. The 10% credit was repealed as part of the 2017 tax reform legislation but remains in effect under certain transition rules.
SHPOs are the first point of contact for property owners wishing to use the rehabilitation tax credits. They help applicants determine if an historic building is eligible for Federal or State historic preservation tax incentives, provide guidance on an application before or after the project begins, and provide advice on appropriate preservation work. SHPOs use Forms 10-168d and 10-168e to make recommendations to NPS.
In accordance with 36 CFR 67, we also collect information for: (1) Certifications of State and local statutes (§ 67.8), (2) certifications of State or local historic districts (§ 67.9), and (3) appeals (§ 67.10).
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to terminate the investigation in whole based on the withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is terminated.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on June 5, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A. of Leuven, Belgium and Anheuser-Busch, LLC of St. Louis, Missouri (collectively, “Complainants”). 83 FR 26088-89 (Jun. 5, 2018). Supplements to the complaint were filed on May 4, 2018, and May 15, 2018. The complaint alleges a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,162,372 (“the '372 patent”); 9,517,876; 9,555,572 (“the '572 patent”); and 9,944,453. The notice of investigation names as respondents Heineken International B.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Heineken N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Heineken USA Inc. of White Plains, New York; Heineken Holding N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Heineken Beer Systems B.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Heineken Export Americas B.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Heineken Global Procurement B.V of Amsterdam, Netherlands (collectively, “Respondents”).
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a), 19 CFR 210.21(a), on April 29, 2019, Complainants moved to terminate this investigation in whole on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint. On April 30, 2019, Respondents filed a response opposing the motion. Respondents contended that termination is inappropriate given the advanced posture of the investigation and the fact that they had only temporarily halted importation of their accused products.
On May 3, 2019, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 50) granting Complainants' motion. He found no extraordinary circumstances exist that would prevent the requested termination of this investigation. Order No. 50 at 3.
On May 10, 2019, Respondents filed a petition for review of the ID. On May 17, 2019, Complainants filed a response opposing the petition.
On June 26, 2019, the Commission determined to review the subject ID. Commission Notice (June 26, 2019).
Upon review, the Commission has determined to grant Complainants' request to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of its complaint allegations. The Commission has considered Respondents' arguments regarding Complainants' filing of their motion to terminate shortly before the hearing was scheduled to begin, after extensive proceedings, including discovery, had occurred before the ALJ. However, it would be premature at this time for the Commission to decide the effect, if any, of this termination on a future complaint that might be filed. Accordingly, the Commission need not and does not now decide what action it may take, or what conditions may apply, should Complainants file a complaint based on the same or similar alleged violations of section 337 by these Respondents in the future. Nor does the Commission now decide whether and how, if a new investigation were instituted based on the same or similar allegations, the record from the instant investigation may be used in such future investigation.
The investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 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 January 6, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 20, 2004, NFPA 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 September 6, 2019. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 8, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 CHEDE-8 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 4, 2019, CHEDE-8 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 23, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification pursuant to
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 8, 2019. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 2, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, PDES, Inc., Johnston, IA; C-Labs Corporation, Bellevue, WA; Optimax Systems, Ontario, NY; FlexLab, Berkeley, CA; ACE Clearwater, Torrance, CA; Luna Lights, Chicago, IL; Craig Technologies, Cape Canaveral, FL; E-gineering, Indianapolis, IN; Entrigna, Chicago, IL; Knoldus, Chicago, IL; MAL USA, Ferndale, WA; Notiphy, Chicago, IL; The Northridge Group, Rosemont, IL; Sigmaxim Inc., Norwood, MA; Chicago White Metal Casting, Bensenville, IL; RCM Industries, Franklin Park, IL; Twin City Die Castings, Lauderdale, MN; and EMNS Inc. (GSQA), Downers Grove, IL, 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 DMDII intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 5, 2016, DMDII 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 September 19, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 30, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Candace Edens by telephone at 202-693-3195 (this is not a toll-free number), TTY 1-877-889-5627 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Contact Candace Edens by telephone at 202-693-3195 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Section 3304(a)(9)(B), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, requires states to participate in an arrangement for combining employment and wages covered under the different state laws for the purpose of determining unemployed workers' entitlement to unemployment compensation. The Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages for combined wage claims (CWC), promulgated at Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations (20 CFR), Part 616, requires the prompt transfer of all relevant and available employment and wage data between states upon request. The Benefit Payment Promptness Standard, codified at 20 CFR part 640, requires the prompt payment of unemployment compensation including benefits paid under the CWC arrangement. This information collection, also referred to as the ETA 586 report, provides ETA with information necessary to measure the scope and effect of the CWC program and to monitor the performance of each state in responding to wage transfer data requests and the payment of benefits. Section 303 (a)(6) of the Social Security Act and 20 CFR part 616 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 2, 2020. The information collection requirements associated with this ICR will be effective 90 calendar days after OMB approval.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OFCCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the OFCCP Recordkeeping Requirements—29 U.S.C. 793, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended information collection. OFCCP administers and enforces Executive Order 11246, section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (section 503), and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), and their implementing regulations. Collectively, these laws require federal contractors to take affirmative action and not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran. Additionally, Executive Order 11246 prohibits a contractor from discharging or otherwise discriminating against applicants or employees who inquire about, discuss or disclose their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations. This information collection request covers the recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements for Section 503 and VEVRAA. OFCCP is not proposing to collect new information with this renewal. Section 503 prohibits employment discrimination against applicants and employees because of physical or mental disability and requires affirmative action to ensure that persons are treated without regard to disability. Section 503 applies to Federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts in excess of $15,000.1 VEVRAA prohibits employment discrimination against protected veterans and requires affirmative action to ensure that persons are treated without regard to their status as a protected veteran. VEVRAA applies to Federal contractors and subcontractors with contracts of $150,000 or more.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision “Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 2, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Title 29 CFR part 29—Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Program. Title 29 CFR 29 sets forth labor standards to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and to extend the application of such standards by prescribing policies and procedures concerning registration of apprenticeship. This information collection, ETA 671, has two sections: The first records the sponsor's information and the second is for the apprentice's information, filled out by the sponsor based on employment records. The submission is reviewed and signed by the state agency/Office of Apprenticeship. The information is collected on a one-time basis. This information collection is a revision, because the annual burden for this information collection increased from 22,158 hours to 32,399, which OMB approved until January 31, 2020. The burden hours have increased due to an increase in the total number of responses (
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB, under the PRA, approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “VETS/USERRA/VP (VETS-1010 Form)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 2, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the VETS/USERRA/VP (VETS-1010 Form) information collection. The VETS USERRA/VP Form 1010 (VETS-1010 Form) is used to file complaints with the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) under either the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) or the laws and regulations related to Veterans' Preference (VP) in Federal employment. On October 13, 1994, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Public Law 103-353, 108 Stat. 3150 was signed into law. Contained in Title 38, U.S.C. 4301- 4335, USERRA is the replacement for the Veterans' Reemployment Rights (VRR) law.
The purposes of USERRA laws and regulations are:
• To minimize disruption to the lives of persons who perform service in the uniformed services (including the National Guard and Reserves), as well as to their employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by providing for prompt reemployment of such persons upon completion of such service;
• To encourage individuals to participate in non-career uniformed service by eliminating and minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment which can result from such service; and
• To prohibit discrimination in employment and acts of reprisal against persons because of their obligations in the uniformed services, prior service, intention to join the uniformed services, filing of a USERRA claim, seeking assistance concerning an alleged USERRA violation, testifying in a proceeding, or otherwise assisting in an investigation of a USERRA claim.
The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) of 1998, Public Law 105-339, 12 Stat. 3182, contained in Title 5 U.S.C. 3330a- 3330c, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to provide assistance to preference eligible individuals who believe their rights under the veterans' preference laws have been violated, and to investigate claims filed by those individuals.
The purposes of veterans' preference laws include: To provide preference for certain veterans over others in Federal hiring from competitive lists of
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as Amended” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 2, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OFCCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as Amended information collection. OFCCP administers and enforces Executive Order 11246, section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (section 503), and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), and their implementing regulations. Collectively, these laws require federal contractors to take affirmative action and not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran. Additionally, Executive Order 11246 prohibits a contractor from discharging or otherwise discriminating against applicants or employees who inquire about, discuss or disclose their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations. This information collection request covers the recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements for Section 503 and VEVRAA. OFCCP is not proposing to collect new information with this renewal. Section 503 prohibits employment discrimination against
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President.
Request for information: Improving and/or reforming regulatory enforcement and adjudication.
In furtherance of the policy
Comments are due on or before March 16, 2020.
Interested parties should submit comments, identified by docket number OMB-2019-0006, before the comment closing date to
Protecting Americans against the unjust or arbitrary exercise of government power forms a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional structure. The presumption of innocence, adjudication by a neutral arbiter, fair and speedy proceedings, and the prohibition of double jeopardy, are some of the time-honored protections that constitute the rule of law in America.
The growth of administrative enforcement and adjudication over the last several decades has not always been accompanied by commensurate growth of protections to ensure just and reasonable process. Because many citizens' sole or principal interaction with the federal government is with a federal agency, it is of the utmost importance that administrative enforcement and adjudication operate subject to requirements that ensure they are fair, speedy, accurate, transparent, and respectful of the rights of Americans.
This Administration continues to evaluate a full range of options to make significant reforms in the context of administrative enforcement and adjudication. OMB invites public comment to promote an informed consideration of additional reforms. In particular, OMB solicits input on regulatory reforms that will better safeguard due process in the regulatory enforcement and adjudication settings (
The Administration recognizes that procedural protections vary considerably by Department and/or agency, sub-agency, etc. Adjudications pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's section 554 (
Among the topics of interest, OMB invites feedback on the following queries:
• Prior to the initiation of an adjudication, what would ensure a speedy and/or fair investigation? What reform(s) would avoid a prolonged investigation? Should investigated parties have an opportunity to require an agency to “show cause” to continue an investigation?
• When do multiple agencies investigate the same (or related) conduct and then force Americans to contest liability in different proceedings across multiple agencies? What reforms would encourage agencies to adjudicate related conduct in a single proceeding before a single adjudicator?
• Would applying the principle of res judicata in the regulatory context reduce duplicative proceedings? How would agencies effectively apply res judicata?
• In the regulatory/civil context, when does an American have to prove an absence of legal liability? Put differently, need an American prove innocence in regulatory proceeding(s)? What reform(s) would ensure an American never has to prove the absence of liability? To the extent permissible, should the Administration address burdens of persuasion and/or production in regulatory proceedings? Or should the scope of this reform focus strictly on an initial presumption of innocence?
• What evidentiary rules apply in regulatory proceedings to guard against hearsay and/or weigh reliability and relevance? Would the application of some of the Federal Rules of Evidence create a fairer evidentiary framework, and if so, which Rules?
• Should agencies be required to produce all evidence favorable to the respondent? What rules and/or procedures would ensure the expedient production of all exculpatory evidence?
• Do adjudicators sometimes lack independence from the enforcement arm of the agency? What reform(s) would adequately separate functions and guarantee an adjudicator's independence?
• Do agencies provide enough transparency regarding penalties and fines? Are penalties generally fair and proportionate to the infractions for which they are assessed? What reform(s) would ensure consistency and transparency regarding regulatory penalties for a particular agency or the federal government as a whole?
• When do regulatory investigations and/or adjudications coerce Americans into resolutions/settlements? What safeguards would systemically prevent unfair and/or coercive resolutions?
• Are agencies and agency staff accountable to the public in the context of enforcement and adjudications? If not, how can agencies create greater accountability?
• Are there certain types of proceedings that, due to exigency or other causes, warrant fewer procedural protections than others?
For each of the above queries, OMB requests specific, concrete examples of current due process shortfalls and concrete reform proposals to ensure adequate due process. Abstract, general principles will do little to advance actionable reform.
Interested parties should provide written responses to the questions outlined in the supplementary information section of this
Please include the below in your response,
• The name of the individual(s) and/or organization responding. Anonymous responses will also be accepted.
• A brief description of the responding individual(s) or organization's mission and/or areas of expertise, if the responder feels appropriate.
• A contact for questions or other follow-up on your response if desired.
Comments submitted in response to this document are subject to FOIA. OMB may also make all comments available to the public. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,167,204 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Damage Location Sensing System,” NASA Case Number LAR-17593-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,086,593 B2 for an invention entitled “Magnetic Field Response Measurement Acquisition System,” NASA Case Number LAR-16908-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,159,774 B2 for an invention entitled “Magnetic Field Response Measurement Acquisition System,” NASA Case Number LAR-17280-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,430,327 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Sensing System Using Open-Circuit, Electrically-Conductive Spiral-Trace Sensor,” NASA Case Number LAR-17294-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,042,739 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Tamper Detection Sensor and Sensing System,” NASA Case Number LAR-17444-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,814,786 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Sensing System for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Attributes of Contents in a Container,” NASA Case Number LAR-17488-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,673,649 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Chemical Sensor and Sensing Method for Use Therewith,” NASA Case Number LAR-17579-1; U.S. Patent No. 9,329,149 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Chemical Sensor and Sensing Method for Use Therewith,” NASA Case Number LAR-17579-2; U.S. Patent No. 9,733,203 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Chemical Sensing Method,” NASA Case Number LAR-17579-3; U.S. Patent No. 8,179,203 B2 for an invention entitled “Wireless Electrical Device Using Open-Circuit Elements Having No Electrical Connections,” NASA Case Number LAR-17711-1; and U.S. Patent No. 10,193,228 B2 for an invention entitled “Antenna for Near Field Sensing and Far Field Transceiving,” NASA Case Number LAR-18400-1, to Gyra Systems, Inc., having its principal place of business in La Mesa, CA. The fields of use may be limited to package monitoring quality sensors to detect changes in product quality and authenticity, such as pharmaceutical, food, beverage, tobacco, and cosmetics
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than February 14, 2020 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than February 14, 2020 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated [partially] exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, Virginia 23681. Phone (757) 864-3221. Facsimile (757) 864-9190.
Robin W. Edwards, Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, Virginia 23681. Phone (757) 864-3221. Facsimile (757) 864-9190.
This notice of intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to establish 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 March 2, 2020 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 to
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of NSB business as follows:
Tuesday, February 4, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesday, February 5, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST.
The morning meeting on Tuesday, February 4, 2020, will be held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20502, Room 350 in conjunction with the members of the President's Advisory Council on Science and Technology (PCAST). Individuals from the public who wish to attend this session must register using the following email address:
The remaining meetings in the afternoon of February 4, and on February 5, 2020, will be held at the NSF headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. These meetings are held in the boardroom on the 2nd floor. The public may observe public meetings held in the NSF boardroom. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email to
Some of these meetings will be open to the public. Others will be closed to the public. See full description below.
The NSB Office contact is Brad Gutierrez,
Public meetings and public portions of meetings held in the 2nd floor boardroom will be webcast. To view these meetings, go to:
Please refer to the NSB website for additional information. You will find any updated meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter, or status of meeting) at
The NSB provides some flexibility around meeting times held at the NSF headquarters. After the first meeting of each day, actual meeting start and end times will be allowed to vary by no more than 15 minutes in either direction. As an example, if a 10:00 meeting finishes at 10:45, the meeting scheduled to begin at 11:00 may begin at 10:45. Similarly, the 10:00 meeting may be allowed to run over by as much as 15 minutes if the Chair decides the extra time is warranted. The next meeting would start no later than 11:15. Arrive at the NSB boardroom or check the webcast 15 minutes before the scheduled start time of the meeting you wish to observe.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 850, “Request for Contractor Assignment(s).”
Submit comments by March 2, 2020. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB approval number 3150-0218), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for consolidation and renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, NRC Form 850, “Request for Contractor Assignment(s).” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), which amends Section 202(t) of the Social Security Act, effective January 1, 1985, the Tier I or the overall minimum (O/M) portion of an annuity, and Medicare benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act to certain beneficiaries living outside the U.S., may be withheld. The benefit withholding provision of Public Law 98-21 applies to divorced spouses, spouses, minor or disabled children, students, and survivors of railroad employees who (1) initially became eligible for Tier I amounts, O/M shares, and Medicare benefits after December 31, 1984; (2) are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals; and (3) have resided outside the U.S. for more than six consecutive months starting with the annuity beginning date. The benefit withholding provision does not apply, however to a beneficiary who is exempt under either a treaty obligation of the U.S., in effect on August 1, 1956, or a totalization agreement between the U.S. and the country in which the beneficiary resides, or to an individual who is exempt under other criteria specified in Public Law 98-21.
RRB Form G-45,
The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-1275 or
On December 3, 2019, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its Framework, which describes the Liquidity Stress Testing framework by which the Collateral and Liquidity Risk Management department of LCH Group Holdings Limited (“LCH Group”) assures that LCH SA has enough cash available to meet any financial obligations, both expected and unexpected, that may arise over the liquidation period for each of the clearing services that LCH SA offers.
LCH SA is proposing to amend the Framework in order to address more accurately its liquidity requirements in the event of the assignment and exercise of physically-settled options involving a defaulting clearing member during the liquidation period of such clearing member.
If a defaulting clearing member is a seller of a Call option that is in the money, LCH SA would have to purchase the underlying securities in the market at a stressed price and await payment at the strike price from the non-defaulting purchaser of the Call option at settlement.
In the current Framework, there is no liquidity provision related to the risk of assignment and exercise of options at expiration.
In practice, the process would work as follows on a daily basis:
• The liquidity needs arising from the options that are in the money or at the money, having their expiries on T or T+1, will be computed by applying no market stress to the equities.
• The liquidity needs arising from the options that are in the money or at the money, having their expiries on T or T+1, will be computed by applying a stress scenario to the equities.
• LCH SA will select the positions consistent with the Cover 2 for both modes described above and will retain the most punitive one.
This amount would be added to the current cash equity amount in the LCR calculation, which LCH would then retain through qualified liquid resources.
LCH SA is proposing to amend the Framework to take into account the expansion of sovereign debt for which LCH SA provides clearing services through its Fixed Income Clearing System.
In this regard, therefore, the Framework would be revised to provide that all securities resulting from the settlement of all repurchase contracts (“repos”) on behalf of a defaulting clearing member, not just repos on the sovereign debt of France, Italy and Spain, may be used to generate liquidity
Further, the Framework would be revised to (i) identify the relevant central securities depository (“CSD”) through which transactions in the sovereign debt of the different jurisdictions may settle, (ii) describe the manner by which LCH SA injects liquidity into each settlement platform, in particular, Euroclear Bank and Clearstream Luxembourg, and (iii) modify the limits by settlement platform on the main liquidity drivers (
The proposed rule change would make clarifications with respect to certain aspects of its stress tests.
The amended Framework would also clarify how stressed liquidity requirements and impact are calculated for each clearing member, in particular with respect to the cash equity settlement requirement for options.
Finally, the Framework would clarify how LCH SA conducts reverse stress tests in order to determine if there is a combination of changes in LCH SA's liquidity that could lead to a liquidity shortfall.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
As described above, the proposed rule change would amend the Framework to anticipate, prior to expiration dates, the need for LCH SA to step in and meet a defaulter's obligation in the event of the assignment or exercise of physically-settled options involving a defaulting clearing member by utilizing the LCR calculation, on a daily basis, to identify all of the potential positions that are in the money or at the money on that day and the next business day. LCH SA will then be able to calculate the additional need and ensure it holds sufficient qualified liquid resources to meet that need. The Commission believes that, by anticipating and ensuring that it meets its liquidity needs in this manner, the proposed rule change would help ensure that LCH SA is able to meet its financial obligations in stressed situations, which in turn would allow LCH SA to continue to meet its obligation to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions in such situations.
Further, as noted above, the proposed rule change would amend the Framework to take into account the expansion of sovereign debt for which LCH SA provides clearing services through its Fixed Income Clearing System. Specifically, LCH SA would revise the Framework to provide that all securities resulting from the settlement of all repos on behalf of a defaulting clearing member, not just repos on the sovereign debt of France, Italy and Spain, may be used to generate liquidity at the Banque de France, and clarify that, in the event that a CBG is triggered by the default of a clearing member posting the CBG, the relevant Central Bank will pay the liabilities of the defaulting clearing member in cash. The Commission believes that, through these changes, the proposed rule change would enhance LCH SA's sources of liquidity and thus LCH SA's financial condition, which in turn would support LCH SA's ability to continue to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions. Additionally, the Commission believes that by specifying the CSD through which transactions in the identified foreign sovereign debt may settle and describing the manner by which LCH SA injects liquidity into each settlement platform, the proposed rule change would strengthen LCH SA's procedures for safeguarding securities and funds for which it is responsible and facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement by clarifying procedures for interacting with such platforms.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires that, among other things, LCH SA establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to
As described above, the proposed rule change would amend the Framework to clarify certain aspects of LCH SA's stress tests. Specifically, the proposed rule change would clarify how stressed liquidity requirements and impact are calculated for each clearing member. Because these calculations would then be used by LCH SA to determine the two clearing members that would potentially cause the largest aggregate liquidity exposure for LCH SA in extreme but plausible market conditions, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would support LCH SA's ability to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants, and ultimately maintain additional financial resources at the minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the two participant families. Further, by clarifying how LCH SA conducts reverse stress tests in order to determine if there is a combination of changes in LCH SA's liquidity that could lead to a liquidity shortfall even in the absence of stress in the market, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would enhance LCH SA's ability to manage its credit exposures and maintain additional resources.
Finally, as discussed above, under the proposed rule change the Framework would anticipate, prior to expiration dates, the need for LCH SA to step in and meet a defaulter's obligation in the event of the assignment or exercise of physically-settled options involving a defaulting clearing member. The Commission believes that this change as well would enhance LCH SA's ability to manage its credit exposures and maintain additional financial resources to cover foreseeable stress scenarios involving Cover 2 by identifying the liquidity need ahead of time and then retaining the amounts through qualified liquid resources.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
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”),
This proposed rule change by OCC would amend Rules 801 and 805 to modify the fees for exercise notices submitted after the deadlines and to amend Rule 801 to change the deadline for submitting a late exercise notice on non-expiration dates. The proposed changes to OCC's Rules are included in Exhibit 5 of the filing. Material proposed to be added to OCC's Rules as currently in effect is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the By-Laws and Rules.
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.
The purpose of this rule filing is to: (1) Amend Rule 801 for exercises on non-expiration dates and Rule 805 for exercises on expiration dates to modify the fee applied to exercise notices that are submitted to OCC after the start of critical processing (“late exercise notices”), and (2) amend Rule 801 to change the deadline by which late exercise notices are to be submitted to OCC for exercises on non-expiration dates from 6:30 a.m. CT (7:30 a.m. ET) to 6:00 a.m. CT (7:00 a.m. ET).
Rule 801 addresses the exercise of options other than at expiration. Subject to certain conditions, Rule 801(d) grants the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, or any delegate of such officer the discretion to permit a Clearing Member to file an exercise notice after the prescribed deadline solely for the purpose of correcting a bona fide error on the part of the
Rule 801(d) further provides that the deadline for submitting late exercise notices for exercises other than at expiration is 6:30 a.m. CT, and that OCC will notify Clearing Members with short positions that they have been assigned a late exercise notice by 8:00 a.m. CT.
In 2008, OCC raised the late exercise fee from $20,000 to $75,000 per line item in Rules 801 and 805 in response to the increased amount of late exercise notices it had received in the prior two years.
In 2017, OCC received four late exercise notices.
In connection with the four late exercise notices received in 2017, OCC also reviewed its procedures for processing a late exercise. OCC Rule 801(d) provides that the current deadline for a Clearing Member to formally request a late exercise for an exercise on a non-expiration date is 6:30 a.m. CT and that OCC must notify the assigned Clearing Members by 8:00 a.m. CT of the late exercise. Given the compressed timeframe in which to process a late exercise (
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) 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 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-2020-001 and should be submitted on or before
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the SPDR SSGA Responsible Reserves ESG ETF (the “Fund”), under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (“Managed Fund Shares”). The proposed 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, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the SPDR SSGA Responsible Reserves ESG ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (the “Fund”), a series of the SSGA Active Trust (“Trust”),
SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (“Adviser”) will be the investment adviser to the Fund. The Adviser is a wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street Global Advisors, Inc. (“SSGA”), which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street Corporation. State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (“Distributor”) will be the distributor of the Fund's Shares. State Street Bank and Trust Company will be the custodian (“Custodian”) and transfer agent for the Fund.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600-E provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund will be to seek to maximize current income while giving consideration to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) criteria, consistent with the preservation of capital and liquidity by investing in a portfolio of high-quality, short-term debt obligations.
The Fund will follow a disciplined investment process in which the Adviser bases its decisions on the relative attractiveness of different short-term debt instruments (“Short-Term Fixed Income Securities”) while considering ESG criteria at the time of purchase.
Under normal market conditions,
The Adviser intends to consider ESG criteria at the time of purchase by using ESG-related metrics for each Fund investment. The potential investment universe will first be screened to remove issuers involved in, and/or which derive significant revenue (as determined by data sourced from “Third Party Providers” (defined below)) from, certain practices, industries or product lines, including: extreme event controversies, controversial weapons, civilian firearms, thermal coal extraction, tobacco, and UN global compact violations. Issuers in the financial services sector are excluded from this initial screening process; however, the Adviser will consider other scoring criteria to assign an ESG rating to issuers in the financial services sector.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will attempt to meet its investment objective by investing in a broad range of Short-Term Fixed Income Securities, as described below.
The Fund may invest in the following Short-Term Fixed Income Securities:
• short-term obligations of the U.S. Government, its agencies, instrumentalities, authorities or political subdivisions (other than cash equivalents);
• mortgage pass-through securities;
• corporate bonds, floating rate bonds or variable rate bonds (including “inverse floaters”);
• bank obligations, including negotiable certificates of deposit, time deposits and bankers' acceptances
• zero coupon securities;
• Eurodollar Certificates of Deposit (“ECDs”), Eurodollar Time Deposits (“ETDs”) and Yankee Certificates of Deposit (“YCDs”);
• inflation-protected public obligations (“TIPS)” of the U.S. Treasury, as well as TIPS of major governments and emerging market countries, excluding the United States;
• repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements (other than repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements that are cash equivalents);
• sovereign debt obligations issued or guaranteed by foreign governments or their agencies;
• commercial paper (other than cash equivalents);
• private placements, restricted securities and Rule 144A securities.
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest principally in the securities described above in “Principal Investments,” the Fund may invest its
The Fund may invest in exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
The Fund may invest in the securities of non-exchange-traded investment company securities, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.
The Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in this proposed rule change.
The Fund will issue and redeem its Shares on a continuous basis, at net asset value (“NAV”), only in a large specified number of Shares (a “Creation Unit”). Creation Unit sizes are 50,000 Shares per Creation Unit. The Creation Unit size for the Fund may change.
The Trust will issue and sell Shares of the Fund only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor at their NAV per Share next determined after receipt of an order, on any Business Day (as defined below), in proper form pursuant to the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement (“Participant Agreement”). A “Business Day” with respect to the Fund is, generally, any day on which the NYSE is open for business.
The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit of the Fund generally will consist of either (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit and the “Cash Component” (defined below), computed as described below or (ii) the cash value of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”) and Cash Component, computed as described below.
Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The “Cash Component”, is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable.
The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each Business Day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Fund.
To be eligible to place orders to purchase a Creation Unit of the Fund, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party”,
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund and only on a Business Day. With respect to the Fund, the Custodian, through the NSCC, will make available prior to the opening of business on the Exchange on each Business Day, the list of the names and share quantities of the Fund's portfolio securities that will be applicable on that day (“Fund Securities”). Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities.
Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will be paid either in-kind or in cash or a combination thereof, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in-kind redemptions of the Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities, as announced by the Custodian prior to the opening of business on the Business Day of the request for redemption received in proper form plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee and any applicable additional variable charge. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Trust's discretion, an Authorized Participant may receive the corresponding cash value of the securities in lieu of the in-kind securities value representing one or more Fund Securities.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the applicable Disclosed Portfolio includes information that market participants can use to value these positions intraday. On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose the information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio required under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (c)(2) to the extent applicable. The Fund's website information will be publicly available at no charge.
The Exchange 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 Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) (with respect to the Fund's investments in non-exchange-traded investment company securities) and Commentary .01(b)(3) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E with respect to the Fund's investments in Short-Term Fixed Income Securities.
“An underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities shall include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities as described in Commentary .01(a) above”.
The Fund's Short-Term Fixed Income Securities may not comply with the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(b)(3) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. While the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(b)(3) is intended to ensure that the Short-Term Fixed
The Adviser represents that the Fund is not a money market fund but its investment strategy follows certain guidelines applicable to such funds. Specifically, the Fund will only in Short-Term Fixed Income Securities to maintain a maximum dollar-weighted average maturity of sixty days or less and dollar-weighted average life of 120 days or less. The Fund will invest in securities that have remaining maturities of 397 calendar days or less. While the Fund will have portfolio holdings that meet the definition of cash and cash equivalents under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, Commentary .01(c), the remaining assets may at times be invested in longer dated securities, including U.S. and foreign government securities, and corporate bonds. The exemption from the 13 non-affiliated issuer requirement for the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio will allow the Fund to invest in a limited number of Short-Term Fixed Income Securities without having to allocate a small percentage of assets under management to the required minimum 13 issuers.
The Fund may invest in shares of investment company securities (other than ETFs), which are equity securities. Therefore, to the extent the Fund invests in shares of other non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities, the Fund will not comply with the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (U.S. Component Stocks) with respect to its equity securities holdings.
However, it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund notwithstanding that the Fund's holdings in such securities would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to Rule 8.600-E. Investments in other non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities will not exceed 20% of the total assets of the Fund. Such investments, which may include mutual funds that invest, for example, principally in fixed income securities, would be utilized to help the Fund meet its investment objective and to equitize cash in the short term. The Fund will invest in such securities only to the extent that those investments would be consistent with the requirements of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder.
The Exchange notes that Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (D) to Rule 8.600-E exclude certain “Derivative Securities Products” that are exchange-traded investment company securities, including Investment Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3)), Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 8.100-E)) and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E)).
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved listing and trading of an issue of Managed Fund Shares that may invest in equity securities that are non-exchange-traded securities of other open-end investment company securities notwithstanding that the fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to Rule 8.600-E with respect to such fund's investments in such securities.
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) Commentary .01(b)(3) to Rule 8.600-E, the Fund will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600-E.
The Fund's website (
Investors can also obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), its Shareholder Reports, its Form N-CSR, filed twice a year, and its Form N-CEN, filed annually. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports are available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares and ETFs will be available via the CTA high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such U.S. exchange-listed securities will be available from the exchange on which they are listed and from major market data vendors. Information regarding market price and trading volume for the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
Quotation information for Short-Term Fixed Income Securities and cash equivalents may be obtained from brokers and dealers who make markets in such securities or through nationally recognized pricing services through subscription agreements. The U.S. dollar value of foreign securities, instruments and currencies can be derived by using foreign currency exchange rate quotations obtained from nationally recognized pricing services.
In addition, the Portfolio Indicative Value (“PIV”), as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3), will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
Except as described herein, the Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and ETFs with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in Shares and ETFs from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in Shares and ETFs from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio holdings or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares of the Fund. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated PIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the PIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares of the Fund will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and ETFs with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading such securities from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in such securities from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE.
The PIV, as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E (c)(3), will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session.
Except as described herein, the Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E. A minimum of 100,000 Shares of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares of the Fund that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that
Investors can also obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), its Shareholder Reports, its Form N-CSR, filed twice a year, and its Form N-CEN, filed annually. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports are available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
With respect to the Fund's non-compliance with Commentary .01(b)(3) (with respect to Short-Term Fixed Income Securities),
As noted above, the Fund's portfolio will not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to Rule 8.600-E with respect to the Fund's investments in non-exchange-traded securities of open-end investment company securities. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Fund would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(a)(1)(A) through (E) to Rule 8.600-E with respect to the Fund's investments in non-exchange-traded securities of open-end investment company securities. Investments in non-exchange-traded securities of open-end investment company securities will not be principal investments of the Fund. Such investments, which may include mutual funds that invest, for example, principally in fixed income securities, would be utilized to help the Fund meet its investment objective and to equitize cash in the short term.
The website for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares of the Fund. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the PIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. That is, while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an actively-managed exchange-traded product and will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the PIV, the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that holds fixed income securities, equity securities and derivatives and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 22, 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”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 9, 2019, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2019-007 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
One reason for the Proposed Rule Change is a specific Commission requirement for covered clearing agencies such as OCC. Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the covered clearing agency's general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the covered clearing agency can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by taking the actions described in Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(iii) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) was adopted in 2016 as part of the Covered Clearing Agency Standards, with a compliance date of April 11, 2017.
As noted above, OCC proposes to adopt rules describing the determination of the LNAFBE necessary to cover potential general business losses. As proposed, LNAFBE would be a subset of OCC's overall Equity—cash and cash equivalents, less any approved adjustments—and therefore, could not, by definition, exceed Equity. OCC proposes to set a “Target Capital Requirement,” which would be based on two components: (i) The amount of LNAFBE determined by OCC to be necessary to ensure compliance with OCC's regulatory obligations, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act;
With respect to the first component of the Target Capital Requirement, to ensure that it is set at a level sufficient to ensure compliance with OCC's regulatory obligations, OCC proposes to set its Target Capital Requirement, at a minimum, equal to the greater of three amounts: (i) An amount equal to six-months of OCC's current operating expenses; (ii) the amount determined by OCC's Board to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services (“RWD Amount”);
As noted above, OCC proposes to adopt rules that would require it to hold the minimum amount of Equity necessary to cover the Target Capital Requirement. Specifically, OCC proposes to adopt rules pertaining to the monitoring and management of OCC's Equity. Under the proposed rules, OCC's senior management would be responsible for reviewing analyses, including projections of future volume, expenses, cash flows, capital needs and other factors, to help ensure adequate financial resources are available to meet general business obligations. Such analyses would also include a monthly review of whether OCC's Equity falls close to or below the Target Capital Requirement. Under the proposal, OCC would view Equity less than 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement as falling close to the Target Capital Requirement.
Under the proposal, OCC's senior management would also, on a quarterly basis, review OCC's schedule of fees in consideration of projected operating expenses, projected volumes, anticipated cash flows, and capital needs. Based on its review, OCC's senior management would recommend to OCC's Board Compensation and Performance Committee whether to issue a fee increase, decrease or fee waiver. Additionally, if Equity were to exceed 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement plus an amount of excess Equity approved for capital expenditures, OCC's Board could reduce the cost of clearing by lowering fees, declaring a fee holiday, or issuing refunds.
OCC stated that resources held to meet OCC's Target Capital Requirement would be in addition to OCC's resources to cover participant defaults.
OCC proposes to establish a plan for replenishing its capital in the event that Equity were to fall below certain thresholds (“Replenishment Plan”). As described above, OCC proposes to establish an Early Warning threshold to define when OCC's Equity falls close enough to the Target Capital Requirement to require action. OCC also proposes to establish two “Trigger Event” thresholds to identify (i) whether OCC's Equity were to fall below the Target Capital Requirement; and (ii) the appropriate response based on the severity and speed of capital deterioration. Further, the proposed Capital Management Policy would require that, on an annual basis, OCC's management recommend that the Board approve or, as appropriate, modify the Replenishment Plan, and that the Board review and, as appropriate, approve Management's recommendation.
Under the proposed rules, a Trigger Event would occur if OCC's Equity were to remain below 100 percent of the Target Capital Requirement for a period of 90 consecutive calendar days (referred to herein as the “Moderate Trigger Event”). OCC believes that the failure of a fee increase resulting from an Early Warning to increase OCC's Equity above the Target Capital Requirement within 90 days would indicate that corrective action in the form of a fee increase would be insufficient.
As noted above, OCC's Board would be authorized to approve fee increases to address the deterioration of OCC's capital over time. To address the more acute capital replenishment needs posed by the Trigger Events, OCC proposes to authorize the use of two
In response to a Trigger Event, OCC would be required to replenish its capital first through the contribution of the EDCP Unvested Balance. The amount of the EDCP Unvested Balance contributed would be the lesser of (i) the entire EDCP Unvested Balance or (ii) the amount necessary to raise OCC's Equity above 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement. If a contribution of the entire EDCP Unvested balance were necessary, OCC would be required to reevaluate its Equity vis-à-vis the Target Capital Requirement to determine whether further action would be required following such a contribution.
The proposed rules would require that OCC take further action if, after contributing the entire EDCP Unvested Balance, either: (i) Equity were to remain above 90 percent, but below 100 percent, of the Target Capital Requirement for an additional 90-day period;
The proposed rules would permit OCC to charge amounts only up to the maximum Operational Loss Fee. If, after charging some amount less than the maximum Operational Loss Fee, OCC were to issue clearing fee refunds to manage excess capital, OCC would issue such refunds in equal shares until the amount of the Operational Loss Fee charged to each Clearing Member had been fully refunded. If OCC were to charge some amount less than the maximum Operational Loss Fee, then the proposed rules would allow OCC to charge another Operational Loss Fee in the future, provided that the sum of all Operational Loss Fees, less amounts refunded, could not exceed the maximum Operational Loss Fee. In the event that OCC were to charge the maximum Operational Loss Fee, OCC would then be required to convene its Board to develop a new replenishment plan.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible, and to protect investors and the public interest.
• Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
• Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that meet a number of criteria.
• Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the covered clearing agency's general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the covered clearing agency can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by taking the actions described in Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(iii) under the Exchange Act.
After considering the entire record, and for the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds the proposal is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act,
Before addressing the relevant portions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, however, we address a comment submitted by Susquehanna International Group (“SIG”). SIG does not comment on the substance of the proposal, but, rather, expresses a generalized concern that the capital accumulated through the proposed Capital Management Policy could ultimately be monetized only or disproportionately for the benefit of the OCC shareholders in the event of a future sale of OCC.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, in part, that the rules of OCC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible.
The Commission believes that the Capital Management Policy as a whole would help to ensure that OCC monitors and maintains its Equity at a level sufficient to either continue operating as a going concern or to wind-down its operations in an orderly manner in the event that OCC incurs potential operational or general business losses. In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed establishment of a Target Capital Requirement in combination with the capital monitoring, management, and replenishment tools described above, including the Operational Loss Fee, would reduce the risk that OCC would be unavailable to clear and settle securities transactions and therefore is consistent with promoting prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The Commission did not receive any comments on this aspect of the proposal.
In addition, as described above, OCC proposes to mitigate losses arising out of a Clearing Member default with OCC's excess capital (
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed Capital Management Policy is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act requires the rules of a clearing agency to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
As discussed above, the Operational Loss Fee is designed to replenish OCC's capital following the realization of losses arising out of operational or general business risk exposures (as opposed to losses arising out of the default of a Clearing Member). To that end, OCC proposes to set the maximum amount of the Operational Loss Fee based on the amount determined necessary to either recover and continue operating as a going concern, or wind-down its operations in an orderly manner, with adjustments to those amounts to account for the potential tax implications of revenues that would be generated by the fee.
As noted, the purpose of the Operational Loss Fee is to provide OCC with sufficient replenishment capital following an operational- or general business risk-related loss, such that OCC could either recover its operations and continue operating as a going concern, or wind-down its operations in an orderly manner. The Commission did not receive any comments on the aspects of the proposal related to the sizing of the Operational Loss Fee. Further, as discussed above, the Commission has reviewed the regulatory information available to it related to OCC's Clearing Members and understands that the maximum Operational Loss Fee would be approximately the same as the contingent obligations under the OCC Clearing Fund assessment requirements for a Clearing Member operating at the minimum Clearing Fund deposit.
If levied, OCC would allocate the Operational Loss Fee equally among all Clearing Members.
The Commission received, and has reviewed, these analyses.
One commenter, the FIA, submitted a comment letter noting that the use of the Operational Loss Fee could allocate some amount of non-default losses to OCC's Clearing Members and stating that non-default losses should not be allocated to Clearing Members. In the FIA's view, as a CCP, OCC should absorb such losses rather than utilize capital on a discretionary basis.
OCC's proposal with respect to the Operational Loss Fee will permit OCC to raise additional equity in the event that its equity falls close to or below the Target Capital Requirement. The Operational Loss Fee represents an appropriate and reasonable allocation of potential contingent costs to Clearing Members. The FIA's suggested approach would still source the required funds from Clearing Members, but in a manner that essentially pre-funds the maximum potential replenishment obligation without being informed by the specific facts and circumstances that inform OCC's determination of the actual required amount.
Further, as the FIA noted, OCC estimates that the Operational Loss Fee, if assessed now, would be around $1.4 million per Clearing Member.
Finally, the FIA's preferred approach of imposing higher fees now and building up OCC's capital reserves to the necessary level
The FIA further expresses the belief that imposing the Operational Loss Fee on Clearing Members without providing a return to Clearing Members is inequitable and that, ideally, OCC's shareholders should either be required to provide “similar such commitment or allow for an equity dilution.”
As explained above, the Commission believes that the record demonstrates that OCC has designed the Operational Loss Fee in a manner that is equitable to the Clearing Members in terms of determining (i) the overall amount of the Operational Loss Fee, and (ii) the relative burdens and obligations Clearing Members must meet in paying the Operational Loss Fee. Moreover, the Commission believes that the
A different commenter—LPL Financial (“LPL”)—expresses the belief that the proposal to allocate the Operational Loss fee in equal shares among OCC's Clearing Members would be inequitable and suggests that, instead, the Operational Loss Fee should be allocated “in a manner that corresponds to the extent to which each Clearing Member utilizes (and therefore benefits from) the OCC's operations.”
Based on the Commission's regulatory and supervisory experience, the Commission does not agree that a Clearing Member that “makes greater use of OCC's clearing and settlement system necessarily places greater strain on that system and thus exposes the system to greater operational risk.” Contrary to LPL's assertion that “each contract introduced to the OCC's system brings with it a new opportunity for internal fraud and cyber-attack,”
Further, in the Commission's experience, a Clearing Member's “use” of OCC's services is not necessarily correlated to that Clearing Member's operational resiliency. OCC has a broad range of geographically diverse Clearing Members, comprised of U.S. broker-dealers, future commission merchants, and foreign securities firms of various sizes, all of which serve diverse markets and engage in diverse strategies and activities on behalf of diverse clients, including professional traders, as well as institutional and retail investors. There is, therefore, no basis to conclude, for example, that a Clearing Member that clears 1,000 contracts in a given month in a particular set of financial products necessarily introduces
LPL also fails to acknowledge or address the specific operational and business risks that could give rise to the Operational Loss Fee. As noted above, OCC conducted analyses to determine whether it could identify a correlation between various measures of Clearing Members' use of OCC's clearance and settlement services and the specific types of operational and general business risks that could give rise to the Operational Loss Fee. These included, among others, internal fraud, external fraud, employment practices, workplace safety, damage to physical assets, business disruption and system failures, and execution, delivery, and process management at OCC. The Commission believes that the operational and business risks identified and analyzed by OCC are reasonable in light of the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) discussed above.
Further, the Commission does not agree with the assertion that Clearing Members that “use” OCC's clearance and settlement services more derive more benefit from those services, and therefore should be allocated a larger portion of the Operational Loss Fee. As an initial matter, OCC has been designated as a SIFMU and its role as the sole CCP for all listed options contracts in the U.S. makes it an integral part of the national system for clearance and settlement. Clearing Members, their customers, investors, and the markets as a whole derive significant benefit from that national system and the overall market system it supports, regardless of their specific utilization of that system. As such, Clearing Members benefit from OCC's efforts to ensure that it is and remains well capitalized, that it has sufficient financial resources to withstand operational or general business losses, and that it has a plan in place to replenish those resources in the event that it incurs such losses. The Commission is not aware of evidence demonstrating that those benefits are tied directly or positively correlated to an individual Clearing Member's rate of utilization of OCC's clearance and settlement services. Further, as noted, the Commission has reviewed data provided by OCC that demonstrates a lack of correlation between use (as represented by volume) and operational risk.
Taken together, the Commission believes that OCC's current proposal to fund replenishment capital through the Operational Loss Fee includes a sizing and allocation methodology that, as discussed above, is reasonably designed to minimize the potential burden of the fee on Clearing Members, as supported by data on the record, and would result in both the reasonable sizing and the equitable allocation of the Operational Loss Fee. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed allocation method is consistent with the requirement that OCC's rules provide for the equitable allocation of fees. The Commission finds, therefore, that OCC's proposal to adopt the Operational Loss Fee is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that, among other things, are clear and transparent; clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of the covered clearing agency; and support the public interest requirements of the Exchange Act.
As described in more detail above, under the proposal OCC would introduce a skin-in-the-game component to its existing default waterfall to offset losses in the event of a Clearing Member default. The FIA stated that it is unclear how material these skin-in-the-game contributions would be and whether they would be meaningful enough to result in an alignment of interest from a shareholder perspective.
OCC responds that the Commission has not imposed a skin-in-the-game requirement, but that OCC nevertheless believes it is prudent to align OCC's incentives with those of the broader industry with respect to the management of risks faced by OCC and, as a result, has determined to propose the skin-in-the-game provisions included in its proposal.
We conclude that OCC's skin-in-the-game proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. In adopting Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), the Commission discussed comments it received regarding the concept of skin-in-the-game as a potential tool to align the various incentives of a covered clearing agency's stakeholders, including management and clearing members.
Here, OCC has considered its financial resources, ownership structure, existing risk management framework, and other factors and, in light of these considerations, proposes to add to its current default waterfall two potential sources of skin-in-the-game for offsetting losses associated with Clearing Member defaults: (i) Deferred compensation in the form of the EDCP Unvested Balance (
In the Commission's view, with this aspect of the Proposed Rule Change OCC would be taking an important step toward incorporating a skin-in-the-game component into its existing risk management framework, which in turn should help further align the interests of OCC's stakeholders, including OCC management and Clearing Members. The direct contribution of the EDCP Unvested Balance in particular would represent a direct contribution of executive compensation by OCC's senior managers and therefore would help align the incentives of OCC's
In addition to the skin-in-the-game components discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change includes the various components that would govern the sizing and imposition of the Operational Loss Fee. The FIA comment letter expresses the belief that any Board decision that results in the imposition of an Operational Loss Fee should be “syndicated with” Clearing Members and that any resulting feedback from Clearing Members should be “presented to the Board before any decisions are taken.”
We find that the Operational Loss Fee is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(iii). That rule requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that support the public interest requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and participants.
The FIA also expresses a concern that OCC's Board has a fiduciary duty to OCC, and by implication, not to Clearing Members; however, OCC responds that, in furtherance of the Exchange Act requirement that OCC's rules must assure a fair representation of its shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its directors and the administration of its affairs, OCC's By-Laws “state that nine of the twenty directorships are reserved for representatives of OCC clearing members,” and that, in addition, five of the twenty directorships are reserved for public directors, who are charged with representing the interests of all stakeholders, such that more than two-thirds of OCC's directors are either Clearing Member directors or public directors.
Again, we agree that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2). In adopting Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), the Commission noted that the approach a covered clearing agency may take in considering the views of stakeholders could vary depending on the ownership structure or organizational form of the covered clearing agency.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the covered clearing agency's general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the covered clearing agency can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by taking the actions described in Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(iii) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) under the Exchange Act requires that the policies and procedures described under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) include determining the amount of liquid net assets funded by equity based upon a covered clearing agency's general business risk profile and the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such action is taken.
As described above, OCC proposes to adopt rules governing OCC's process for determining the amount of Equity required to support the LNAFBE necessary to cover potential general business losses, which would then be
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that the policies and procedures described under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) include holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of either (i) six months of the covered clearing agency's current operating expenses, or (ii) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of the covered clearing agency, as contemplated by the plans established under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), and which shall be in addition to resources held to cover participant defaults or other risks covered under applicable credit risk and the liquidity risk standards, and shall be of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow the covered clearing agency to meet its current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios, including in adverse market conditions.
As described above, OCC proposes to adopt rules that would require it to hold at least the minimum amount of Equity necessary to meet the Target Capital Requirement. In turn, the Target Capital Requirement would be set at a level at least sufficient to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Target Capital Requirement would equal or exceed, at a minimum, the greater of (i) six months of OCC's current operating expenses; (ii) the RWD Amount (which would equal or exceed the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services); or (iii) the Potential Loss Amount. Thus, under the proposal, OCC would maintain LNAFBE in an amount that would equal or exceed the amount determined by OCC to correspond to the amounts described in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
To ensure that OCC continues to hold the amount of LNAFBE required under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(ii), as detailed above, OCC would also, on a monthly basis, monitor its Equity relative to the Target Capital Requirement to determine whether an Early Warning or Trigger Event had occurred. In addition, in response to such monitoring and any associated Early Warnings, OCC would use fee-related tools currently available under its existing Rules (
The Capital Management Policy would provide objective, quantifiable metrics and tools that OCC would use to determine its forward six-months operating expenses and RWD Amount (
The Commission also finds that the proposed rules concerning the form of OCC's LNAFBE and manner in which it would be held are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii). OCC proposes to define LNAFBE such that it would consist of only cash and cash equivalents. OCC's LNAFBE would, therefore, be liquid by definition. Further, OCC proposes to adopt rules requiring that OCC hold Equity equal to 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement separate from OCC's resources to cover participant defaults, which would help ensure that the Equity it holds to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(ii) is in addition to OCC's resources to cover participant defaults and other risks covered under applicable credit risk and liquidity risk standards. The Commission did not receive any comments opposing OCC's proposed approach to determining its forward six-months operating expenses and cost of recovery or orderly wind-down. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the
The Commission did receive one comment regarding the degree of transparency OCC proposes to maintain in respect of the Target Capital Requirement. In its comment letter, the FIA states that the Target Capital Requirement information that OCC would publish on its website quarterly is “important for transparency purposes” and that OCC should “also provide disclosures on any expenses/losses that could result in the operational loss fee being charged as this will assist members in their own risk management.”
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) under the Exchange Act requires that the policies and procedures described under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) include maintaining a viable plan, approved by the board of directors and updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should a covered clearing agency's equity fall close to or below the amount required under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
As described above, the proposed Replenishment Plan would govern OCC's process for replenishing its capital in the event that Equity were to fall close to or below the Target Capital Requirement by, among other things, implementing tools that would allow OCC to replenish its capital levels in the event that routine monitoring and management through its existing fee-related tools is insufficient to avoid a Trigger Event, which would only occur if OCC's Equity fell below 100% of the Target Capital Requirement and stayed there for 90 consecutive days
Under the proposal, on an annual basis OCC's Management would be obligated to recommend that the Board approve or, as appropriate, modify the proposed Replenishment Plan. In turn, OCC's Board would be obligated annually to approve or, as appropriate, modify the proposed Replenishment Plan based on Management recommendation.
To the extent the Operational Loss Fee is levied, the FIA suggests that OCC should clarify the mechanism for returning such resources to Clearing Members.
The FIA also requests clarification regarding OCC's proposal to charge the Operational Loss Fee in an amount that would return OCC to a capitalization of 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement, instead of just returning to the target capital levels.
The Commission believes that OCC's proposal with respect to the Operational Loss Fee will permit OCC to raise additional equity in the event that its equity falls close to or below the Target Capital Requirement and therefore finds that it is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) of the Exchange Act. The Commission finds, therefore, that adoption of these aspects of the proposed Capital Management Policy and supporting rule changes are consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B to permit the appointment of Regulatory Trading Officials and corresponding amendments to Rules 47 and 75 to permit Regulatory Trading Officials to review whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction. 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, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B to permit the appointment of Regulatory Trading Officials and corresponding amendments to Rules 47 and 75 to permit Regulatory Trading Officials to review whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction.
Rule 46 permits the Exchange to appoint active NYSE members
Currently, only Floor Officials are authorized to act under the Exchange's rules in connection with certain situations involving bids, offers or transactions on the Trading Floor. Specifically, Rule 75 (Disputes as to Bids and Offers) mandates that disputes arising on bids or offers that are not settled by agreement between the interested members shall be settled by a Floor Official. Under Rule 47 (Floor Officials—Unusual Situations), Floor Officials have the authority to “supervise and regulate active openings and unusual situations that may arise in connection with the making of bids, offers or transactions on the Floor.”
Unusual situations may arise that could impede or prevent Floor brokers from representing customer interest before the end of Core Trading Hours.
The Exchange proposes a new “Regulatory Trading Official” that may be consulted regarding whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction by the DMM.
Under proposed Rule 46B, Regulatory Trading Officials would be an Exchange employee or officer designated by the Chief Regulatory Officer or its designee to perform the functions specified in Exchange rules. As proposed, Regulatory Trading Officials would have the authority to review whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction. The final determination to include or exclude verbal interest from the Closing Auction will be made by the DMM pursuant to Rule 104. Floor Officials would retain the authority to settle disputes arising on bids or offers for all transactions on the Exchange other than the Closing Auction.
The Exchange believes that it is more appropriate for a regulatory employee to consult with a Floor broker and DMM relating to the timely entry of verbal interest in the Closing Auction. Whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction will often require assessing whether a Floor broker complied with the rules for entry of verbal interest prior to the Closing Auction.
To effectuate these changes, the Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B that would provide that a Regulatory Trading Official would be an Exchange employee or officer designated by the Chief Regulatory Officer or its designee to perform those functions specified in Exchange rules.
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 47 to specify that, whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction by a DMM, would be governed by Rule 75(b). The proposed changes to Rule 75 would separate the current rule text into two sections. First, the existing text of Rule 75 relating to the authority of Floor Officials to resolve disputes between members arising on bids or offers would be renumbered as new subsection (a)(1) and the existing text of Supplementary Material .10 would be renumbered as new subsection (a)(2). The Exchange proposes no substantive changes to the existing text of Rule 75 or current Supplementary Material .10.
The proposed authority of Regulatory Trading Officials would be set forth in a new subsection (b) to Rule 75. Proposed Rule 75(b) would provide that a Regulatory Trading Official may be consulted regarding whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction by the DMM. The proposed rule would provide that either the Floor broker with the verbal interest or the DMM responsible for the Closing Auction in the relevant security may request Regulatory Trading Official review. Proposed Rule 75(b) would also provide that if such a request has been made, the DMM will not facilitate the Closing Auction until a Regulatory Trading Official has completed his or her review. Finally, the proposed rule would provide, consistent with current rules, that the final determination to include or exclude verbal interest from the Closing Auction will be made by the DMM pursuant to Rule 104.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that creating a new category of trading official to review whether a bid or offer was verbalized in time to be included in the Closing Auction would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to a free and open market by providing additional certainty to the Closing Auction when a dispute arises, thereby facilitating fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange's Closing Auction is a recognized industry reference point,
The Exchange believes that assigning responsibility for reviewing whether verbal interest was eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction to a regulatory employee designated by the Chief Regulatory Officer will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest. As noted above, the Exchange believes that regulatory employees are appropriately suited to the role of consultation regarding entry of verbal interest in time to participate in the Closing Auction. The Exchange also believes the proposed amendments further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the Exchange's rules, which would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors would not be harmed and in fact would benefit from the increased transparency and clarity in the Exchange's rules, thereby reducing potential confusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”),
In its filing with the Commission, SIPC included statements concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, as described below, which description has been substantially prepared by SIPC.
On October 7, 2019, pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA, 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1),
As amended, Article 2, Section 6, would: (1) Change the Board Chairperson's yearly honorarium from
The revised version of the proposed bylaw amendment was approved by the SIPC Board on November 14, 2019. Under SIPA section 78ccc(e)(1), unless it is disapproved by the Commission or the Commission determines that the matter is of such significant public interest as to warrant public comment, the amendment will take effect thirty (30) days after a copy is filed with the Commission. The Board has provided that, if approved by the Commission, the proposed amendment would not be implemented until six (6) months from the date of Commission approval or non-disapproval. Section IV below provides the text of the proposed changes to Article 2, Section 6, of the Bylaws.
The SIPC Board consists of seven members. Five of SIPC's Directors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Of the five Directors, three are associated with, and representative of, the securities industry (“Securities Directors”), and two are from outside of the industry. The Directors from outside of the securities industry serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman of SIPC. In addition, one SIPC Director is an officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury and one Director is an officer or employee of the Federal Reserve Board. SIPA § 78ccc(c)(1)-(3).
Under SIPA Section 78ccc(c)(5), all matters relating to Director compensation are as provided in the SIPC Bylaws. Since 1994, when the position of Chairperson ceased to be a full-time position, the honoraria awarded to the Directors have been as follows:
The amounts of the Director honoraria have been the same for more than 10 years. For the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined that it is appropriate that the proposed changes to Article 2, Section 6, of the Bylaws be made.
The SIPC Board sets the direction and policies for the Corporation. Since the 2008 financial crisis, SIPC's responsibilities have grown, and greater demands have been placed upon the time, commitment, and energy, of the Directors.
The Directors oversee a Fund which currently stands at more than $3.3 billion. The size of the Fund is modest compared to the amounts of customer assets at risk in SIPA liquidations over the last several years. These have included MF Global Inc., involving the largest commodities brokerage liquidation in history; Lehman Brothers Inc., with $106 billion owed to more than 111,000 customers; and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, with over $20 billion of customer assets owed. Each of these liquidations contained or contains complex and significant legal or operational hurdles for their resolution. Today, such large cases cannot be viewed as isolated events or SIPC's involvement in them as incidental. For example, in a too-big-to-fail situation, Congress has given SIPC an important role. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, SIPC serves as trustee in the orderly liquidation of a covered broker-dealer.
Given the breadth of SIPC's mission, whether the Fund is sufficient to satisfy SIPA's goal of customer protection is one of the most important issues that Directors face. The potential exposure arising from the liquidation of large firms alone highlights the importance of the Board's decision-making.
The sizeable amounts at stake in recent cases also create more risk for the Directors including the risk that Directors may be sued for tactical reasons, however frivolous such suits may be. For example, in the Madoff case, the SIPC Board and its President were sued in a multi-million dollar complaint brought by Madoff investors.
Today, more accountability is asked of corporate directors. At SIPC, the Directors not only oversee the administration of the quasi-public SIPC Fund, but also of the SIPC Employees' Savings Plan, and the SIPC Employees' Retirement Plan. As a result of their role in these and other matters, the Board must carefully oversee Management and the policies and procedures Management has put in place.
SIPC Directors willingly devote their time to SIPC, often at the expense of other important commitments, and potential compensation, outside of their SIPC responsibilities. The time, even for some Directors to travel to SIPC, can be burdensome since under SIPA section 78ccc(c)(2)(C)(i), the Securities Directors cannot be from the same geographical area of the United States. SIPC Directors travel from their home base to Washington, DC, to attend regular Board, as well as Committee, Meetings. There are three committees at SIPC on which the Directors serve: One for investments, another for compensation, and a third, for audit and budget.
In order for the SIPC program to be successful, it must have a Board that is engaged, resourceful, and willing to devote the time and energy to the program and to be committed to it. While it is an honor to be appointed as a Director, there should be some recognition of the contributions made by these individuals. Measured against
In considering a possible Bylaw change, the Board, through its Government Directors, commissioned Korn/Ferry International (“Korn/Ferry”), a leading global management and executive consulting firm, to provide recommendations with respect to compensation for SIPC Board members, including the Chair and Vice Chair. In undertaking the engagement, Korn/Ferry constructed a peer group of 23 organizations comparable to SIPC and analyzed their Director compensation. The peer group included non-profit groups, regulatory advocacy organizations, as well as federally funded ones.
Based upon its analysis, Korn/Ferry concluded that entities similar to SIPC in purpose and responsibilities typically provide some compensation to their Directors. Specifically, with respect to SIPC, Korn/Ferry recommended that:
(1) Director compensation consist of an annual retainer paid quarterly and ranging between $30,000 and $50,000;
(2) The Vice Chair receive an additional amount of $3,000 to $5,000 per year; and
(3) The Chair receive an additional $10,000 to $15,000 per year. Korn/Ferry Director Compensation Analysis, dated May 31, 2019, at 10.
Independently, the Government Directors formulated a separate approach to the matter. Under their analysis, they reasoned that because the non-Government Directors are Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate who render a public service, it would be appropriate to measure the amount of a Director honorarium against the pay of a Senior Executive Service (“SES”) Government employee. The maximum amount under the SES pay scale currently is $192,300. Based upon an average of 16 days of service per year comprised of six days of meetings, five days for preparation, and five days for ad hoc work, the Directors concluded that the non-Government Directors should receive an honorarium of $12,000 per year which would continue to be paid in quarterly installments. Applying the current ratio of Chair versus non-Chair honoraria, the non-Government Directors calculated the honorarium of the Chair at $28,000. The Board also calculated that an adjustment for inflation since the honoraria were last set in 2006 would have resulted in an honorarium of more than $19,000 for the Chair.
At its Meeting on November 14, 2019, the Board adopted the recommendations of the non-Government Directors, and agreed that the requested amendment, if approved, would take effect six months from the date of approval or non-disapproval by the Commission.
Because the Government Directors are ineligible, the recipients of the honoraria are limited to the Directors from the private sector. The honoraria are paid from the SIPC Fund, SIPA § 78ddd(a)(1), and no taxpayer monies are used.
Having extensively considered the matter, the Board has determined that the Bylaw should be amended.
Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA provides that the Board of Directors of SIPC must file a copy of any proposed bylaw change with the Commission, accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed bylaw change.
Compensation paid to members of the financial service industry and paid to officials serving the public interest has become a topic of public interest in recent years. Therefore, the Commission finds, pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
The text of the proposed bylaw change, as revised by Amendment No. 1, is provided below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The Chairman of the Corporation shall receive a yearly honorarium of $[15,000]
The honoraria described herein shall be paid in quarterly installments beginning on May 6, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SIPC-2019-01, and should be submitted on or before February 20, 2020.
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”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 11900 (Clearance of Corporate Debt Securities) to except certain transactions in corporate debt securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule 11900 under FINRA's Uniform Practice Code (the “Rule”) sets forth members' obligations with respect to the use of a registered clearing agency (a “clearing agency”) to clear over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities.
FINRA is proposing to amend the Rule to provide an exception for over-the-counter transactions between members (the “parties”) where the same
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The proposed rule change will become operative 30 days after the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA notes that the proposed exception would not alter counter-party clearing risks, such as financial exposure, because where a member or its agent utilizes the exception provided for under this proposal, it would serve as the central party on both the purchase and the sale side of the transaction and would clear and settle the transaction internally through book-keeping transfers. As such, no net settlement obligation would be created on the level of the clearing firm, and the risks and inefficiencies that the Rule is intended to protect against would not be present. Thus, FINRA believes the proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between providing relief uniformly to members where the Rule does not provide the intended benefits, while preserving the protections of the Rule for all other eligible transactions between members in corporate debt securities executed over the counter. Accordingly, FINRA believes the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and protects investors and the public interest.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed exception would apply uniformly where the same carrying member clears and settles both the purchase and the sale side of a transaction in a corporate debt security through book-keeping transfers between the parties' accounts at the carrying member. FINRA discussed the proposed exception with its Uniform Practice Code and Fixed Income Committees, who supported the proposed amendment. FINRA also discussed the proposal with SIFMA's Clearing Firms Committee, which also supported the proposal.
Under Rule 11900, each member or its agent that is a participant in a clearing agency is required to send eligible over-the-counter transactions between members in corporate debt securities to a clearing agency for clearing. For transactions where the same carrying member is clearing both the purchase and sale side of the transaction, the funds and the securities are reflected in each party's account at the carrying member. Thus, the clearing of such transactions can be done effectively through book-keeping transfers between the parties' accounts at the carrying member, without sending the transaction for central clearing. Specifically, because no net settlement obligation is created between the carrying member and the clearing agency for such transactions, clearing these transactions through a clearing agency does not provide the additional benefits of reducing or eliminating the risks and inefficiencies that central clearing usually provides.
However, while the current rule requiring carrying members to clear these transactions through a clearing agency does not provide the benefits that the rule was designed to provide (
Currently, each member or its agent that is a participant in a clearing agency is required under Rule 11900 to send eligible over-the-counter transactions between members in corporate debt securities to a registered clearing agency for clearing and settlement. The National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC), a subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), provides central clearing services for corporate debt securities, among other products. According to NSCC's website calculator, clearing fees consist of three parts: A tiered “clearance fee” based on the number of trades; a “value into net fee” based on the total value traded; and a “value out of net fee” based on the value that does not get netted.
When internally clearing a transaction, the delivery of the corporate debt security and money by the respective parties to settle a transaction can be effected through book-keeping transfers between the buyer's and seller's accounts at the carrying member. Under the proposed exception,
FINRA understands that internalizing the clearance of such transactions alone would not affect the clearing agency's margin calculation for a clearing firm availing itself of the exception. Based on a conversation with DTCC, margin is collected when there is a net debit after performing mark-to-market of the trades submitted. Therefore, when clearing firms choose to internalize the clearance of transactions that create no net settlement obligations, we understand that the margin required by the clearing agency is not changed.
When a carrying firm chooses to clear transactions internally, DTCC may lose revenues from the clearing fees collected from that firm (assuming the fee structure remains unchanged). NSCC generally charges lower clearing fees for transactions that can be netted out.
FINRA expects that the proposed amendment will improve the efficiency of the clearing process by removing a step that does not provide the intended benefit and allowing over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities that create no net settlement obligation to be internally cleared by the carrying firm, as described above. Carrying firms will potentially save on clearing costs for such transactions in circumstances where central clearing would not provide the additional protections related to counterparty risks or improved efficiency over bilateral clearing that were envisioned at the time Rule 11900 was adopted.
Clearing firms that serve more customers engaging in eligible over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities likely may benefit more from the proposed exception. The percentage of such transactions that can be internalized may in turn be higher than that of smaller clearing firms. To the extent smaller firms have eligible transactions that may be internalized under the proposal, they also should benefit from the proposal should they choose to internalize clearing, where permitted, and avoid related central clearing costs.
No alternatives were considered for this proposal.
FINRA received an email from Pershing LLC (“Pershing”) relating to the need for 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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”),
In its filing with the Commission, SIPC included statements concerning the purpose of and statutory basis for the proposed bylaw changes as described below, which description has been substantially prepared by SIPC.
Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA, 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1),
As revised, Article 6 would maintain assessments at the current rate of 0.15 percent of a member's net operating revenue from the securities business until SIPC's unrestricted net assets reach $5 billion.
Pursuant to SIPA Section 78ddd(c)(2), SIPC has consulted with self-regulatory organizations with respect to the proposed amendments. SIPC has determined that the changes are necessary and appropriate to maintain the SIPC Fund.
SIPC is a non-profit member organization created in 1970 under SIPA, for the protection of customers of member broker-dealers placed in liquidation under SIPA. With some exceptions set by statute, all registered securities brokers or dealers are members of SIPC. SIPC protects the customers of member firms in liquidation under SIPA. Among other things, SIPC advances funds to satisfy the claims of customers. Each customer is protected by SIPC up to $500,000 against the loss of missing cash and/or securities entrusted by the customer to the broker. The $500,000 includes a limit of up to $250,000 where the allowed claim is for cash only. The advances by SIPC come from a “Fund” that SIPC administers. The Fund largely is comprised of assessments paid to SIPC by its members. The Fund also is used to pay the administrative expenses of a liquidation proceeding where the debtor's general estate is insufficient, and to finance the day-to-day operations of SIPC.
Article 6 of the Bylaws now imposes a yearly assessment rate of 0.15% of net operating revenues from the member's securities business (“NOR”) where the balance of the SIPC Fund is less than $2.5 billion and will remain at that amount for six months or more. If the SIPC Fund has reached $2.5 billion but SIPC's unrestricted net asset amount is less than $2.5 billion, then the yearly assessment rate is .15% of NOR. Once the unrestricted net assets total at least $2.5 billion, then the assessment rate is a minimum assessment of .02% of NOR.
Currently, SIPC's only sources of funding are its Fund and a possible Government loan. To ensure that SIPC has sufficient independent resources to carry out its purposes (thus obviating the need to borrow from the Federal Government), SIPC has determined to keep the assessment rate at 0.15% of NOR until SIPC's unrestricted net assets total $5 billion. This will accomplish a few things: (1) Provide a larger cushion for unknown contingencies; (2) reduce the potential volatility of member
There is no scientific basis for determining the exact adequacy of the SIPC Fund. Nevertheless, SIPC's statutory obligation to protect customers of failed firms, and in certain cases, to pay the costs and expenses of administration of the liquidation proceeding, impose upon SIPC a duty to take a responsible approach to calculating both the size of the SIPC Fund, and the reasonableness of an assessment rate that maintains and promotes adequate funding.
As SIPC has witnessed over the past decade, risks abound—from a large firm failure with encumbered assets, to a Ponzi scheme with significant losses to customers, to risks presented by a cybersecurity attack or the use of digital assets. Assessing the adequacy of the Fund is especially challenging because the cost of a liquidation does not necessarily correlate with any traditional measure of financial exposure for broker-dealers. Instead, the Fund's adequacy depends largely on member firms' compliance with customer protection or net capital rules, the probability of which is challenging to quantify.
SIPC's resources must enhance investor confidence. Given the risks described above, and remaining vigilant regarding the uncertainties in an ever-changing marketplace, SIPC believes that in order for its mission of customer protection to succeed, SIPC must maintain a robust Fund.
The initial SIPC Fund totaled $77.6 million.
As the graph above reveals, before the liquidation of BLMIS in 2008, SIPC's Fund balance had doubled roughly every ten years. In addition, during those years and until 2010, SIPC had a substantial confirmed private line of credit.
The financial crisis of 2008, and the ensuing liquidation proceedings of LBI and BLMIS, revealed clearly the need for SIPC to increase the Fund balance. Although the LBI liquidation proceeding ultimately did not require SIPC to advance funds to satisfy claims, or pay for expenses of administration, any future failure of a global enterprise and its broker-dealer affiliate could have a very different outcome for SIPC. For example, had funds sought by LBI been encumbered overseas, or had LBI been reducing artificially its segregated customer reserve requirement through otherwise legal complex transactions, that may have imposed significant demands on the SIPC Fund.
The liquidation proceeding of BLMIS has required SIPC to make the largest aggregate advance in its history. In statistical terms, the amount is more than 100 standard deviations greater than the amounts advanced by SIPC in all of its previous cases.
SIPC faces risks beyond those posed by large Ponzi schemes or a credit crisis. These additional risks, many of which are hard to quantify, include, for example, technology-related failures, such as a cyberattack on a large SIPC member that restricts access by customers to their assets; or risks stemming from the delay in computing a broker-dealer's reserve requirement. For example, SEC Rule 15c3-3, 17 CFR 240.15c3-3, which governs the protection of customer assets, requires a broker-dealer to compute its cash reserve requirement on a weekly, not daily, basis. Although a number of SIPC members voluntarily rebalance their cash reserves on a daily basis, a large SIPC member that does not might not have enough cash in its Rule 15c3-3(e) reserve account due to an increase in its net cash obligations following its last required reserve computation.
Another factor underscoring SIPC concerns is the potential risk to the solvency of the SIPC Fund under the Orderly Liquidation provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, Title II. Dodd-Frank creates an important role for SIPC in the event of the failure of a covered, large complex securities broker-dealer that presents systemic risk. Under Dodd-Frank, SIPC is designated as trustee for the liquidation of the broker-dealer under SIPA. 12 U.S.C. 5385(A). As trustee, SIPC must determine and satisfy claims against the broker-dealer consistent with SIPA. 12 U.S.C. 5385(D). While the FDIC has expressed a preference to use Dodd-Frank to intervene at the holding company level,
Once the unrestricted net asset amount is $5 billion, SIPC would, as it
Upon consideration of the results of the study and the report thereon that would issue, and after consultation with the Commission and one or more self-regulatory organizations, SIPC would set the appropriate assessment rate necessary to maintain the Fund and satisfy SIPA's purposes.
Other provisions of SIPC Bylaw Article 6 are unchanged such as the rate when the Fund is less than $150 million, or less than $100 million, or the circumstances under which the rate imposed can be more than
Given not only the risks described above, but the risk to members that, by statute, a significant event could cause assessment rates immediately to jump to at least 0.50% of gross revenues from the securities business and possibly be as high as 1%, SIPC submits that growing the Fund at a consistent pace lessens any negative impact on members, with the attendant benefit of reaching $5 billion sooner. Barring unforeseen sizeable expenditures, SIPC estimates that at the current yearly assessment rate of .15% of NOR, SIPC's unrestricted net assets, as reflected in SIPC's audited Statement of Financial Position, would be $5 billion by no later than December 31, 2026. If SIPC did nothing to address the adequacy of the Fund or the assessment rate, then at a rate of 0.02% per annum, which would be the assessment under the current version of the Assessment Bylaw, the $5 billion balance would not be reached until the year 2040.
Adopting the modifications proposed by SIPC should have a limited impact on member firms. As the chart below reveals, based on 2018 data, SIPC staff estimates that two-thirds of the total difference in annual assessments under the proposed assessment rate structure would be paid by only 30 members for which the difference in the assessment payment would amount, on average, only to .091% of their total revenue.
In the above chart, column 1 refers to the difference in amount that a broker-dealer would pay as a result of being assessed at a rate of .15% instead of .02%. Column 2 is the number of broker-dealers impacted at that amount. Column 3 is the percentage that the broker-dealers at a certain level represent relative to the total number of broker-dealers. Column 4 is the total additional amount paid by all broker-dealers at a given level. Column 5 is the percentage that the payments reflect relative to all payments. Column 6 is the percentage that the payments represent, on average, relative to the broker-dealers' revenue.
Thus, an assessment rate of .15%, as opposed to .02%, would cause the largest 30 SIPC members to pay approximately $172 million more out of their approximately $213 billion in revenue. This increase amounts to approximately 8/100 of 1% of such members' revenue, and represents
In addition to the above, SIPC proposes to amend that portion of the Assessment Bylaw relating to Collection of General Assessments (SIPC Bylaw Article 6, Section 1(c)).
Under SIPA Section 78iii(a), each self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) may act as the collection agent for SIPC to collect assessments payable by members for which the SRO is the examining authority. However, SIPA does not mandate that SIPC use a collection agent to collect assessments, and SIPA does not restrict collection exclusively to collection agents.
In keeping with current practice, and in light of technological developments and capabilities that have continued to improve considerably, the proposed bylaw removes the provision that requires members to pay assessments to collection agents. The proposed Bylaw amendment re-letters the provisions that follow current Bylaw Article 6, Section 1(c). The re-lettered provisions include current Section 1(d) of Bylaw Article 6 (Report by Collection Agents). Section 1(d) requires the SROs to report in writing to SIPC as to any member from which the SRO has or has not been successful in collecting payment. In this manner, SIPC can stay informed as to any member that continues to be delinquent and refer the member, as needed, to the Commission for further action under SIPA Section 78jjj(a).
Currently, the SIPC Bylaw provides that if a member's assessment payment has not been received within 15 days of the due date, the stated interest rate for late payments applies to unpaid amounts. In January, 2019, SIPC developed an internet payment portal, whereby members can pay SIPC directly online. SIPC is also presently working on the development of a portal through which, among other things, members can file assessment forms. The creation by SIPC of the means by which members can make immediate payment obviates the need for a grace period.
Given the many risks that have arisen in the past two decades, and the potential risks SIPC continues to face, SIPC must be prudent in determining what constitutes a sufficient level of funding. Indeed, maintaining the adequacy of the SIPC Fund is in everyone's interest—it enhances investor protection. While SIPC could raise the assessment on an ad hoc basis as the situation warrants, it believes that the approach set forth herein is the better course of action, as it promotes greater stability and predictability for both investors and member firms.
Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA provides that the SIPC Board must file a copy of any proposed bylaw change with the Commission, accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed bylaw change.
The SIPC Fund, which is built from assessments on its members and the interest earned on the Fund, is used for the protection of customers of members liquidated under SIPA to maintain investor confidence in the securities markets. In light of this fact and that the bylaw change provides for a modified calculation of the assessment rate and a change to collection practices, the Commission finds, pursuant to section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA,
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
The text of the proposed bylaw changes is provided below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(1) The amount of each member's assessment for the member's fiscal year shall be the product of the assessment rate established by SIPC for that fiscal year and either the member's gross [or net ]revenues
(A) [The assessment rate shall be one-fourth (
(i)
(ii)
(B)
[Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1(a)(1)(A) herein, if SIPC determines that the balance of the SIPC Fund, as defined in Section 4(a)(2) of the Act, exclusive of confirmed lines of credit, (i) has aggregated $2.5 billion, and (ii) will remain at or above $2.5 billion for six months or more, but SIPC's unrestricted net assets, as reflected in SIPC's most recent audited Statement of Financial Position, are less than $2.5 billion, the assessment rate shall be 0.15 percent per annum of net operating revenues from the member's securities business for each calendar year or part thereof.]
(C)
(D)
(i) Less than $2.5 billion and will likely remain less than $2.5 billion for a period of six (6) months or more—the amount of each member's assessment shall be at an assessment rate of one-fourth (
(ii) less than $150,000,000—the amount of each member's assessment shall be at an amount to be determined by SIPC, but in no case shall the amount of each member's assessment be less than an assessment rate of one-fourth (
(iii) less than $100,000,000—the amount of each member's assessment shall be at an amount to be determined by SIPC, but in no case shall the amount of each member's assessment be less than an assessment rate of one-half (
(iv) The amount of each member's assessment shall not exceed one-half (
(E)
(2) Any change in assessments made in accordance with Section 1(a)(1) herein shall commence on the first day of the year following the date on which SIPC announces its determination, or on such other date if the exigency of the circumstances so warrants in SIPC's determination, and continue until such time as SIPC provides otherwise.
(3) Commencing on the first day of the month following the date on which SIPC borrows moneys pursuant to Section 4(f) or Section 4(g) of the Act, and continuing while any such borrowing is outstanding and until such further time as SIPC provides otherwise, the amount of each member's assessment shall be at an assessment rate of not less than one-half (
(b) Payments. Assessments shall be payable at such times and in such manner as may be determined by SIPC's Vice President—Finance with the approval of the Chairman.
[(c) Collection of General Assessments. Each member of the Corporation who is a member of a self-regulatory organization shall pay assessments to its collection agent. In the case of members who are not members of any self-regulatory organization, assessments shall be paid directly to the Corporation.]
[(d)]
[(e)]
[(f) Gross Revenues. The term “gross revenues from the securities business” includes the revenues in the definition of gross revenues from the securities business set forth in the applicable sections of the Act.
(g) Net Operating Revenues. The term “net operating revenues from the securities business” means gross revenues from the securities business less interest and dividend expenses, and includes those clarifications as are set forth in the SIPC assessment forms and instructions.]
If the final annual reconciliation filed by a terminated member reflects an assessment overpayment carried forward that exceeds $150.00, SIPC may refund such excess to the member upon receipt of the member's written request therefor and after [the member's] SIPC [collection agent] has confirmed [to SIPC]that all of the member's SIPC assessment form filings and payments and reports required by SEC Rule 17a-5 covering periods through the termination date have been reviewed and accepted.
[(a)]
[(b)]
[(c)]
(b)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SIPC-2019-02, and should be submitted on or
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 Phlx's Pricing Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 4, titled “Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed).”
The Exchange originally filed the proposed pricing changes on January 2, 2020 (SR-Phlx-2020-01). On January 14, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
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.
Phlx proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4, titled “Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed).” The Exchange proposes to amend pricing for certain strategy caps. The Exchange believes the proposed amendments will incentivize market participants to transact various options strategies on Phlx to take advantage of the opportunity to cap floor option transaction charges and lower their costs.
Today, to qualify for a strategy cap, the buy and sell side of a transaction must originate from the Exchange floor.
NDX and NDXP Options Transactions are excluded from Strategy Cap pricing.
The Exchange proposes to amend the strategy caps applicable to Specialists,
Today, to qualify for a dividend cap, a Specialist, Market Maker, Professional, Firm or Broker-Dealer must execute on the same trading day in the same options class when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts. If the qualification is met, Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers floor option transaction charges are capped at $1,500. The Exchange proposes to amend the qualification for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers dividend strategies by lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100 and also amending the qualification for dividend strategies. The proposed qualification would be expanded to allow Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers to qualify for the cap by executing on the same trading in the same options class when (1) such members are trading in their own proprietary account, as is the case today, or (2) when transacted on an agency basis. If transacted on an agency basis, the daily cap will apply per beneficial account. For example, if Firm A transacted $600 of qualifying dividend strategies for customer A, $1,500 qualifying dividend strategies for customer B and $2,000 qualifying dividend strategies for customer C, then customer A would not qualify for a
The Exchange proposes to amend the current merger and short stock interest strategy cap which require the strategies to be executed on the same trading day in the same options class when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts, to qualify for a $1,500 cap. The Exchange proposes to instead require Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers that transact merger and short stock interest strategies, along with reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies, to execute these strategies on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate when such members are trading (1) in their own proprietary accounts, as is the case today, or (2) on an agency basis. If transacted on an agency basis, the daily cap will apply per beneficial account. The Exchange would offer a cap of $1,100 to Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers who qualify for the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies, collectively. The Exchange believes that its proposal will incentivize members to transact a greater number of merger and short stock interest strategies because the cap for merger and short stock interest strategies is being lowered from $1,500 to $1,100 and the Exchange is permitting members to aggregate all options classes to qualify for the cap and also permitting members to transact merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies either in their proprietary account or on an agency basis.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the current reversal and conversion,
For purposes of the Exhibit 5 rule text, the dividend strategy cap will have its own qualification and cap and the remainder of the strategies, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread, will be grouped into a second category with a collective qualification and cap applicable to those strategies. The Exchange proposes the below rule text:
The Exchange is not proposing to amend the $65,000 cap per member organization which is currently offered.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Specialist, Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer qualification and cap for dividend strategies cap is reasonable. The Exchange is lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100. Also, the proposed qualification would be expanded to allow Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers to qualify for the cap by executing on the same trading in the same options class when such members are trading: (1) In their own proprietary account, as is the case today; or (2) on an agency basis.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers dividend strategies by lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100 and also amending the qualification for dividend strategies is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all members may qualify for the dividend strategy cap provided they transact the requisite amount of dividend strategies wherein the buy and sell side of a transaction originated from the Exchange floor. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit a dividend strategy cap to apply to each beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis. To the extent that a member is transacting a dividend strategy on an agency basis, the Exchange would uniformly apply the benefit of the dividend cap separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing the dividend strategy because the transaction is for
The Exchange's proposal to amend the current merger and short stock interest strategy cap, which requires that the strategies be executed on the same trading day in the same options class when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts, to qualify for a $1,500 cap is reasonable. The Exchange proposes to expand the current requirement to permit Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers that transact merger and short stock interest strategies, along with reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies, to execute these strategies on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts or on an agency basis to qualify. Today, members may transact merger and short stock interest strategies in their own proprietary account. Adding the ability to transact merger and short stock interest on an agency basis to qualify for the cap is proposed herein. To the extent that a member is transacting merger or short stock interest strategies on an agency basis, or a reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy, the benefit of the cap would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to apply the cap to each beneficial account when the merger or short stock interest strategy, along with the reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy, was transacted on an agency basis, as compared to the member that transacts a merger or short stock interest strategy, or reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy, for his own proprietary account and therefore may capture the benefit of the merger or short stock interest strategy, or reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy, for all qualifying transactions in their proprietary account. When the member transacts the merger or short stock interest strategy on an agency basis, or reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy, it is for the benefit of a customer. The Exchange believes that applying the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap to each of those customer accounts separately is reasonable as the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap is intended to encourage each member to execute a greater amount of these strategies. The Exchange believes applying the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap per beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis would allow the Exchange to incentivize merger and short stock interest strategies in accordance with the order flow that each member executes on the Exchange.
The Exchange would also lower the current merger and short stock interest cap from $1,500 to $1,100. The Exchange believes that the combination of expanding the qualifications to permit members to aggregate all options classes and transact on an agency basis, in addition to also continuing to trade in their own proprietary account, as well as lowering the cap will encourage members to transact a greater number of merger and short stock interest strategies.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers merger and short stock interest strategies by lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100 and also amending the qualification for these strategies is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all members may qualify for the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap provided they transact the requisite amount of merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies wherein the buy and sell side of a transaction originated from the Exchange floor. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit a merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap to apply to each beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis. To the extent that a member is transacting a merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy on an agency basis, the benefit of the merger or short stock interest cap would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing the merger, short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy because the transaction is for the benefit of a customer and not the member.
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the current reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers and adopt a new strategy cap for these strategies, along with the merger and short stock interest strategies, which requires that these strategies be executed on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts or transacted on an agency basis to qualify is reasonable. Unlike the current qualification for reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies which requires that these strategies be executed on the same trading day in the same options class, the proposed qualification would permit the strategies to be executed on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate, along with the merger and short stock interest strategies. Further, the Exchange will continue to not limit the manner in which the transactions may be executed, either in a member's proprietary account or on an agency basis, for the reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies. Today, there is no limitation as to whether reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps must be executed on a proprietary or agency basis. For clarity, the Exchange is noting within the rule text that members may transact reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps either in their own proprietary accounts or on an agency basis, in conjunction with merger and short stock interest strategies. To the extent that a member is transacting merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies on an agency basis, the benefit of the cap would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to apply the cap to each beneficial account when the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies were transacted on an agency basis, as compared to the member that transacts a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy for his own proprietary account and therefore may capture the benefit of these strategies for all qualifying transactions in their proprietary account. When the member transacts a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy on an agency basis, it is for the benefit of a customer. The Exchange believes that applying the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap to each of those customer
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the current reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers and adopt a new strategy cap for these strategies which requires that these strategies be executed on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate, when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts or on an agency basis, in conjunction with the merger and short stock interest strategies, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. All members may qualify for the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps provided they transact the requisite amount of merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies wherein the buy and sell side of a transaction originated from the Exchange floor. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to permit a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy cap to apply to each beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis. To the extent that a member is transacting a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy on an agency basis, the benefit of the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread cap would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing these strategies because the transaction is for the benefit of a customer and not the member.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it 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 to remain competitive with other exchanges that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 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.
The proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers dividend strategies by lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100 and also amending the qualification for dividend strategies does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all members may qualify for the dividend strategy cap provided they transact the requisite amount of dividend strategies wherein the buy and sell side of a transaction originated from the Exchange floor. The Exchange also believes that it does not impose an undue burden on competition to permit a dividend cap to apply to each beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis. To the extent that a member is transacting a dividend strategy on an agency basis, the benefit of the dividend cap would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing the dividend strategy because the transaction is for the benefit of a customer and not the member.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the qualification for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers merger and short stock interest strategies by lowering the cap from $1,500 to $1,100 and also amending the qualification for these strategies to allow these strategies to be in the aggregate for all options classes and on an agency basis, along with reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies, while continuing to permit members to trade in their own proprietary accounts, in conjunction with the reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies, does not impose an undue burden on competition because all members may qualify for the merger and short stock interest strategy caps provided they transact the requisite amount of merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies wherein the buy and sell side of a transaction originated from the Exchange floor. The Exchange also believes that it does not impose an undue burden on competition to permit a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread cap to apply to each beneficial account when transacted on an agency basis. To the extent that a member is transacting a merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy on an agency basis, the benefit of the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread would apply separately to each beneficial account on whose behalf the member is executing these strategies because the transaction is for the benefit of a customer and not the member.
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the current reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps for Specialists, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers and adopt a new strategy increased cap of $1,100 for these strategies which requires that these strategies be executed on the same trading day for all options classes in the aggregate, when such members are trading in their own proprietary accounts or on an agency basis, in conjunction with merger and short stock interest strategies, does not impose an undue burden on competition. All members may qualify for the merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy caps provided they transact the requisite amount of merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies wherein the buy and sell side
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of Intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed TVA-developed solar facility in Lawrence County, Alabama. The purpose of this EIS is to address the potential environmental effects associated with building, operating, and maintaining the solar facility, North Alabama Utility-Scale Solar Project, in Lawrence County, Alabama. The proposed facility would encompass approximately 3,000 acres. Public comments are invited concerning both the scope of the EIS and environmental issues that should be addressed as part of this EIS.
Comments must be received or postmarked by March 2, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Specialist, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W Summit Hill Drive #WT11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Comments may be sent electronically to
Contact Elizabeth Smith by email at
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508), TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800).
The proposed North Alabama Utility-Scale Solar facility, hereafter referred to as the project, would occupy two sites: Wheeler North and Wheeler South. The sites together encompass approximately 3,000 acres, and are located entirely in Lawrence County, Alabama. The Wheeler North site is within the city limits of Wheeler, Alabama, and is located approximately 3.6 miles southeast of Courtland, Alabama. The southern edge of the Wheeler North site is paralleled by US Highway 72. The Wheeler North site is mostly cultivated crop fields with portions of forested areas. The Wheeler South site is the larger of the two sites and runs along the eastern portion of State Highway 33 with County Road 85 running west in the southwest portion of the site. The Wheeler South site is located 0.21 miles southwest of Wheeler, Alabama and 2.25 miles southeast of Courtland, Alabama. The Wheeler South site is mostly forested with portions of cultivated crop fields and wooded private residences. Two power line easements run through the Wheeler South site.
TVA is a federal agency and instrumentality of the United States of America, created in 1933 by an act of Congress to foster the social and economic well-being of the residents of the Tennessee Valley region. As part of its diversified energy strategy, TVA produces or obtains electricity from a diverse portfolio of energy sources, including solar, hydroelectric, wind,
In addition to a No Action Alternative, this EIS will address alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the project. In evaluating alternatives, TVA will also consider the availability of other potential sites where the project could be located. For the proposed site, TVA plans to consider the establishment of a reduced footprint so that impacts to cultural and/or biological resources could be avoided. The EIS will also evaluate ways to mitigate impacts that cannot be avoided. The description and analysis of these alternatives in the EIS will inform decision makers, other agencies, and the public about the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed solar facility. TVA solicits comment on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Public scoping is integral to the process for implementing NEPA and ensures that (1) issues are identified early and properly studied, (2) issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort, and (3) the analysis of identified issues is thorough and balanced. This EIS will identify the purpose and need of the project and will contain descriptions of the existing environmental and socioeconomic resources within the area that could be affected by the proposed solar facility, including the documented historical, cultural, and environmental resources. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts to these resources will include, but not be limited to, water quality, air quality, soil erosion, floodplains, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, threatened and endangered species, botany, wetlands, visual resources, transportation, safety, land use, historic and archaeological resources, recreation, geology, solid and hazardous waste, and socioeconomic and environmental justice issues. The final range of issues to be addressed in the environmental review will be determined, in part, from scoping comments received. TVA is particularly interested in public input on other reasonable alternatives that should be considered in the EIS. The preliminary identification of reasonable alternatives and environmental issues in this notice is not meant to be exhaustive or final.
The public is invited to submit comments on the scope of this EIS no later than the date identified in the
40 CFR 1501.7.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application from McKee Foods Transportation, LLC (MFT) for a renewal of its exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS) regulation pertaining to the use of a sleeper berth. The exemption renewal would allow MFT team drivers to take the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty by splitting sleeper berth time into two periods totaling 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours. MFT currently holds an exemption for the period March 27, 2015, through March 27, 2020. FMCSA requests public comment on MFT's application for exemption. The application for a renewal is available for review in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2014-0071 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
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: (202) 366-4225. 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-2014-0071), 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. 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
MFT requested a renewal of its exemption from 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1-2) pertaining to the use of a sleeper berth. The exemption renewal would allow MFT team drivers to continue to take the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty by splitting sleeper berth time into two periods totaling 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours. The application for a renewal is available for review in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
FMCSA granted MFT a one-year exemption on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16503). On April 20, 2016 (81 FR 23349) the Agency extended its expiration date to March 27, 2020, in response to Section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act). The statute extended the expiration date of hours-of-service (HOS) exemptions in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act to 5 years from the date of issuance of the exemptions.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on MFT's application for an exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for four individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on November 15, 2019. The exemptions expire on November 15, 2021.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without
On December 4, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for four individuals from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (84 FR 66451). The public comment period ended on January 3, 2020, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(11).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the four renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41 (b)(11).
As of November 15, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 66451):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0383 or FMCSA-2014-0387 or FMCSA-2015-0325. Jennifer Valentine was previously published under the name Jennifer Campbell. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 15, 2019, and will expire on November 15, 2021.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application for exemption from Robert Bosch LLC and Mekra Lang North America LLC to allow motor carriers to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with the company's CV [Commercial Vehicle] Digital Mirror System installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR).
Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2020.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2019-0286 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
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 is required to publish notice of exemption requests in the
Section 393.80(a) of the FMCSRs requires that each bus, truck, and truck-tractor be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side. The mirrors must be positioned to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear and the area along both sides of the CMV. Section 393.80(a) cross-references the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's standard for mirrors on motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] No. 111). Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 provides requirements for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg. Paragraph S8.1 provides requirements for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. Robert Bosch LLC and Mekra Lang North America LLC have applied for an exemption from 393.80(a) to allow motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with the company's CV Digital Mirror System installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the application for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a). All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 13, 2020, the Metropolitan Council's Metro Transit Division (Metro Transit), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 214, 219, 220, 229, 235, and 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-0009.
Metro Transit operates two rail fixed guideway transit systems in Minnesota—the METRO Blue and Green light rail transit (LRT) Lines. Currently, the Green Line is 11 miles in length with 18 stations between Target Field Station in downtown Minneapolis, and Union Depot Station in downtown St. Paul, sharing 5 stations in downtown Minneapolis with the Blue Line. The Green Line LRT Extension Project, also known as Southwest Light Rail Transit Line (SWLRT), will add approximately 14.5 miles of standard-gage light rail double-track with 16 new passenger stations within Hennepin County, Minnesota, to the existing Green Line LRT operations. The SWLRT project will extend the existing Green Line from the Target Field/Interchange Station near the central business district of downtown Minneapolis through the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing near Edina. The SWLRT line will terminate at the Southwest Station in Eden Prairie. Construction of the SWLRT Project began in 2019 with the projected opening for revenue service operations in 2023.
SWLRT will be constructed adjacent to freight rail service operated by Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TCWR) in the Kenilworth Corridor and a portion of the Bass Lake Spur, and adjacent to freight rail service operated by BNSF Railway (BNSF) in the Wayzata Subdivision. Typical track center spacing averages 25 feet or more throughout this shared corridor. SWLRT and TCWR will share use of five highway-rail grade crossings (HRGC) on the Kenilworth Corridor and Bass Lake Spur located at 21st Street South in Minneapolis, Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park, and 5th Avenue South and Blake Road North in Hopkins. There are no shared HRGCs on the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision. An intrusion detection system will be installed wherever typical spacing for track centers between SWLRT and freight tracks is less than 50 feet.
On the Bass Lake Spur (Milepost (MP) 16.3/428.38 to MP 435.06), the Metropolitan Council has, on Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority's behalf, contracted with third parties to perform freight rail operations maintenance, dispatching, and flagging services. The SWLRT track and signal system is wholly separate and distinct from any adjacent freight tracks and related equipment. Metro Transit will maintain its own track and signals in the SWLRT, and only Metro Transit Signal and Train Control employees will be working on signal and train control equipment at the five shared HRGCs.
Specifically, Metro Transit seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of FRA regulations applicable to the limited connections of the SWLRT to the general railroad system at five shared HRGCs, stating it has alternative procedures in place on its existing Green Line operations which are comparable from a substantive perspective to FRA safety regulations. Moreover, Metro Transit states the waivers would promote consistency in the standard operating procedures followed by Metro Transit in its Green Line LRT operations and provide an equivalent level of safety to the corresponding FRA regulations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 16, 2020 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of approval.
FRA is issuing this notice to explain its rationale for approving a Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) petition for a Test Program designed to test track inspection technologies (
Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6460 or email
On November 1, 2019, NS petitioned FRA under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 211.51 to suspend certain requirements of FRA's track safety regulations to conduct a program to test new track inspection technologies (
The Test Program specifies that the tests will be conducted on approximately 1,042 miles of main and siding tracks of the former Norfolk & Western route from Norfolk, Virginia to Portsmouth, Ohio on NS's Pocahontas Division.
The Test Program is designed to test autonomous locomotive-mounted geometry measurement systems and gradually decreased manual visual inspections as an alternative to FRA's inspection frequency requirements. NS indicates that it will continue to use other inspection technologies during the Test Program, including (1) Sperry rail flaw and joint bar inspections, and (2) Vehicle/Track Interaction, a locomotive-based ride quality inspection system. The Test Program will be carried out in three separate phases over the course of one year as detailed in Exhibit C of the Test Program (available for review at
After review and analysis of NS's petition for a Test Program, subject to certain conditions designed to ensure safety, FRA approved NS's Test Program and suspended the requirements of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3)
As explained more fully in its approval letter, FRA finds that the temporary, limited suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) and (c) is necessary to the conduct of the approved Test Program, which is specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of new automated track inspection technologies and operational methods. Furthermore, FRA also finds that the scope and application of the granted suspension of 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3) and (c) as applied to the Test Program are limited to that necessary to conduct the Test Program. Finally, FRA's approval letter outlines the conditions of the Test Program that will ensure standards sufficient to assure safety.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 10, 2020, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232,
Specifically, CSXT proposes to use proprietary software technology to implement a virtual three-dimensional simulation as an alternative to satisfy the “hands-on” portion of periodic refresher training required by 49 CFR 232.203(b)(8). Refresher training is required at intervals not to exceed 3 years, and must consist of classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. CSXT states that the simulation will improve the employee's knowledge of air brake components and functions and increases proficiency when performing the Class I freight air brake test.
The simulation is based on performance of a Class I freight air brake test and is designed to place the user in a virtual realistic scenario. The user is required to perform a variety of inspection and remediation tasks relating to preprogrammed defects including, but not limited to, closed cut-out cocks, uncoupled air hoses, closed angle cocks, improperly positioned retainer valves, and fouled brake rigging. Users are required to successfully complete all tasks in the scenario. CSXT proposes to apply this waiver system-wide to all CSXT conductors and supervisors responsible for performing Class I freight air brakes tests.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 16, 2020 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by letter received January 18, 2020, BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance contained in Docket Number FRA-2007-27287.
Specifically, BNSF seeks a second extension of relief from the 2-year periodic testing requirements in §§ 236.377,
BNSF states that since the original waiver approval, 95.2% of all eligible locations across BNSF's network have been enrolled in this waiver program and received waiver-based locking tests on the extended schedule with no issues. BNSF is confident that by using this method, it has reduced the amount of disruption to signal circuits and operations while spending less time foul of track. Leveraging the benefits of technology and reducing the opportunity for human failure yields additional safety benefits, making this BNSF's desired method for performing these tests.
BNSF requests to extend the waiver indefinitely. BNSF states it will maintain the testing procedures and testing interval as outlined in the waiver. BNSF further asks to eliminate the requirement to submit to FRA an annual updated listing of the eligible locations, because BNSF has already enrolled the substantial majority of eligible locations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 16, 2020 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for approximately $454.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 2020 funds under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (CFDA#20.526). As required by federal public transportation law and subject to funding availability, funds will be awarded competitively to assist in the financing of capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, purchase or lease buses and related equipment, and to rehabilitate, purchase, construct or lease bus-related facilities. Projects may include costs incidental to the acquisition of buses or to the construction of facilities, such as the costs of related workforce development and training activities, and project administration expenses. FTA may award additional funds if they are made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
The
Mark Bathrick, FTA Office of Program Management, 202-366-9955, or
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C 5339(b)) authorizes FTA to award funds for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program through a competitive process, as described in this notice, for capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, purchase or lease buses and related equipment and to rehabilitate, purchase, construct or lease bus-related facilities.
The purpose of the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program is to assist in the financing of capital projects for buses and bus facilities, including replacing, rehabilitating, purchasing, or leasing buses or related equipment, and rehabilitating, purchasing, constructing, or leasing bus-related facilities.
The Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program provides funds to eligible applicants including designated recipients that allocate funds to fixed route bus operators, states or local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. FTA also may award grants to eligible recipients for projects to be undertaken by subrecipients. Eligible subrecipients include all otherwise eligible applicants and also private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation. In accordance with Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)(2)), FTA will “consider the age and condition of buses, bus fleets, related equipment, and bus-related facilities” in selecting projects for funding. FTA may prioritize projects that demonstrate how they will address significant repair and maintenance needs, improve the safety of transit systems and deploy connective projects that include advanced technologies to connect bus systems with other networks.
In FY 2020, FTA is encouraging applicants to propose projects that introduce innovative technologies or practices in support of FTA's Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) initiative. FTA is focused on the introduction of new technology not commonly found within U.S. transit systems such as integrated fare payment systems permitting complete trips or advancements to propulsion systems. Innovation can also include practices such as new public transportation operational models, financial or procurement arrangements, or value capture.
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5338(a)(2)(M)) authorizes $289,044,179 in FY 2020 funds for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 appropriated an additional $170,000,000 for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. After the mandatory oversight takedown of $4,417,831 FTA is announcing the availability of $454,626,348 for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program through this notice.
As required by Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)(5)
FTA will grant pre-award authority to incur costs for selected projects beginning on the date that project selections are announced. Funds are only available for projects that have not incurred costs prior to the selection of projects, and will remain available for obligation for three Federal fiscal years, not including the year in which the funds are allocated to projects.
Eligible applicants include designated recipients that allocate funds to fixed route bus operators, states or local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. Eligible subrecipients include all otherwise eligible applicants and also private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation.
States may submit a statewide application on behalf of public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation in rural areas or for other areas for which a State allocates funds. Except for projects proposed by Indian tribes, all proposals for projects in rural (non-urbanized) areas must be submitted by a State, either individually or as a part of a statewide application. States and other eligible applicants may also submit consolidated proposals for projects in urbanized areas. The submission of a statewide or consolidated urbanized area application shall not preclude the submission and consideration of any application from other eligible recipients in an urbanized area in a State. Proposals may contain projects to be implemented by the recipient or its subrecipients.
To be considered eligible, applicants must be able to demonstrate the requisite legal, financial, and technical capabilities to receive and administer Federal funds under this program.
The maximum federal share for projects selected under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program is 80 percent of the net project cost (
Eligible sources of local match include the following: Cash from non-Government sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services; revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions; amounts received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization; revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms; or funds from an undistributed cash surplus; replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve; or new capital. In addition, transportation development credits or documentation of in-kind match may substitute for local match if identified in the application.
If an applicant proposes a Federal share greater than 80 percent, the application must clearly explain why the project is eligible for the proposed Federal share.
Under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)(1)), eligible projects are capital projects to replace, rehabilitate purchase, or lease buses, vans, and related equipment, and capital projects to rehabilitate, purchase, construct, or lease bus-related facilities.
Recipients are permitted to use up to 0.5 percent of their requested grant award for workforce development activities eligible under Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5314(b)) and an additional 0.5 percent for costs associated with training at the National Transit Institute, to pay not more than 80 percent of the cost of eligible activities (see 49 U.S.C. 5314(b)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5314(c)(4)(A)). Applicants must identify the proposed use of funds for these activities in the project proposal and identify them separately in the project budget.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
A strong transportation network is critical to the functioning and growth of the American economy. The nation's industry depends on the transportation network to move the goods that it produces, and facilitate the movements of the workers who are responsible for that production. When the nation's highways, railways, and ports function well, that infrastructure connects people to jobs, increases the efficiency of delivering goods and thereby cuts the costs of doing business, reduces the burden of commuting, and improves overall well-being.
Rural transportation networks play a vital role in supporting our national economic vitality. Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with the R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative, the Department encourages applicants to consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas.
A complete proposal submission consists of two forms: The SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance and
FTA will accept only one supplemental form per SF-424 submission. FTA encourages States and other applicants to consider submitting a single supplemental form that includes multiple activities to be evaluated as a consolidated proposal. If a State or other applicant chooses to submit separate proposals for individual consideration by FTA, each proposal must be submitted using a separate SF-424 and supplemental form.
Applicants may attach additional supporting information to the SF-424 submission, including but not limited to letters of support, project budgets, fleet status reports or excerpts from relevant planning documents. Supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed.
Information such as applicant name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF-424 and Supplemental Form. Applicants must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. Applicants should not place N/A or “refer to attachment” in lieu of typing in responses in the field sections. If information is copied into the supplemental form from another source, applicants should verify that pasted text is fully captured on the supplemental form and has not been truncated by the character limits built into the form. Applicants should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms, and ensure that the federal and local amounts specified are consistent.
The SF-424 Mandatory Form and the Supplemental Form will prompt applicants for the required information, including:
Each applicant is required to: (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by FTA. These requirements do not apply if the applicant has an exemption approved by FTA under Federal grants and agreements law (2 CFR 25.110(d)). FTA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make an award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. All applicants must provide a unique entity identifier provided by SAM. SAM registration takes approximately 3-5 business days, but FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, for completion of all steps. For additional information on obtaining a unique entity identifier, please visit
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
FTA urges applicants to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to correct any problems that may have caused either
Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive an email message from
Applicants are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the
Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse applicants for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a grant agreement until FTA has issued pre-award authority for selected projects.
Applicants are encouraged to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount. If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding
FTA will evaluate project proposals for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program based on the criteria described in this notice. Projects will be evaluated primarily on the responses provided in the supplemental form. Additional information may be provided to support the responses; however, any additional documentation must be directly referenced on the supplemental form, including the file name where the additional information can be found.
Consistent with the Department's R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative (
Applications will be evaluated based on the quality and extent to which they demonstrate how the proposed project will address an unmet need for capital investment in bus vehicles and/or supporting facilities. For example, an applicant may demonstrate an excessive reliance on vehicles that are beyond their intended service life, insufficient maintenance facilities due to size or condition, a vehicle fleet that is insufficient to meet current ridership demands or passenger facilities that are insufficient for their current use. Applicants should address whether the project represents a one-time or periodic need that cannot reasonably be funded from FTA formula program allocations and State or local resources. As a part of the response for demonstration of need, applicants should provide the following information:
Applications will be evaluated based on how well they describe how the proposed project will improve the condition of the transit system, improve the reliability of transit service for its riders, enhance access and mobility within the service area, or accelerate innovation.
Applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project will be consistent with local and regional long-range planning documents and local government priorities. This will involve assessing whether the project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the long range plan; and/or contingency/illustrative projects included in that plan; or the locally developed human services public transportation coordinated plan. Applicants are not required to submit copies of such plans, but should describe how the project will support regional goals. Additional consideration will be given to applications including support letters from local and regional planning organizations, local government officials, public agencies and/or non-profit or private sector partners attesting to the consistency of the proposed project with these plans. Applicants may also address how the proposed project will impact overall system performance, asset management performance or specific performance measures tracked and monitored by the applying entity to demonstrate how the proposed project will address local and regional planning priorities.
Evidence of additional local or regional prioritization (
Applicants must identify the source of the local cost share and describe whether such funds are currently available for the project or will need to be secured if the project is selected for funding. FTA will consider the availability of the local cost share as evidence of local financial commitment to the project. Additional consideration will be given to those projects for which local funds have already been made available or reserved. Applicants should submit evidence of the availability of funds for the project, for example by including a board resolution, letter of support from the State or other documentation of the source of local funds such as a budget document highlighting the line item or section committing funds to the proposed project. In addition, as evidence of local financial commitment, an applicant may propose a local cost share that is greater than the minimum requirement.
Projects will be evaluated based on the extent to which the project is ready to implement within a reasonable period of time and whether the applicant's proposed implementation plans are reasonable and complete.
In assessing whether the project is ready to implement within a reasonable period of time, FTA will consider whether the project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion, or whether the required environmental work has been initiated or completed for projects that require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. As such, applicants should submit information describing the project's anticipated path and timeline through the environmental review process. The proposal must also state whether grant funds can be obligated within 12 months from time of award, if selected, and indicate the timeframe under which the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and/or Statewide Transportation Improvement Program can be amended to include the proposed project. Additional consideration will be given to projects for which grant funds can be obligated within 12 months from time of award.
In assessing whether the proposed implementation plans are reasonable and complete, FTA will review the proposed project implementation plan, including all necessary project milestones and the overall project timeline. For projects that will require formal coordination, approvals or permits from other agencies or project partners, the applicant must demonstrate coordination with these organizations and their support for the project, such as through letters of support.
Applicants must demonstrate that they have the technical, legal and financial capacity to undertake the project. FTA will review relevant oversight assessments and records to determine whether there are any outstanding legal, technical or financial issues with the applicant that would affect the outcome of the proposed project. Applicants with outstanding legal, technical or financial compliance issues from an FTA compliance review or Federal Transit grant-related Single Audit finding must explain how corrective actions taken will mitigate negative impacts on the proposed project.
In addition to other FTA staff that may review the proposals, a technical evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the published evaluation criteria. After applying the above criteria, the FTA Administrator will consider the following key Departmental objectives:
(A) Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
(B) Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
(C) Accounting for the life-cycle costs of the project to promote the state of good repair;
(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.
Prior to making an award, FTA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS) accessible through SAM. An applicant, may review and comment on information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered.
The FTA Administrator will determine the final selection of projects for program funding. In determining the allocation of program funds, FTA may consider geographic diversity, diversity in the size of the transit systems receiving funding, the applicant's receipt of other competitive awards, projects located in or that support public transportation service in a qualified opportunity zone designated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1400Z-1, the percentage of local share provided, and whether the project includes an innovative technology or practice. Not less than 10 percent of the Buses and Bus Facilities Program funds will be distributed to projects in rural areas. In addition, FTA will not award more than 10 percent of the funds to a single grantee.
Final project selections will be posted on the FTA website. FTA will also publish a list of the selected projects, a summary of final ratings for selected projects, Federal award amounts and recipients in the
At the time the project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement.
Funds under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program are available to designated recipients that allocate funds to fixed route bus operators, state or local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. There is no minimum or maximum grant award amount apart from the restriction that FTA will not award more than ten percent of the funds to a single grantee; however, FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible. Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding. Due to funding limitations, proposals that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed projects are still viable stand-alone projects that can be completed with the amount awarded.
The FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection. The FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected and even then there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred. For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the FY 2019 Apportionment Notice published on July 3, 2019 which can be accessed at
If selected, awardees will apply for a grant through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). Recipients of Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program funding in urban areas are subject to the grant requirements of the Urbanized Area Formula Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5307), including those of FTA Circular “Urbanized Area Formula Program: Program Guidance and Application
The FTA requires that all capital procurements meet FTA's Buy America requirements (49 U.S.C. 5323(j)), which require that all iron, steel, or manufactured products be produced in the United States, to help create and protect manufacturing jobs in the United States. The Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program will have a significant economic impact toward meeting the objectives of the Buy America law. Federal public transportation law provides for a phased increase in the domestic content for rolling stock. For FY 2020 and beyond, the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States must be more than 70 percent of the cost of all components. There is no change to the requirement that final assembly of rolling stock must occur in the United States. FTA issued guidance on the implementation of the phased increase in domestic content on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60278). Any proposal that will require a waiver must identify in the application the items for which a waiver will be sought. Applicants should not proceed with the expectation that waivers will be granted, nor should applicants assume that selection of a project under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program that includes a partnership with a manufacturer, vendor, consultant, or other third party constitutes a waiver of the Buy America requirements applicable at the time the project is undertaken.
Consistent with Executive Order 13858
FTA requires that its recipients receiving planning, capital and/or operating assistance that will award prime contracts exceeding $250,000 in FTA funds comply with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program regulations (49 CFR part 26). The rule requires that, prior to bidding on any FTA-assisted vehicle procurement, entities that manufacture vehicles or perform post-production alterations or retrofitting must submit a DBE Program plan and annual goal methodology to FTA. Further, to the extent that a vehicle remanufacturer is responding to a solicitation for new or remanufactured vehicles with a vehicle to which the remanufacturer has provided post-production alterations or retro-fitting (
FTA will then issue a transit vehicle manufacturer (TVM) concurrence/certification letter. Grant recipients must verify each entity's compliance with these requirements before accepting its bid. A list of compliant, certified TVMs is posted on FTA's website at
FTA encourages applicants to notify the appropriate State Departments of Transportation and MPOs in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under this program. Selected projects must be incorporated into the long-range plans and transportation improvement programs of States and metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding.
By submitting a grant application, the applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives, FTA circulars and other federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. Further, the applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant, if it does not have current certifications on file.
Post-award reporting requirements include the electronic submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in FTA's electronic grants management system. Recipients of funds made available through this NOFO are also required to regularly submit data to the National Transit Database.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” FTA will consider applications for funding only from eligible recipients for eligible projects listed in Section C. Complete applications must be submitted through
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program manager, Mark Bathrick, via email at
To ensure the receipt of accurate information about eligibility or the program, applicants with questions are encouraged to contact FTA directly,
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for $30 million in competitive grants under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Passenger Ferry Grant Program (Ferry Program) (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance #20.507). As required by Federal public transportation law, funds will be awarded competitively to designated recipients or eligible direct recipients of Urbanized Area Formula funds to assist in the financing of capital projects to support existing passenger ferry service, establish new ferry service, and to repair and modernize ferry boats, terminals, and related facilities and equipment. FTA may award additional funding made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Vanessa Williams, FTA Office of Program Management, (202) 366-4818, or
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5307(h)) authorizes FTA to award grants for passenger ferries through a competitive process, as described in this notice. The Ferry Program provides funding to designated recipients and direct recipients under FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program, as well as public entities engaged in providing public transportation passenger ferry service in urban areas that are eligible to be direct recipients. Projects under the program are for capital to improve the condition and quality of existing passenger ferry services, support the establishment of new passenger ferry services, and to repair and modernize ferry boats, terminals, and related facilities and equipment. FTA recognizes that passenger ferries provide critical and cost-effective transportation links in urban areas throughout the United States, but face a critical backlog of state of good repair and safety investments.
In FY 2020, FTA is encouraging applicants to propose projects that introduce innovative technologies or practices in support of FTA's Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) initiative. FTA is focused on the introduction of new technology not commonly found within U.S. transit systems such as integrated fare payment systems permitting complete trips or advancements to propulsion systems. Innovation can also include practices such as new public transportation operational models, financial or procurement arrangements, or value capture.
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5338(h)(1)) authorizes $30 million in FY 2020 funds for grants under the Ferry Program. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 appropriated $30 million for the FY 2020 Ferry Program. FTA may award additional funding made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections. In FY 2019, the program received applications for 20 projects requesting approximately $99.3 million from 9 states. Nine projects were funded at a total of $32.8 million, using a combination of funding from FY 2019 and funding remaining from prior year appropriations.
FTA will grant pre-award authority to incur costs for selected projects beginning on the date that project selections are announced. Funds are only available for projects that have not already incurred costs and will be available for obligation five years after the fiscal year in which funding is allocated under this competition.
Eligible applicants include designated recipients and direct recipients as defined in FTA Circular “Urbanized Area Formula Program: Program Guidance and Application Instructions” (FTA.C.9030.1E), as well as public entities engaged in providing public transportation passenger ferry service in urban areas that are eligible to be direct recipients.
If an applicant does not currently have an active Urbanized Area Formula Program grant with FTA, the applicant is encouraged to contact the Ferry Program manager for assistance with determining if it is eligible to receive funds under the Ferry Program. Eligible applicants that do not currently have an active grant with FTA will, upon selection, be required to work with the FTA regional office to establish its organization as an active grantee. This process may require additional documentation to support the organization's technical, financial, and legal capacity to receive and administer Federal funds under this program.
Eligible sources of local match include:
Cash from non-governmental sources other than revenues from providing public transportation Public Transportation services;
i. Non-farebox revenues from the operation of public transportation Public Transportation service, such as the sale of advertising and concession revenues;
ii. Monies received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization;
iii. Undistributed cash surpluses, replacement or depreciation cash funds, reserves available in cash, or new capital;
iv. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to a department or agency of the Government (other than the U.S. Department of Transportation), that are eligible to be expended for public transportation;
v. In-kind contributions integral to the project;
vi. Revenue bond proceeds for a capital project, with prior FTA approval; and
vii. Transportation Development Credits (TDC) (formerly referred to as Toll Revenue Credits).
If an applicant proposes a Federal share greater than 80 percent, the applicant must clearly explain why the project is eligible for the proposed Federal share.
Please refer to FTA Circular 9030 for more information regarding the use of TDCs. FTA will not retroactively approve TDCs as match if they are not included in the proposal submitted under this competition.
Eligible projects are capital projects for the purchase, replacement, or rehabilitation of ferries, terminals, related infrastructure, related equipment (including fare equipment and communication devices) and expansion. Projects are required to support a passenger ferry service that operates within an urbanized area, as defined under Federal public transportation law, but may include services that operate between an urbanized area and non-urbanized areas. Ferry systems that accommodate cars must also accommodate walk-on passengers in order to be eligible for funding.
Recipients are permitted to use up to 0.5 percent of their requested grant award for workforce development activities eligible under Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5314(b)) and an additional 0.5 percent for costs associated with training at the National Transit Institute. Applicants must identify the proposed use of funds for these activities in the project proposal and identify them separately in the project budget.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
A strong transportation network is critical to the functioning and growth of the American economy. The nation's industry depends on the transportation network to move the goods that it produces, and facilitate the movements of the workers who are responsible for that production. When the nation's highways, railways, and ports function well, that infrastructure connects people to jobs, increases the efficiency of delivering goods and thereby cuts the costs of doing business, reduces the burden of commuting, and improves overall well-being.
Rural transportation networks play a vital role in supporting our national economic vitality. Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with the R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative, the Department encourages applicants to consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas.
FTA will only accept one supplemental form per SF-424 submission. FTA encourages States and other applicants to consider submitting a single supplemental form that includes multiple activities to be evaluated as a consolidated proposal. If a State or other applicant chooses to submit separate proposals for individual consideration by FTA, each proposal must be submitted using a separate SF-424 and supplemental form.
Applicants may attach additional supporting information to the SF-424 submission, including but not limited to letters of support, project budgets, fleet status reports, or excerpts from relevant planning documents. Supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed.
Information such as applicant name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF-424 and Supplemental Form. Applicants must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. Applicants should not place N/A or “refer to attachment” in lieu of typing in responses in the field sections. If information is copied into the supplemental form from another source, applicants should verify that pasted text is fully captured on the supplemental form and has not been truncated by the character limits built into the form. Applicants should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms, and ensure that the Federal and local amounts specified are consistent.
The SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance and the supplemental form will prompt applicants for the required information, including:
Each applicant is required to: (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by FTA. These requirements do not apply if the applicant has an exemption approved by FTA under Federal grants and agreements law (2 CFR 25.110(d)). FTA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make an award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. SAM registration takes approximately 3-5 business days, but FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, for completion of all steps. For additional information on obtaining a unique entity identifier, please visit
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
FTA urges applicants to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to correct any problems that may have caused either
Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive an email message from
Applicants are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the
Funds made available under the Ferry Program may not be used to fund operating expenses, planning, or preventive maintenance. Any project that does not include the purchase, replacement, or rehabilitation of ferries, terminals, related infrastructure, or related equipment is not eligible. Funds made available under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse applicants for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a grant agreement until FTA has issued pre-award authority for selected projects.
Applicants are encouraged to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount. If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding amount that will fund an eligible project that achieves the objectives of the program and meets all relevant program requirements. The applicant must provide a clear explanation of how the project budget would be affected by a reduced award. FTA may award a lesser amount whether or not a scalable option is provided.
Projects will be evaluated primarily on the responses provided in the supplemental form. Additional information may be provided to support the responses; however, any additional documentation must be directly referenced on the supplemental form, including the file name where the additional information can be found. FTA will evaluate project proposals for competitive passenger ferry grants based on the criteria described in this notice.
Consistent with the Department's R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative (
Applications will be evaluated based on the quality and extent to which they demonstrate how the proposed project will address an unmet need for capital investment in passenger ferry vehicles, equipment, and/or facilities. FTA will also evaluate the project's impact on service delivery and whether the project represents a one-time or periodic need that cannot reasonably be funded from FTA formula program allocations or State and/or local resources. In evaluating applications, FTA will consider, among other factors, certain project-specific criteria as outlined below:
i. For vessel replacement or rehabilitation projects:
• The age of the asset to be replaced or rehabilitated by the proposed project, relative to its useful life.
• Condition and performance of the asset to be replaced by the proposed project, as ascertained through inspections or otherwise, if available.
ii. For facility infrastructure improvements or related-equipment acquisitions:
• The age of the facility or equipment to be rehabilitated or replaced relative to its useful life.
• The degree to which the proposed project will enable the agency to improve the maintenance and condition of the agency's fleet and/or other related ferry assets.
iii. For vessel or facility-related expansion or new service requests:
• The degree to which the proposed project addresses a current capacity constraint that is limiting the ability of the agency to provide reliable service, meet ridership demands, or maintain vessels and related equipment.
• The degree the proposed new service is supported by ridership demand.
Applications will be evaluated based on how the ferry project will improve the safety and state of good repair of the system, provide additional transportation options to potential riders within the service area, or accelerating innovation. FTA will consider potential benefits such as increased reliability of service, improved operations or maintenance capabilities, or expanded mobility options, intermodal connections, and economic benefits to the community.
Applicants should address how the ferry service to be supported by the proposed project is integrated with other regional modes of transportation, including but not limited to: Rail, bus, intercity bus, and private transportation providers. Supporting documentation should include data that demonstrates the number of trips (passengers and vehicles), the number of walk-on passengers, and the frequency of transfers to other modes if applicable.
FTA will evaluate the potential for the project to accelerate the introduction of innovative technologies or practices such as integrated fare payment systems permitting complete trips or advancements to propulsion systems. Innovation can also include practices such as new public transportation operational models, financial or procurement arrangements, or value capture.
Applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project is consistent with local and regional planning documents and identified priorities. This will involve assessing whether the project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the long-range transportation plan and/or the State and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (STIP/TIP). Applicants should note if the project could not be included in the financially constrained STIP or TIP due to lack of funding, and if selected that the project can be added to the federally approved STIP before grant award.
FTA encourages applicants to demonstrate local support by including letters of support from State Departments of Transportation, local transit agencies, local government officials and public agencies, local non-profit or private sector organizations, and other relevant stakeholders. In an area with both ferry and other public transit operators, FTA will evaluate whether project proposals demonstrate coordination with and support of other related projects within the applicant's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or the geographic region within which the proposed project will operate.
Applicants must identify the source of the local cost share and describe whether such funds are currently available for the project or will need to be secured if the project is selected for funding. FTA will consider the availability of the local cost share as evidence of local financial commitment to the project. Additional consideration will be given to those projects for which local funds have already been made available or reserved. Applicants should submit evidence of the availability of funds for the project, for example by including a board resolution, letter of support from the State, or other documentation of the source of local funds such as a budget document highlighting the line item or section committing funds to the proposed project.
An applicant may propose a local cost share that is greater than the minimum requirement or provide documentation of previous local investments in the project, which cannot be used to satisfy local matching requirements, as evidence of local financial commitment. Additional consideration will be given to those projects that propose a larger local cost share.
Applicants that request a Federal share greater than 80 percent must clearly explain why the project is eligible for the propose Federal share.
Projects will be evaluated based on the extent to which the project is ready to implement within a reasonable period of time and whether the applicant's proposed implementation plans are reasonable and complete.
In assessing whether the project is ready to implement within a reasonable period of time, FTA will consider whether the project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion, or whether the required environmental work has been initiated or completed for projects that require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. As such, applicants should submit information describing the project's anticipated path and timeline through the environmental review process. The proposal must also state whether grant funds can be obligated within 12 months from time of award, if selected, and indicate the timeframe under which the Metropolitan TIP and/or STIP can be amended to include the proposed project. Additional consideration will be given to projects for which grant funds can be obligated within 12 months from time of award.
In assessing whether the proposed implementation plans are reasonable and complete, FTA will review the proposed project implementation plan, including all necessary project milestones and the overall project timeline. For projects that will require formal coordination, approvals, or permits from other agencies or project partners, the applicant must demonstrate coordination with these organizations and their support for the project, such as through letters of support.
Applicants must demonstrate that they have the technical, legal, and financial capacity to undertake the project. FTA will review relevant oversight assessments and records to determine whether there are any outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the applicant that would affect the outcome of the proposed project. Applicants with outstanding legal, technical, or financial compliance issues from a FTA compliance review or FTA grant-related Single Audit finding must explain how corrective actions taken will mitigate negative impacts on the project.
In addition to other FTA staff that may review the proposals, a technical evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the published evaluation criteria. Members of the technical evaluation committee and other FTA staff may request additional information from applicants, if necessary. Based on the findings of the technical evaluation committee, the FTA Administrator will determine the final selection of projects for program funding. In determining the allocation of program funds, FTA may consider geographic diversity, diversity in the size of the transit systems receiving funding, projects located or that support public transportation service in a qualified opportunity zone designated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1400Z-1, the applicant's receipt of other competitive awards, the percentage of the local share provided, and whether the project includes an innovative technology or practice. FTA may consider capping the amount a single applicant may receive and prioritizing projects that serve small urban or both urban and rural areas. Projects that have a higher local financial commitment may also be prioritized.
After applying the above preferences, the FTA Administrator will consider the following key Departmental objectives:
• Using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery;
• Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
• Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
• Accounting for the life-cycle costs of the project to promote the state of good repair; and
• Holding grant recipients accountable for their performance and achieving specific, measurable outcomes identified by grant applicants.
Prior to making an award, FTA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems accessible through SAM. An applicant may review and comment on information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. FTA may 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 the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200.205).
Final project selections will be posted on the FTA website. Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding.
There is no minimum or maximum grant award amount; however, FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible. Due to funding limitations, projects that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded.
Recipients should contact their FTA Regional Offices for additional information regarding allocations for projects under the Ferry Program.
At the time the project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement. FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected and even then, there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred. For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the FY 2019 Apportionment Notice published on July 3, 2019.
If selected, awardees will apply for a grant through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). All Ferry Program recipients are subject to the grant requirements of the Urbanized Area Formula Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5307), including those of FTA Circular “Urbanized Area Formula Program: Program Guidance and Application Instructions” (FTA.C.9030.1E). All recipients must also follow the Award Management Requirements (FTA.C.5010.1) and the labor protections required by Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5333(b)). Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
FTA requires that all capital procurements meet FTA's Buy America requirements (49 U.S.C. 5323(j)) which require all iron, steel, or manufactured products be produced in the United States. Federal public transportation law provides for a phased increase in the domestic content for rolling stock between FY 2016 and FY 2020. For FY 2020 and beyond, the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States must be more than 70 percent of the cost of all components. There is no change to the requirement that final assembly of rolling stock must occur in the United States. FTA issued guidance on the implementation of the phased increase in domestic content on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60278). Applicants should read the policy guidance carefully to determine the applicable domestic content requirement for their projects. Any proposal that will require a waiver must identify the items for which a waiver will be sought in the application. Applicants should not proceed with the expectation that waivers will be granted.
Consistent with Executive Order 13858
Projects that include ferry acquisitions are subject to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program regulations (49 CFR part 26) and ferry manufacturers must be certified Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (TVMs) to be eligible to bid on an FTA-assisted ferry procurement. The rule requires that, prior to bidding on any FTA-assisted vehicle procurement, entities that manufacture ferries must submit a DBE Program plan and annual goal methodology to FTA. The FTA will then issue a TVM concurrence/certification letter. Grant recipients must verify each entity's compliance before accepting its bid. A list of certified TVMs is posted on FTA's web page at
FTA encourages applicants to notify the appropriate State Departments of Transportation and MPOs in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under these initiatives and programs. Selected projects must be incorporated into the long-range plans and transportation improvement programs of States and metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding. As described under the evaluation criteria, FTA may consider whether a project is consistent with or already included in these plans when evaluating a project.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.
Post-award reporting requirements include the electronic submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports. Recipients of funds made available through this NOFO are also required to regularly submit data to the National Transit Database.
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the Ferry Program manager, Vanessa Williams, by phone at 202-366-4818, or by email at
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” FTA will consider applications for funding only from eligible recipients for eligible projects listed in Section C. Complete applications must be submitted through
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of public forum.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to announce a public meeting for the Pipeline Research and Development (R&D) Forum. PHMSA periodically holds this forum to generate a national research agenda that identifies technical challenges and fosters solutions to improve pipeline safety and protect the environment.
The forum will be held on February 19-20, 2020, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. On-site registration will begin at 7:00 a.m. on both days. Online pre-registration for the forum is available until February 5, 2020. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should notify Robert Smith, Engineering and Research Division, at 919-238-4759 or
The forum will be held at the Westin Arlington Gateway, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22203, USA, Phone: 703-717-6200, website:
The forum will not be webcast; however, presentations will be available on the forum website and in the public docket at
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2019-0223.” The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. Mail.
Robert Smith, Office of Pipeline Safety, Engineering and Research Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, at 919-238-4759 or
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public regarding certain general notices. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Robert Smith at DOT, PHMSA, PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.
The Pipeline R&D Forum allows the public, government, and industry pipeline stakeholders to develop recommendations on the technical gaps and challenges for future pipeline safety research. It also reduces duplication of research programs, shares ongoing research efforts, leverages resources, and broadens synergies. The national research agenda that will be developed through this forum will help PHMSA align its research program with the needs of its pipeline safety mission and make use of the best available knowledge and expertise, as well as consider stakeholder perspectives. The Pipeline R&D Forum will also provide an opportunity to discuss the potential need for establishing an integrated safety research, development, and testing facility at the Transportation Technology Center located in Pueblo, Colorado. This would create a world-class national pipeline safety research facility used to accelerate innovation and bring new safety technologies to market more quickly than is currently possible.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
The TIC B forms comprise the following six forms:
(1) Form BC (monthly), “Report of U.S. Dollar Claims of Financial Institutions on Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, securities
(2) Form BL-1 (monthly), “Report of U.S. Dollar Liabilities of Financial Institutions to Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, securities brokers and dealers, and all other financial institutions in the United States to report their own portfolio liabilities (exclusive of long-term securities) to foreign residents.
(3) Form BL-2 (monthly), “Report of Customers' U.S. Dollar Liabilities to Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, securities brokers and dealers, and all other financial institutions in the United States to report the U.S. dollar liabilities (exclusive of long-term securities) of their domestic customers.
(4) Form BQ-1 (quarterly), “Report of Customers' U.S. Dollar Claims on Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, securities brokers and dealers, and all other financial institutions in the United States to report their own and their domestic customers' portfolio claims (exclusive of long-term securities) on foreign residents.
(5) BQ-2 (quarterly), “Part 1—Report of Foreign Currency Liabilities and Claims of Financial Institutions and of their Domestic Customers' Foreign Currency Claims with Foreign Residents; Part 2—Report of Customers' Foreign Currency Liabilities to Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, securities brokers and dealers, and all other financial institutions in the United States to report their own liabilities and claims (exclusive of long-term securities), and liabilities and claims (exclusive of long-term securities) of their domestic customers, denominated in foreign currencies.
(6) Form BQ-3 (quarterly), “Report of Maturities of Selected Liabilities and Claims of Financial Institutions with Foreign Residents”, is filed by banks, other depository institutions, bank holding companies, financial holding companies, brokers and dealers, and all other financial institutions in the United States to report the maturities of selected liabilities and claims with foreign residents denominated in U.S. dollars or in foreign currencies.
These forms have previously been cleared individually under OMB Control Numbers 1505-0017, 1505-0018, 1505-0019, 1505-0020 and 1505-0189. With this submission, all TIC B forms will now be consolidated under OMB Control Number 1505-0016.
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before March 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing