Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-04-04 for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 412 and 412EP helicopters. AD 2015-04-04 required revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter and installing a placard to limit flights to visual flight rules (VFR) and prohibit night operations because of failing inverters. This AD requires replacing the affected inverter with a new inverter. This AD was prompted by numerous failures of inverters. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 17, 2020.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone 817-280-3391; fax 817-280-6466; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tim Beauregard, Aviation Safety Engineer, DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5190; email
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-04-04, Amendment 39-18106 (80 FR 9594, February 24, 2015) (“AD 2015-04-04”). AD 2015-04-04 applied to Bell Model 412 and 412EP helicopters with a static inverter part number (P/N) 412-375-079-101 or 412-375-079-103 with a serial number 29145 or higher installed. The NPRM published in the
After the NPRM was published, The FAA received comments from two commenters, Bell and Leonardo Helicopters. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM, and the FAA's response to each comment.
The FAA has reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
The FAA reviewed Bell ASB 412-15-164, which specifies an AMOC approved by the FAA for AD 2015-04-04. Instead of the flight limitations mandated by AD 2015-04-04, ASB 412-15-164 limits allow operation under IFR and night operations with two pilots.
The FAA reviewed Bell ASB 412-16-171, which specifies replacing certain serial-numbered inverters P/N 412-375-079-101 and 412-375-079-103 with inverter P/N 412-375-079-105 as a direct replacement or with a retrofit kit. Bell specifies that completing the actions specified by the ASB constitute terminating action for Bell ASB 412-15-164.
The FAA also reviewed Bell Service Instruction for Inverter Retrofit Kit BHT-412-SI-93, dated February 15, 2016, which provides instructions for installing retrofit kit P/N 412-704-058-103.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 73 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Installing an inverter or retrofit kit requires about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $15,749, for an estimated cost of $16,004 per helicopter and $1,168,292 for the U.S. fleet.
Bell ASB 412-16-171 requires compliance no later than January 1, 2017, while this AD requires compliance within 25 hours TIS. Bell ASB 412-16-171 makes an ELA a determining factor for corrective actions. This proposed AD makes no such requirement. Bell ASB 412-16-171 provides instructions for helicopters with serial numbers 36649, 36658, 36659, 36673, 36681 through 36684, 36686, 36688, 36690, 36692, 36694, and 36696 through 36704, and this AD does not. Bell has notified the FAA of errors in the S/Ns listed for Part B of ASB 412-16-171. Accordingly, this AD is only applicable to those serial-numbered helicopters subject to the unsafe condition.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this 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.
The FAA prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 17, 2020.
This AD applies to Model 412 and 412EP helicopters with serial number (S/N) 33001 through 33213, 34001 through 34036, 36001 through 36648, 36650 through 36657, 36660 through 36672, 36674 through 36680, 36685, 36687, 36689, 36691, 36693, 36695, and 37002 through 37012, certificated in any category, with a static inverter (inverter) part number (P/N) 412-375-079-101 or 412-375-079-103 with S/N 29145 or higher, installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as the failure of an inverter under instrument meteorological conditions or night flight. This condition could result in smoke in the cockpit, increased pilot workload due to the loss of primary flight and navigation displays, alternating current powered engine and transmission indicators, and autopilot, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD replaces AD 2015-04-04, Amendment 39-18106 (80 FR 9594, February 24, 2015).
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service:
(i) For helicopters with S/N 33001 through 33213, 34001 through 34036, and 36001 through 36086, replace the inverter with inverter P/N 412-375-079-105.
(ii) For helicopters with a S/N 36087 through 36648, 36650 through 36657, 36660 through 36672, 36674 through 36680, 36685, 36687, 36689, 36691, 36693, 36695, and 37002 through 37012, install retrofit kit P/N 412-704-058-103 and replace the inverter with inverter P/N 412-375-079-105.
(2) After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, you may remove the placard and Rotorcraft Flight Manual limitations, required by AD 2015-04-04, prohibiting night operations and restricting flights to visual flight rules.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an inverter P/N 412-375-079-101 or 412-375-079-103 on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Tim Beauregard, Aviation Safety Engineer, DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5190; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
For more information about this AD, contact Tim Beauregard, Aviation Safety Engineer, DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5190; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and certain Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the fuel system reviews on these models conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires modifying the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. This AD also provides alternative actions for cargo airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 17, 2020.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and certain Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA is issuing this AD to address ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) supported the intent of the NPRM. Additional comments from NATCA are addressed below.
Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) noted differences between EASA's risk assessment policy and that of the FAA. Based on its own criteria, EASA concluded that there is no unsafe condition, and that in the absence of a TARAM (transport airplane risk assessment methodology) analysis, EASA concluded the NPRM was based on noncompliance with Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88—Fuel Tank System Fault Tolerance Evaluation Requirements, to 14 CFR part 21 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001), and, more specifically, with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) as amended by amendment 25-102 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001), rather than a direct unsafe condition. The commenters asserted that Airbus has shown that the failure condition described in the NPRM is extremely improbable and not unsafe according to EASA policy. The commenters therefore considered the proposed corrective actions unnecessary.
The FAA infers that the commenters would like the NPRM withdrawn. The FAA disagrees with this proposal. The FAA does not agree that the NPRM was based simply on a noncompliance with 14 CFR 25.981(a) identified from the manufacturer's fuel system reviews. This final rule addresses an unsafe condition identified by the FAA. The FAA determined that an unsafe condition exists using the criteria in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria,” dated February 25, 2003.
Airlines for America and the Cargo Airline Association, in consolidated comments (A4A/CAA), United Parcel Service (UPS), and FedEx stated that the assumption of a single failure regardless of probability is inconsistent with 14 CFR part 25 regulatory requirements. The commenters referred to the phrase “regardless of probability” associated with single failures. A4A/CAA and UPS acknowledged that the term is used with single failures in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.981-1C,
The FAA infers that the commenters would like the NPRM withdrawn. The FAA disagrees with this proposal, and disagrees with the commenters' assertions regarding the intent of 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3). The intent of the single failure clause in 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is to set a general fail-safe minimum safety standard for the prevention of fuel tank ignition sources. The intent of the latent failure plus single failure clause in 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is to explicitly set a requirement for a fail-safe configuration (with respect to ignition sources) to be provided on flights that occur with any latent condition that cannot be shown to be extremely remote. Such flights are reasonably anticipated to occur multiple times in a fleet of aircraft of a given type, and those flights are required to be fail safe. These requirements were included in 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) in recognition of the fact that simply providing a system that meets the extremely improbable average risk requirement of 14 CFR 25.1309(b) is not sufficient to prevent all catastrophic accidents. Systems that provide dual redundancy rather than triple redundancy, and that have one or both features susceptible to latent failure conditions, may pass the average risk test of 14 CFR 25.1309(b). However, such systems would not be fail safe on flights with latent failures, and may have an average probability of catastrophic failure—on those non-fail-safe flights—that is 100 or even 1,000 times worse than the overall risk on an average transport airplane flight. This would not meet the expectation of the public or Congress for the level of safety on each transport airplane flight. 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) sets standards that are intended to prevent such high-risk flights and non-fail-safe flights.
The intent of 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is clear from the plain language of the rule. In every system safety analysis requirement in a 14 CFR part 25 regulation where the FAA intends a probabilistic condition or modifier to be associated with a requirement, that condition or modifier is explicitly stated in the wording of the rule in qualitative terms that are further defined in guidance material. Absence of such wording is clear evidence of the absence of an intended probabilistic condition or modifier. In other words, in the absence of a specific probabilistic qualifier, the intent of prescriptive prohibition is that it applies “regardless of probability.”
The intent of 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) with respect to the “regardless of probability” intent questioned by the commenters was also stated clearly in the preamble of the NPRM for 14 CFR 25.981, amendment 25-102. That preamble to the NPRM stated, in pertinent part, as follows.
This proposal would also add a new paragraph (a)(3) to require that a safety analysis be performed to demonstrate that the presence of an ignition source in the fuel tank system could not result from any single failure, from any single failure in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be extremely remote, or from any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable. These new requirements define three scenarios that must be addressed in order to show compliance with the proposed paragraph (a)(3). The first scenario is that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence of the failure, must not cause an ignition source. The second scenario is that any single failure, regardless of the probability occurrence, in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be at least extremely remote (
The FAA does not agree with FedEx's related comment that the assumption of a preexisting failure on the worst anticipated flight “exaggerates the probability of a catastrophic event.” In fact, FedEx's apparently preferred method to characterize the probability of a catastrophic event as equal to the average probability of the event on all flights fails to assess the degree to which risk is concentrated on flights with latent failures, and simply does not assess the actual risk on such flights. The FAA has previously determined, in the promulgation of amendment 25-102, in development of the AD decision policy for issues identified through SFAR 88 reviews, and in the general assessment of potential unsafe conditions on transport airplanes under the TARAM policy, that assessment of risk on the worst anticipated flights is fundamental to providing a minimum acceptable level of safety on each reasonably anticipated flight as expected by Congress and the public.
No change to the AD was made in response to these comments.
A4A/CAA, UPS, and Airbus requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on their assertion that the current design of the center wing fuel tank is safe. According to the commenters, Airbus has shown that the center wing fuel tank does not meet the policy criteria set forth for a high-flammability exposure time fuel tank in SFAR 88.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' request. Airbus originally submitted its flammability exposure time analysis in accordance with FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, as requested by the FAA and not in response to SFAR 88 since the submission was not a requirement of SFAR 88. As a result of the original Airbus analysis, the center wing fuel tanks on Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes were categorized as having high fleet average flammability exposure time. In the resubmitted analysis, however, Airbus did not follow FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, when it incorrectly adjusted the standardized FAA Monte Carlo analysis to account for cargo-only operations in the U.S. This resulted in a significant deviation from the FAA Monte Carlo analysis used to consistently evaluate fleet average flammability exposure time for numerous airplane models across multiple manufacturers. Deviating from the standardized modeling technique, as Airbus has done, nullifies the basis for comparison of the Airbus analysis results to the 7-percent criterion established for determining whether a fuel tank has high- or low-flammability exposure time per the FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15. As with any standardized testing or analysis methods, deviating from the standardized model and input affects the validity and applicability of the standardized pass/fail criteria. The 7-percent criterion is valid only when the standardized FAA Monte Carlo method is used without deviation; for this reason, the FAA does not accept an analysis developed with variables to account for specific fleet or subfleet operations. The FAA, based on its application of Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, has therefore determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A/CAA and UPS requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on a lack of new data since the issuance of the FTFR rule (73 FR 42444, July 21, 2008). The commenters referred to the FTFR rule and decision to not require flammability reduction means (FRM) for all-cargo airplanes, and the FAA's intent to gather additional data and consideration of further rulemaking if flammability of these airplanes is excessive. The commenters also referred to the FAA's response to comments in the preamble to the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, which documented the FAA's decision on applicability of FRM and cost estimates. The commenters stated that the FAA response was misleading and not factual since manufacturers did not begin detailed designs to address the proposed unsafe condition until after the FTFR rule was published. The commenters added that the FAA did not discuss other changes to the FQIS system in the FTFR rule.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' request. In the preamble to the FTFR rule, the FAA indicated the possibility of later changing its position and proposing inerting for cargo airplanes if later data shows the flammability on cargo airplanes is excessive. The determination that including cargo airplanes in the FTFR rule's requirement to retrofit airplanes with FRM would not be cost effective was based in part on the assumption that corrective actions would be required for the FQIS unsafe condition identified under FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15. Since that determination, manufacturers have updated their cost estimates based on subsequent detailed design work. The FAA responded to similar comments in the preamble to the final rule for AD 2016-07-07. The FAA has therefore determined that it is necessary to proceed with this final rule.
A4A/CAA, FedEx, and UPS requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on a lack of consistent design standards for FQIS wire separation. The commenters assumed that the approved standard for the retrofit is a 2-inch wire separation minimum, which the commenters considered arbitrary and inconsistently applied. The commenters reported that the amount of wiring capable of meeting that separation standard varies widely among airplane models. A4A/CAA and UPS also acknowledged that other separation methods were used in areas not meeting the 2-inch wire separation requirement.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' request to withdraw the NPRM. Because of configuration differences between different airplane designs, as the commenter also notes, the FAA has not defined a universal minimum standard for wiring design, including wire separation, as explained in paragraph 8.3.3 of AC 25.981-1D:
Wiring designs used on transport category airplanes vary significantly between manufacturers and models; therefore, it is not possible to define a specific, universal, separation distance, or the characteristics of physical barriers between wire bundles, to protect critical wiring from damage.
AC 25.981-1D also notes the following:
Some areas of an airplane may have localized areas where maintaining a general physical separation distance is not feasible. This is especially true in smaller transport category airplanes or in areas where wiring spans the wing-to-body join of larger transport airplanes. In those areas that limit separation distance, additional means of ensuring physical separation and protection of the wiring may be necessary. Testing and/or analysis used to show that the reduced separation distance is acceptable should be conservative and consider the worst possible failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable. The applicant should
In addition, the FAA provided a detailed response to similar comments in the preamble to the final rule for AD 2016-07-07. The FAA has therefore determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A/CAA and UPS requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on the commenters' assertion that the NPRM is arbitrary and inconsistently applied. The commenters noted that airplanes with FRM are not included in the applicability, and the NPRM would therefore not fully address the unsafe condition. The commenters added that the distinction between high- and low-flammability exposure time fuel tanks as used in the NPRM is arbitrary. The commenters stated that an arbitrary differentiation of high/low flammability as decisional criteria for the need for corrective action does not take into account the actual probability of the impact of the difference in flammability on the potential of catastrophic failure. The commenters also stated that allowing the proposed alternative actions for cargo airplanes does not fully address the unsafe condition in the NPRM. The commenters referenced the FAA's response to comments in AD 2016-07-07 regarding this issue.
The FAA disagrees with the assertion that the NPRM is arbitrary and inconsistent. The NPRM follows defined policy in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, and consistently applies the policy to several airplane models with similar unsafe conditions, similar to AD 2016-07-07. The FAA defined the difference between low- and high-flammability exposure time fuel tanks based on recommendations from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Fuel Tank Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG). The preamble to the final rule for amendment 25-102, which amended 14 CFR 25.981, defines this difference:
The level of flammability defined in the proposal was established based upon comparison of the safety record of center wing fuel tanks that, in certain airplanes, are heated by equipment located under the tank, and unheated fuel tanks located in the wing. The FTHWG concluded that the safety record of fuel tanks located in the wings was adequate and that if the same level could be achieved in center wing fuel tanks, the overall safety objective would be achieved.
In the response to comments in the preamble to the final rule for AD 2016-07-07 referenced by the commenters, the FAA described why FRM or alternative actions for cargo airplanes provide an acceptable level of safety, even if they do not completely eliminate the non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).
The FAA has determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
Based on an assertion that the FAA did not sufficiently explain how the unsafe condition justifies AD rulemaking, UPS requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. UPS stated that the FTFR rule did not suggest that any future modifications of FQIS systems had been considered. UPS contended that all-cargo operators were surprised and prejudiced by costly proposed FQIS modifications that are unsupported by both an updated risk assessment and full cost/benefit analysis that consider the pertinent facts. UPS alleged that the FAA did not fully explain or justify its decision making for the NPRM, and concluded that the NPRM is arbitrary and does not reflect properly reasoned agency action.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The justification for this AD was extensively described in the NPRM, in response to comments described elsewhere in this final rule, and in the AD rulemaking actions related to AD 2016-07-07, as explained in the response to “Request to Withdraw NPRM: Probability Analysis Inconsistent with Regulatory Requirements” in this final rule. The FAA has therefore determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
FedEx requested that a safety risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis be done to justify the required modification. FedEx asserted that the NPRM did not provide the reduction in probability of a fuel tank explosion if the modification is done, but FedEx noted that evidence should exist to support the modification since there can be multiple modifications required, and a cost-benefit analysis should be done showing that the modification provides an acceptable level of safety.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. This final rule addresses an unsafe condition as described in 14 CFR part 39. The FAA previously provided cost estimates in the NPRM and described why corrective actions are necessary to address the unsafe condition. In addition, the FAA's detailed response to similar comments and the description of the FAA's risk assessment in the preamble of the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, and in the preamble to the final rule for the subsequently issued AD 2016-07-07, adequately address these issues. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
Airbus requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to state that the unsafe condition is based on reviews by the FAA, not the manufacturer. Based on the fuel tank safety reviews and its analysis of real-world data specific to cargo aircraft operated in the U.S., Airbus concluded that the “latent plus one condition” associated with a high-flammability exposure time fuel tank does not exist.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request. As previously discussed, the FAA considers the center wing fuel tanks of Model A300-600 and Model A310 airplanes as high-flammability exposure time fuel tanks; therefore, the criteria for an unsafe condition are met as described in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15. However, the FAA agrees to clarify that the unsafe condition was determined by the FAA's analysis of the manufacturer's fuel system reviews and has revised this final rule accordingly.
Airbus requested that the FAA remove Model A310-200 airplanes from the applicability of the proposed AD. Airbus stated that no Model A310-200 airplanes have been operational under 14 CFR part 135 since April 2016, and Airbus has no plans to develop modifications to the aircraft wiring for those airplanes.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request to remove Model A310-200 airplanes from the applicability of the AD. Since the NPRM was issued, all Model A310-200 airplanes have been removed from service. The FAA has revised this AD accordingly.
Airbus reported that it is developing inspection service bulletins for Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes as a method of compliance with paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD. Airbus also reported that it is developing a modification service bulletin for Model A300-600 series airplanes as a method
The FAA infers that Airbus would like the FAA to include this service information in this AD. Because these service bulletins are not yet approved or available, the FAA cannot identify them as the source of service information for the referenced requirements in this AD. However, if Airbus releases service information that adequately addresses the unsafe condition regarding the inspection and/or modification requirements, the FAA may consider the service information as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
A4A/CAA, FedEx, and Airbus requested that the FAA extend the compliance time from 60 months to 72 months for the modification specified in the proposed AD. Airbus and FedEx stated that the compliance time should match that of AD 2016-07-07 because the unsafe condition and corrective actions are similar. Airbus stated that the additional time is appropriate due to the modification's anticipated complexity, development time and cost, cost of kits, and airplane downtime. In addition, Airbus and FedEx both expressed concerns about the feasibility of the modification due to the potential effects of existing FQIS modifications through supplemental type certificates. A4A/CAA stated that although service information was not yet available, the compliance time should align with major maintenance schedules, but should be not less than 72 months after service information is available.
Conversely, NATCA recommended that the FAA reject requests for a compliance time longer than 5 years as proposed in the NPRM. Assuming final rule issuance in 2016, NATCA stated that a 5-year compliance time would result in required compliance by 2021—25 years after the TWA Flight 800 fuel tank explosion that led to the requirements in SFAR 88, and 20 years after issuance of SFAR 88.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance time, and disagrees with NATCA's request. The FAA received similar requests to extend the compliance time from several commenters regarding the NPRMs for the FQIS modification on other airplanes. The FAA disagrees with establishing a compliance time based on issuance of the service information that is not yet approved or available. The FAA has determined that a 72-month compliance time is appropriate and will provide operators adequate time to prepare for and perform the required modifications without excessive disruption of operations. The FAA has determined that the requested moderate increase in compliance time will continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has changed paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD accordingly.
NATCA recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to clearly state that the required FQIS design changes must comply with the fail-safe requirements of 14 CFR 25.901(c), amendment 25-46 (43 FR 50597, October 30, 1978), and 14 CFR 25.981(a) and (b), amendment 25-102; NATCA added that these provisions are required by SFAR 88.
The FAA infers that NATCA is proposing that the certification basis of the design changes to the FQIS system design be at the amendment levels cited above. The FAA further infers that NATCA proposes that the FAA require the entire FQIS system design to comply at those amendment levels rather than allowing only a portion of the system to comply with those amendments. The FAA partially agrees with NATCA's request. The FAA agrees that the design change must comply with the applicable certification basis, because design changes are required to comply with the applicable certification basis under part 21. The FAA disagrees, however, with identifying the specific certification basis in this AD, because it varies by design. In addition, the FAA previously identified in the preamble of the SNPRM for AD 2016-07-07 in the response to comments under “Requests To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012) Based on Applicability” that the option for cargo airplanes will require a partial exemption from 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3). The partial exemption is needed because portions of the FQIS would remain unmodified, and the overall system would therefore still not fully comply with those regulations. The FAA has already granted such exemptions for other airplane models. Identifying these amendments as required would also not take into account exceptions (reversions to earlier versions of regulations) granted in the certification basis under 14 CFR 21.101. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
NATCA recommended that the FAA require design changes that eliminate unsafe FQIS failure conditions on all fuel tanks on the affected models, regardless of fuel tank location or the percentage of time the fuel tank is flammable. NATCA referred to four fuel tank explosions in low-flammability exposure time fuel tanks identified by the FAA during FTFR rulemaking. NATCA stated that neither FRM nor alternative actions for cargo airplanes (
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has determined that according to Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, the failure condition for the airplanes affected by this AD should not be classified as a “known combination.” While the FQIS design architecture is similar to that of the early Boeing Model 747 configuration that is suspected of contributing to the TWA Flight 800 fuel tank explosion, significant differences exist in the design of FQIS components and wire installations between the affected Airbus SAS models and the early Model 747 airplanes such that the intent of the “known combinations” provision for low-flammability fuel tanks in the policy memorandum is not applicable. Therefore, this AD affects only the identified Airbus airplanes with high-flammability exposure time fuel tanks, as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA provided a detailed response to similar comments in the preamble of the final rule for AD 2016-07-07. The FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
NATCA recommended that the FAA require designs that comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3) on all newly produced transport airplanes. NATCA stated that continuing to grant exemptions to 14 CFR 25.901(c), as amended by amendment 25-40 (42 FR 15042, March 17, 1977), and 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3), as amended by amendment 25-102, has allowed continued production of thousands of airplanes with this known unsafe condition.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The recommendation to require production airplanes to fully comply with 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3) is outside the scope of
NATCA recommended that the FAA follow the agency's compliance and enforcement policy to require manufacturers to develop the necessary design changes soon enough to support operators' ability to comply with the proposed requirements. NATCA noted that SFAR 88 required manufacturers to develop all design changes for unsafe conditions identified by their SFAR 88 design reviews by December 2002, or within an additional 18 months if the FAA granted an extension.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. However, any enforcement action is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to clarify the compliance time for the BITE check relative to the requirement to record the fault codes. The FAA recognized that operators might interpret the proposed requirements for alternative actions for cargo airplanes as allowing additional flights prior to performing the BITE check after first recording the fault codes. The FAA intended for operators to perform the BITE check immediately after recording the fault codes to address both the fault codes that exist prior to performing the BITE check and any new codes that are identified during the BITE check.
For consistency with similar ADs related to FQIS, the FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to change the repetitive interval for recording the existing fault codes stored in the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) computer and performing the BITE check from “not to exceed 650 flight hours” to “not to exceed 750 flight hours.” The FAA has determined that this change continues to provide an acceptable level of safety.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and 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.
The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 122 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA also estimates that it would take about 1,200 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the parts needed to do the required actions. Based on these figures, The FAA estimates the labor cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $12,444,000, or $102,000 per product.
The FAA has not received definitive information on the costs for the alternative wire separation modification specified in this AD. The cost for this action in similar rulemaking on other airplanes, however, suggests that this modification could take about 74 work-hours, with parts costing about $10,000, for a total estimated cost to U.S. operators of $16,290 per product.
The FAA estimates that the repetitive FQIS tank circuit checks associated with the alternative wire separation modification would take about 1 work-hour per check. The FAA estimates the cost of this check on U.S. operators to be $85 per product, per check.
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.
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 17, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD.
(1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of fuel system reviews on the affected airplanes conducted by the manufacturer. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA.
For airplanes used exclusively for cargo operations: As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. To exercise this alternative, operators must perform the first inspection required under paragraph (h)(1) of this AD within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. To exercise this alternative for airplanes returned to service after conversion of the airplane from a passenger configuration to an all-cargo configuration more than 6 months after the effective date of this AD, operators must perform the first inspection required under paragraph (h)(1) of this AD prior to further flight after the conversion.
(1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, record the existing fault codes stored in the fuel quantity indicating (FQI) computer, and before further flight thereafter, do a BITE check (check of built-in test equipment) of the FQI computer, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA. If any fault code is recorded prior to the BITE check or as a result of the BITE check, before further flight, do all applicable repairs and repeat the BITE check until a successful test is performed with no fault found, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA. Repeat these actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 flight hours. Modification as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive BITE check requirement of this paragraph.
(2) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring that runs between the FQI computer and the center fuel tank wall penetrations, including any circuits that might pass through a main fuel tank, from other airplane wiring that is not intrinsically safe, using methods approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA.
(1) The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
None.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are finalizing our proposed regulations specifying the information Social Security beneficiaries and applicants must provide to designate individuals as their possible representative payee in advance of our determination that the beneficiary needs a representative payee. These regulations additionally set forth how we will consider an individual's advance designation when we select a representative payee, and fulfill our obligation under 201 of the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018.
This final rule is effective February 25, 2020.
Peter Smith, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-3235. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
A representative payee is a person or organization that we select to receive and manage Social Security benefits, special veterans benefits, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments on behalf of a beneficiary. Generally, beneficiaries have the right to receive their benefits directly and manage them independently. However, we may determine that a beneficiary is unable to manage or direct the management of benefit payments because of the beneficiary's mental or physical condition, or because of the beneficiary's youth.
On April 13, 2018, President Trump signed into law the
To help us develop the information that we need, we hosted a National Disability Forum (NDF) on Advance Designation of Representative Payees on October 30, 2018
We proposed that eligible individuals may designate potential representative payees in advance by providing us with the information we require. This required information includes the name and telephone number of each advance designee and the priority order in which the individual would like us to consider the advance designees, if more than one is designated. We noted that current systems limitations allow us to receive up to three advance designations. We also proposed to consider advance designees first when selecting a representative payee. When we determine that a representative payee is necessary,
In response to the NPRM, we received four timely proffered comment submissions. Below, we did not summarize or respond to one comment that was outside the scope of the proposed rule, and one comment that agreed with the proposal and did not suggest any changes. All comments are viewable through the eRulemaking docket, available online at
For example, we interview payee applicants as part of our normal selection procedures.
The commenter noted that a long time may have passed between the time the the beneficiary originally makes the advance designation and when we attempt to contact the advance designee. For this reason, we will send a notice annually to beneficiaries who have made advance designations reminding them of their advance designees. The notice will instruct the beneficiary to review the advance designees to assess the accuracy of the information provided and to update the information if necessary. We will not collect an advance designee's date of birth at the time of advance designation because this information is unnecessary. Once we determine that a beneficiary is incapable and we need to appoint a payee, we will confirm the identity of the advance designee as part of our normal payee development procedures.
We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in promulgating regulations. Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Generally, final rules become effective 30 days following their publication in the
We determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. This final rule merely codifies a statutory directive which the agency is required by law to begin by April 2020. As well, the public comments did not raise any novel issues or concerns. We therefore find it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective 14 days after its publication in the
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OMB determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not formally review this final rule.
We also determined that this final rule meets the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866.
We analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and determined that the final rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined that this final rule would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that implementing this final rule will result in a very small increase in program costs for the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs over the 10-year period 2020 through 2029.
Our Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this change will result in administrative costs to the agency of approximately $275 million over 10 years, with none of the annual costs meeting or exceeding the E.O. 12866 “economically significant” threshold of $100 million. The administrative estimates comprise the costs for creating and running the online application; field office interviews; employee processing time; and sending annual mailers.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801,
Section 404.2018 of this final rule imposes a new public reporting burden: the requirement for affected members of the public to use our prescribed paper form or online application to submit the names and telephone numbers of advance designees. We previously
We did not change the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) originally shared with the publication of the above-referenced standalone
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social security; Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social security; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending subpart U of part 404, subpart F of part 408, and subpart F of part 416 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 205(a), (j), and (k), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), (j), and (k), and 902(a)(5)).
(a)
(1) Is entitled to or an applicant for a benefit and;
(2) Has attained 18 years of age or is an emancipated minor, may designate in advance one or more individuals to possibly serve as a representative payee for the individual if we determine that payment will be made to a representative payee (see § 404.2010(a)). An individual may not designate in advance possible representative payees if we have information that the individual is either-legally incompetent or mentally incapable of managing his or her benefit payments; or physically incapable of managing or directing the management of his or her benefit payments.
(b)
(1) The name of the advance designee,
(2) A telephone number of the advance designee, and
(3) The order of priority in which the individual would like us to consider the advance designees, if he or she designates more than one advance designee.
(c)
(d)
(i) The advance designee must be willing and able to serve as a representative payee,
(ii) Appointment of the advance designee must comply with the requirements in section 205(j)(2) of the Social Security Act, and
(iii) There must be no other good cause (see §§ 404.2020 and 404.2021) to prevent us from selecting the advance designee.
(2) If none of the advance designees meet the criteria for selection, we will use our list of categories of preferred payees (see § 404.2021), along with our other regulations in subpart U of this part, as a guide to select a suitable representative payee.
(e)
(f)
(e) Whether the potential payee is in a position to know of and look after the needs of the beneficiary;
(f) The potential payee's criminal history; and
(g) Whether the beneficiary made an advance designation (see § 404.2018).
As a guide in selecting a representative payee, we have established categories of preferred payees. These preferences are flexible. We will consider an individual's
Secs. 205(j)(1)(C), 702(a)(5), 807, and 810 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(1)(C), 902(a)(5), 1007, and 1010).
For information about advance designation, how to designate representative payees in advance, how to make changes to advance designations, how we consider an advance designation when we select a representative payee, how we consider an advance designation when we select a subsequent representative payee, and other relevant information, see §§ 404.2018, 404.2020, and 404.2021 of this chapter.
Secs. 205(j)(1)(C), 702(a)(5), 1631(a)(2) and (d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(1)(C), 902(a)(5), 1383(a)(2) and (d)(1)).
(a)
(1) Is eligible for or an applicant for a benefit; and
(2) Has attained 18 years of age or is an emancipated minor, may designate in advance one or more individuals to possibly serve as a representative payee for the individual if we determine that payment will be made to a representative payee (see § 416.610(a)). An individual may not designate in advance possible representative payees if we have information that the individual is either legally incompetent or mentally incapable of managing his or her benefit payments; or physically incapable of managing or directing the management of his or her benefit payments.
(b)
(1) The name of the advance designee,
(2) A telephone number of the advance designee, and
(3) The order of priority in which the individual would like us to consider the advance designees if he or she designates more than one advance designee.
(c)
(d)
(i) The advance designee must be willing and able to serve as a representative payee,
(ii) Appointment of the advance designee must comply with the requirements in section 205(j)(2) of the Social Security Act, and
(iii)There must be no other good cause (see §§ 416.620 and 416.621) to prevent us from selecting the advance designee.
(2) If none of the advance designees meet the criteria for selection, we will use our list of categories of preferred payees (see § 416.621), along with our other regulations in subpart F of this part, as a guide to select a suitable representative payee.
(e)
(f)
(e) Whether the potential payee is in a position to know of and look after the needs of the beneficiary;
(f) The potential payee's criminal history; and
(g) Whether the beneficiary made an advance designation (see § 416.618).
As a guide in selecting a representative payee, we have established categories of preferred payees. These preferences are flexible. We will consider an individual's advance designees (see § 416.618) before we consider other potential representative payees in the categories of preferred payees listed in this section. When we select a representative payee, we will choose the designee of the beneficiary's highest priority, provided that the designee is willing and able to serve, is not prohibited from serving (see § 416.622), and supports the best interest of the beneficiary (see § 416.620). The preferences are:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Update to list and phases.
This document announces the continuation of prior authorization for 45 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes on the Required Prior Authorization List of DMEPOS Items that require prior authorization as a condition of payment, as well as the addition of six HCPCS codes to this list. Prior authorization for the additional codes will be implemented in two phases.
Phase one of implementation is effective on May 11, 2020. Phase two of implementation is effective on October 8, 2020.
Tara Bramhall, (410) 786-8256. Erica Ross, (410) 786-7480.
Sections 1832, 1834, and 1861 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes that the provision of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) are covered benefits under Part B of the Medicare program.
Section 1834(a)(15) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to develop and periodically update a list of DMEPOS items and supplies that the Secretary determines, on the basis of prior payment experience, are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization and to develop a prior authorization process for these items.
In the December 30, 2015 final rule (80 FR 81674) titled “Medicare Program; Prior Authorization Process for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies,” we implemented section 1834(a)(15) of the Act by establishing an initial Master List (called the Master List of Items Frequently Subject to Unnecessary Utilization) of certain DMEPOS that the Secretary determined, on the basis of prior payment experience, are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization and by establishing a prior authorization process for these items.
On November 8, 2019, CMS published a final rule (84 FR 60648) titled “Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals with Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Fee Schedule Amounts, DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) Amendments, Standard Elements for a DMEPOS Order, and Master List of DMEPOS Items Potentially Subject to a Face-to-Face Encounter and Written Order Prior to Delivery and/or Prior Authorization Requirements.” Through this rule we harmonized the lists of DMEPOS items created by former rules and established one “Master List of DMEPOS Items Potentially Subject to Face-To-Face Encounter and Written Orders Prior to Delivery and/or Prior Authorization Requirements” (the “Master List”). This rule was effective January 1, 2020.
In the November 8, 2019, final rule (84 FR 60648), we stated that the items currently subject to prior authorization would be grandfathered into the prior authorization program until the implementation of the first Required Prior Authorization List published subsequent to this rule, to avoid the administrative and stakeholder burdens associated with the termination of the current prior authorization program and the implementation of a revised program created under this rule. This rule also maintained the process established in the December 30, 2015, final Rule that when items are placed on the Required Prior Authorization List, we would inform the public of those DMEPOS items on the Required Prior Authorization List in the
The Required Prior Authorization List specified in § 414.234(c)(1) is selected from the Master List (as described in § 414.234(b)), and those selected items require prior authorization as a condition of payment. Additionally, we stated that CMS may elect to limit the prior authorization requirement to a particular region of the country if claims data analysis shows that unnecessary utilization of the selected item(s) is concentrated in a particular region.
The purpose of this document is to inform the public that all 45 Power Mobility Device (PMD) and Pressure Reducing Support Services (PRSS) HCPCS codes currently on the Required Prior Authorization List will continue to be subject to the requirements of prior authorization (see 81 FR 93636, 83 FR 25947, and 84 FR 16616). In addition, we are updating the Required Prior Authorization List to include six Lower Limb Prosthetic (LLP) HCPCS codes. To assist stakeholders in preparing for implementation of the prior authorization program, we are providing 90 days' notice.
The following six HCPCS codes for LLPs are added to the Required Prior Authorization List:
We believe prior authorization of these six additional HCPCS codes for LLPs will help further our program integrity goals of reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, while also protecting access to care. LLPs have been identified by
These codes will be subject to the requirements of the prior authorization program for certain DMEPOS items as outlined in § 414.234. We will implement a prior authorization program for the six newly added codes for LLPs in two phases. This phased-in approach will allow us to identify and resolve any unforeseen issues by using a smaller claim volume in phase one before nationwide implementation occurs in phase two. In phase one of implementation, which begins on the date specified in the
Prior to furnishing the item to the beneficiary and submitting the claim for processing, a requester must submit a prior authorization request. The request must include evidence that the item complies with all applicable Medicare coverage, coding, and payment rules. Consistent with § 414.234(d), such evidence must include the order, relevant information from the beneficiary's medical record, and relevant supplier-produced documentation. After receipt of all applicable required Medicare documentation, CMS or one of its review contractors will conduct a medical review and communicate a decision that provisionally affirms or non-affirms the request.
We will issue specific prior authorization guidance in subregulatory communications, including final timelines customized for the DMEPOS item subject to prior authorization, for communicating a provisionally affirmed or non-affirmed decision to the requester. In the December 30, 2015 final rule (80 FR 81692), we stated that this approach to final timelines provides flexibility to develop a process that involves fewer days, as may be appropriate, and allows us to safeguard beneficiary access to care. If at any time we become aware that the prior authorization process is creating barriers to care, we can suspend the program. For example, we will review questions and complaints from consumers and providers that come through regular sources such as 1-800-Medicare.
The updated Required Prior Authorization list is available in the download section of the following CMS website:
This document announces the continuation of prior authorization for 45 HCPCS codes, and the addition of six HCPCS codes for LLPs on the Required Prior Authorization List and does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. However, there is an information collection burden associated with this program that is currently approved under OMB control number 0938-1293 which expires March 31, 2022.
We have examined the impact of this action as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017).
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). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This document does not reach the economic threshold and, thus, is not considered a major rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any one year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this action will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2019, that threshold is approximately $154 million. This action will have no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final
Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017 and requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” OMB's interim guidance, issued on April 5, 2017,
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this document was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on February 5, 2020.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of hearing on proposed rulemaking; advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to receive evidence on proposed amendments to Federal Marketing Order No. 984 (Order) regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California. The California Walnut Board (Board), which locally administers the Order, recommended proposed amendments that would add authority for the Board to provide credit for certain market promotion expenses paid by handlers against their annual assessments due under the Order and establish requirements to effectuate the new authority. In addition, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to make changes to the Order as may be necessary to conform to any amendment that may result from the hearing.
The hearing will be held March 16, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and, if deemed necessary by the presiding administrative law judge, will continue March 17, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. or until any other such time as determined by the judge.
The hearing will be held at the Sacramento Marriott Rancho Cordova, 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742.
Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Post Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; Telephone: (435) 265-5092, Fax: (435) 259-1502, or Andrew Hatch, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Richard E. Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This administrative action is instituted pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, 13563 and 13175. AMS provided notice of the upcoming hearing to tribal governments through USDA's Office of Tribal Relations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The amendments proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The hearing is convened in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).
The proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 984 (7 CFR 984) were recommended to the Secretary by the Board on September 13, 2019, and a request for a public hearing and proposed rulemaking was submitted to USDA on September 16, 2019. After reviewing the proposals and other information submitted by the Board, USDA concludes that the proposed amendments to part 984 (referred to as “the Order”) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, and therefore, made a determination to schedule this matter for hearing.
The Board administers the Order, with the oversight of USDA. The Board's proposed change would authorize the Board to set aside funds every year during its budget discussions to fund a credit-back program. The proposal would also authorize certain market promotion expenses paid directly by handlers within a marketing year to be “credited-back” to the handler against their assessment obligation paid to the Board. The credit-back amount available to each handler would be determined by that handler's percentage of the industry's total volume of walnuts handled during the prior marketing year multiplied by the current marketing year's credit-back program budget. If the new authority is approved by growers in a grower referendum, the resulting final rule would include rules and regulations to effectuate the new authority.
In its request to USDA for a public hearing, the Board stated that the proposed amendments are necessary to encourage handlers to undertake market promotion activities in addition to the marketing order's generic marketing efforts, and to increase market demand for the industry's increasing supply of walnuts.
The Board's request explained that the industry has grown since the program's inception in 1946, with production nearly doubling in the past decade to an estimated 672,000 short tons. Current bearing acres total 350,000 and an additional 60,000 are due to come into production over the next five years. As such, the Board is forecasting production to reach over 850,000 short tons, or a 26-percent increase, within that time.
The Board's justification for its recommendation stated that demand for walnuts needs to increase to stabilize future market returns. The Board stated that future increases in supply without additional increases in demand could result in weaker market returns. Further, the Board's analysis of domestic walnut consumption reveals untapped growth potential, with domestic household penetration only reaching 40 percent. Thus, the proposed credit-back authority could stimulate demand and stabilize future market prices.
The Board explained that it is only authorized to conduct generic marketing activities for the promotion of inshell and shelled walnuts under the Order. The Board has previously developed new product formulations for handler use; however, because the Board does not manufacture or otherwise sell walnuts, it is incumbent upon the handlers to further develop and deliver new products to the market. The proposal for credit-back authority is intended to encourage handler product development and overall marketing and promotion of California walnuts. If the proposal is approved, the Board would be authorized to establish a credit-back program and recommend an annual credit-back rate, subject to approval by the Secretary.
In its hearing request, the Board stated the need to implement a credit-back program for the 2020/2021 marketing year, which begins September 1, 2020. The Board is recommending a credit-back rate of $0.70 cents for each handler dollar spent on qualified activities up to each handler's pro-rata share of assessments paid into the allocated credit-back fund. During its annual budget process, the Board would designate a credit-back fund based on forecasted production and anticipated assessment revenue. The per handler pro-rata share of the credit-back fund would be calculated by multiplying the budgeted credit-back fund by each handler's percentage of walnuts handled of the previous marketing year's total walnuts. The Board would then communicate to handlers the availability of the credit-back fund and their pro-rata portion of that fund.
Handlers would be able to apply for credit-back on the expenses of qualified activities completed within the marketing year. Handlers would provide proof of payment and documentation of qualified activities to the Board for review. Once the Board has approved the claim, the handler would receive a reimbursement for 70 percent of the expense of the qualified activity up to the handler's pro-rata share of the credit-back fund. If a credit-back claim for expenses is made prior to the end of the marketing year, the handler must also have paid sufficient assessments into the credit-back fund to cover their reimbursement. The Board's proposal also states that claims for credit-back on expenses must be made within 15 days after the end of the marketing year. If a claim for credit-back is not sufficiently documented or does not reflect qualified credit-back activities, the Board will deny a claim. An appeal process would afford a handler with a denied claim the opportunity to appeal the denial.
Regarding activities qualified for credit-back, the Board stated that direct expenditures for marketing promotion, including paid advertising, that promote the sale of walnuts, walnut products, or their uses could be eligible. The Board recommended that qualified activities would include: Paid media directed to end-users, trade or industrial users, and paid advertising space or time, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, online, transit, and outdoor media (including standard agency commission costs not to exceed 15 percent of gross expense); market promotion, marketing research (except pre-testing and test-marketing of paid advertising), and trade and consumer product public relations (not including advertising or public relations agency fees); in-store demonstrations, production of promotional materials, sales and marketing presentation kits, etc. (excluding couponing); and trade show booth rentals, services, and promotional materials.
The Board's recommendation also addresses promotional activities involving joint activities, handler-owned distribution of products, and promotional activities conducted under a State or Federal trade program.
For qualified credit-back activity involving joint participation by a handler and a manufacturer or seller of a complementary product(s), or a handler selling multiple complementary products, including other nuts, the Board recommended the amount allowed for credit-back should reflect that portion of the activity represented by walnuts. In addition, the handler's name or brand may be included on the product packaging, but the words “California Walnuts” must always be included on the product packaging.
For products owned or distributed by the handler, the Board recommended that the product must list the ownership or distributorship on the package and display the handler's name and the handler's brand. The words “California Walnuts” must always be included on the primary face label.
Regarding handler promotional activities pursuant to a contract with the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA, and/or the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the Board recommended that these activities not be eligible for credit-back unless the Board is administering the foreign marketing program, and the handler certifies that he or she would not be reimbursed by either FAS or CDFA for the amount claimed for credit-back. Foreign market expenses paid by third parties as part of a handler's contract with FAS or CDFA would not be eligible for credit-back.
In its recommendation, the Board states that the proposed changes have the broadest possible support from the industry. The proposed amendments were presented and discussed at several meetings involving California walnut handlers and growers. Ultimately, the Board recommended the proposed amendments at a public meeting on September 13, 2019, where stakeholders were provided the opportunity to express their views and provide input. The proposed amendments were unanimously supported by the Board.
In addition to the proposed amendments submitted by the Board, AMS proposes to make any such changes to the Order as may be necessary to conform to any amendment that may result from the hearing, or to correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors.
USDA will oversee this formal rulemaking proceeding. The issuance of this notice of public hearing is the first of several steps in the amendatory rulemaking process, including the issuance of a recommended decision, public comment period, Secretary's decision, grower referendum, and handler sign-up (if the prior steps prove favorable).
The public hearing process will further explain the industry's barriers to marketing and the merits of the proposed amendments in addressing these issues. At the hearing, interested persons may provide testimony in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendments. In addition, interested persons will be invited to
Interested persons will also be provided the opportunity to file briefs in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendments after the hearing, as well as file exceptions to any recommended decision that may be issued. Finally, any proposed amendments must be approved in a grower referendum before they can be implemented.
USDA will hold the public hearing for the purposes of: (i) Receiving evidence about the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed amendments of the Order; (ii) determining whether there is a need for the proposed amendments to the Order; (iii) determining if there are other alternatives to this program or duplicates of the proposed program; and (iv) determining whether the proposed amendments or appropriate modifications thereof will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Testimony is invited at the hearing on all the proposals and recommendations contained in this notice, as well as any appropriate modifications or alternatives.
All persons wishing to submit written material as evidence at the hearing should be prepared to submit four copies of such material at the hearing. Four copies of prepared testimony for presentation at the hearing should also be made available. To the extent practicable, eight additional copies of evidentiary exhibits and testimony prepared as an exhibit should be made available to USDA representatives on the day of appearance at the hearing. Any requests for preparation of USDA data for this rulemaking hearing should be made at least 10 days prior to the beginning of the hearing.
From the time the notice of hearing is issued until the issuance of a final decision in this proceeding, USDA employees involved in the decisional process are prohibited from discussing the merits of the hearing issues on an
Procedural matters are not subject to the above prohibition and may be discussed at any time.
USDA would make other such changes to the Order as may be necessary to conform with amendments that may result from the hearing, or correct minor inconsistencies and typographical errors.
Walnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Testimony is invited on the recommended proposals to 7 CFR part 984, or appropriate alternatives or modifications to such proposals, as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Credit-back granted by the Board shall be that which is appropriate when compared to accepted professional practices and rates for the type of activity conducted. In the case of claims for credit-back activities not covered by specific and established criteria, the Board shall grant the claim if it is consistent with practices and rates for similar activities.
(2) The clear and evident purpose of each qualified activity shall be to promote the sale, consumption or use of California walnuts.
(3) No credit-back will be given for any activity that targets the farming or grower trade.
(4) Credit-back will not be allowed in any case for travel expenses, or for any promotional activities that result in price discounting.
(5) Credit-back shall be granted for those qualified activities specified below:
(i) Credit-back shall be granted for paid media directed to end-users, trade or industrial users, and for money spent on paid advertising space or time, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, online, transit and outdoor media, and including the standard agency commission costs not to exceed 15 percent of gross.
(ii) Credit-back shall be granted for market promotion other than paid advertising, for the following activities:
(A) Marketing research (except pre-testing and test-marketing of paid advertising);
(B) Trade and consumer product public relations: Provided, that no credit-back shall be given for related fees charged by an advertising or public relations agency;
(C) Sales Promotion (in-store demonstrations, production of promotional materials, sales and marketing presentation kits, etc., excluding couponing);
(D) Trade shows (booth rental, services, and promotional materials).
(iii) For any qualified activity involving joint participation by a handler and a manufacturer or seller of a complementary product(s), or a handler selling multiple complementary products, including other nuts, with such activity including the handler's name or brand, or the words “California Walnuts”, the amount allowed for credit-back shall reflect that portion of the activity represented by walnuts. If the product is owned or distributed by the handler, in order to receive any amount of credit back, the product must list the ownership or distributorship on the package and display the handler's name and the handler's brand. The words “California Walnuts” must be included on the primary, face label. Such activities must also meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.
(iv) If the handler is engaged in marketing promotion activities pursuant to a contract with the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA, and/or the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), unless the Board is administering the foreign marketing program, such activities shall not be eligible for credit-back unless the handler certifies that he or she was not and will not be reimbursed by either FAS or CDFA for the amount claimed for credit-back, and has on record with the Board all claims for reimbursement made to FAS and/or the CDFA. Foreign market expenses paid by third parties as part of a handler's contract with FAS or CDFA shall not be eligible for credit-back.
(6)
(i) All claims submitted to the Board for any qualified activity must include:
(A) A description of the activity and when and where it was conducted;
(B) Copies of all invoices from suppliers or agencies;
(C) Copies of all canceled checks or other proof of payment issued by the handler in payment of these invoices; and
(D) An actual sample, picture or other physical evidence of the qualified activity.
(ii) Handlers may receive reimbursement of their paid assessments up to their pro-rata share of available dollars to be based on their percentage of the prior marketing year crop total. In all instances, handlers must remit the assessment to the Board when billed, and reimbursement will be issued to the extent of proven, qualified activities.
(iii) Checks from the Board in payment of approved credit-back claims will be mailed to handlers within 30 days of receipt of eligible claims.
(iv) Final claims for the marketing year pertaining to such qualified activities must be submitted with all required elements within 15 days after the close of the Board's marketing year.
(f)
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed policy statement and request for comments.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of a proposed policy statement (Proposed Policy Statement or Proposal). DOE is proposing to extend the standard 20-year term for authorizations to export natural gas from the lower-48 states—including domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas, and compressed gas liquid—to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries). Under the Proposal, existing non-FTA authorization holders could apply to extend their export term through December 31, 2050, on a voluntary opt-in basis; existing applicants could amend their pending non-FTA application to request an export term through December 31, 2050, on a voluntary opt-in basis; and DOE would issue all future non-FTA export authorizations with a standard export term lasting through December 31, 2050, unless a shorter term is requested by the applicant. In this document, DOE discusses the Proposed Policy Statement and invites comments on the Proposal. DOE is proposing this policy change under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and DOE's implementing regulations.
Comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, March 12, 2020.
Amy Sweeney, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-2627;
DOE is responsible for authorizing exports of domestically produced natural gas to foreign countries under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717b.
For applications to export natural gas to non-FTA countries, section 3(a) of the NGA sets forth the following standard of review:
[N]o person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the [Secretary of Energy
DOE, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, has consistently interpreted NGA section 3(a) as creating a rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest.
Before reaching a final decision, DOE must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
Although NGA section 3(a) establishes a broad public interest standard and a presumption favoring export authorizations, the statute does not define “public interest” or identify criteria that must be considered. In prior decisions, DOE has identified a range of factors that it evaluates when reviewing an application to export LNG to non-FTA countries. These factors include economic impacts, international impacts, security of natural gas supply, and environmental impacts, among others. To conduct this review, DOE looks to record evidence developed in the application proceeding.
DOE's prior decisions have also looked to certain principles established in its 1984 Policy Guidelines.
In Order No. 1473, DOE stated that it was guided by DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111. That delegation order directed the regulation of exports of natural gas “based on a consideration of the domestic need for the gas to be exported and such other matters as the Administrator [of the Economic Regulatory Administration] finds in the circumstances of a particular case to be appropriate.”
Although DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111 is no longer in effect,
Between 2011 and 2017, DOE commissioned four studies to examine the effects of U.S. LNG exports on the U.S. economy and energy markets.
DOE relied on these studies, and the public comments received on each study, to better inform its public interest review under NGA section 3(a).
On June 4, 2014, DOE issued two notices in the
Second, DOE commissioned the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a DOE applied research laboratory, to conduct an analysis calculating the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for LNG exported from the United States. The purpose of this analysis was to determine: (i) How domestically-produced LNG exported from the United States compares with regional coal (or other LNG sources) for electric power generation in Europe and Asia from a life cycle GHG perspective, and (ii) how those results compare with natural gas sourced from Russia and delivered to the same markets via pipeline. DOE published the report entitled,
DOE has made the Addendum and the LCA GHG Report, as well as the public comments received on each study, part of the record of each non-FTA proceeding since 2014.
Both the NGA and DOE's regulations provide DOE with broad authority to attach conditions to non-FTA export authorizations. NGA section 3(a) states that DOE may grant an application for a non-FTA export authorization “upon such terms and conditions as the [Secretary] may find necessary or appropriate.”
In 2011, DOE issued its first conditional long-term export authorization involving domestically produced LNG from the lower-48 states to Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC (Sabine Pass) in DOE/FE Order No. 2961.
In 2013, DOE continued to issue long-term non-FTA authorizations for a standard 20-year term. DOE chose a 20-year term for two reasons. First, the economic analysis then-supporting DOE's authorizations—the 2012 LNG Export Study—did not extend past 20 years at the time the authorizations were issued. In DOE/FE Order No. 3282, for example, Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P.,
Second, in the same
DOE has continued to apply a policy of authorizing a 20-year export term for every long-term non-FTA order issued to date.
Beginning in 2015, Sierra Club petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or the Court) for review of five long-term LNG export authorizations issued by DOE under the standard of review described above. Sierra Club challenged DOE's approval of LNG exports to non-FTA countries from projects proposed or operated by the following authorization holders: Freeport; Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP (formerly Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP); Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; and Cheniere Marketing, LLC,
In
In the consolidated opinion in
The D.C. Circuit's decisions in
In 2017, DOE commissioned NERA to conduct a new economic study, now referred to as the 2018 LNG Export Study.
Like DOE's prior economic studies, the 2018 Study analyzed the outcomes of different LNG export levels on the U.S. natural gas markets and the U.S. economy as a whole. Additionally, for the first time in a DOE-commissioned macroeconomic study, the 2018 LNG Export Study assessed the likelihood of different levels of “unconstrained” LNG exports, defined as market-determined levels of exports. The Study examined the period from the year 2020 through 2050, and was based, in part, on the projections in EIA's
DOE received 19 comments on the 2018 LNG Export Study. DOE summarized and responded to these comments in the Response to Comments document, published on December 28, 2018.
Based upon the record, DOE determined that the 2018 Study provides substantial support for non-FTA applications within the export volumes considered by the 2018 Study—ranging from 0.1 to 52.8 Bcf/d of natural gas.
Overall, DOE found that the 2018 LNG Export Study supports the proposition that exports of LNG from the lower-48 states, in volumes up to and including 52.8 Bcf/d of natural gas, will not be inconsistent with the public interest. DOE also stated that it would consider each application to export LNG as required under the NGA and NEPA based on the administrative record compiled in each individual proceeding.
In 2018, DOE commissioned NETL to conduct an update to the 2014 LCA GHG Report, entitled
• Incorporated NETL's most recent characterization of upstream natural gas production, set forth in NETL's April 2019 report entitled,
• Updated the unit processes for liquefaction, ocean transport, and regasification characterization using engineering-based models and publicly-available data informed and reviewed by existing LNG export facilities, where possible; and
• Updated the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) for methane (CH
On September 19, 2019, DOE published notice of availability (NOA) of the LCA GHG Update and a request for comments.
As DOE explained, the analysis in the LCA GHG Update was based on the most current available science, methodology, and data from the U.S. natural gas system to assess the GHGs associated with exports of U.S. LNG. The Update demonstrated that the conclusions of the 2014 LCA GHG Report have not changed. Specifically, the Update concluded that the use of U.S. LNG exports for power production in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG emissions from a life cycle perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for power production.
The LCA GHG Update estimated the life cycle GHG emissions of U.S. LNG exports to Europe and Asia, compared with certain other fuels used to produce electric power in those importing countries. While acknowledging uncertainty, the LCA GHG Update showed that, to the extent U.S. LNG exports are preferred over coal in LNG-importing nations, U.S. LNG exports are likely to reduce global GHG emissions on per unit of energy consumed basis for power production. Further, to the extent U.S. LNG exports are preferred over other forms of imported natural gas, they are likely to have only a small impact on global GHG emissions.
The conclusions of the LCA GHG Update, combined with the observation that many LNG-importing nations rely heavily on fossil fuels for electric generation, suggest that exports of U.S. LNG may decrease global GHG emissions, although there is substantial uncertainty on this point, as indicated above.
In sum, DOE found that the LCA GHG Update supports the proposition that exports of LNG from the lower-48 states will not be inconsistent with the public interest. DOE stated it will evaluate each pending and future non-FTA application as required under the NGA and NEPA, based on the administrative record compiled in each individual proceeding.
To date, DOE has issued 38 final long-term authorizations to export domestically produced (or U.S.) LNG or compressed natural gas to non-FTA countries.
Additionally, 18 long-term non-FTA applications requesting to export domestically produced LNG from the lower-48 states are currently pending before DOE. These applications represent a cumulative volume of 24.5 Bcf/d of natural gas, or 8.94 trillion cubic feet per year.
To date, DOE also has authorized exports to FTA countries in a volume of 56.24 Bcf/d of natural gas. The volumes authorized for export to FTA and non-FTA countries, however, are not additive to one another. Rather, each order grants authority to export the entire volume of a facility to FTA or non-FTA countries, respectively, to provide the authorization holder with maximal flexibility in determining its export destinations.
Finally, DOE notes that the amount of U.S. LNG export capacity that is currently operating or under construction totals 15.54 Bcf/d of natural gas across eight large-scale export projects in the lower-48 states.
Recently, authorization holders have indicated that a 30-year export term would better match the operational life of their physical asset—the LNG export facility—allowing them more security in financing their facility and maximizing their ability to contract for exports. LNG export terminals are typically designed for a service life of 30 to 50 years.
A proposed change in export terms through the year 2050 would not alter the maximum daily rate of export currently approved under each existing non-FTA authorization. The maximum daily rate of export, set in billion cubic
For the non-FTA applications currently pending before DOE (involving exports from the lower-48 states), the total requested export volume for each application also would increase if DOE ultimately were to grant each application for an export term lasting through the year 2050 (as opposed to the standard 20-year term).
In sum, the Proposed Policy Statement, if adopted, would not increase the approved
On July 27, 2018, Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere) filed comments in the 2018 LNG Export Study proceeding.
In support of this request, Cheniere first noted that the 2018 LNG Export Study extends for 30 years and shows macroeconomic benefits to the United States over the entire period.
On December 4, 2019, Canada granted its first 40-year LNG export license, which it issued to Chevron Canada Limited (Chevron) for a proposed LNG export facility called the Kitimat LNG project.
Based on the 2018 LNG Export Study, the LCA GHG Update, and the current status of the U.S. LNG export market, DOE believes there is new evidence to support changing from the standard 20-year export term for non-FTA orders to an extended export term with an end date of December 31, 2050. This Proposed Policy Statement, if adopted, would effectively extend the export term for existing authorization holders from 20 to 30 (or more) years, depending on when they commenced (or will commence) export operations.
For example, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC received DOE's first final long-term non-FTA authorization (DOE/FE Order No. 2961-A) on August 7, 2012, and began exporting LNG in February 2016.
For the majority of existing authorization holders, however, this Proposal would result in a maximum 30-year export term (depending on whether and when the authorization holders begin exporting LNG). Likewise, the Proposal would provide up to a 30-year export term for future authorizations issued beginning in 2020.
Under this Proposal, the December 31, 2050 date would be the end of the authorization period for all non-FTA exports, inclusive of any “make-up” export periods.
This Proposal does not apply to FTA applications and authorizations, since DOE is required to grant FTA applications “without modification or delay” under NGA section 3(c). Because of this statutory standard, applicants for FTA orders are not subject to DOE's standard 20-year term for non-FTA authorizations, and numerous FTA orders already have export terms of 25 or more years. Nonetheless, authorization holders typically apply for both FTA and non-FTA authorizations, and they prefer to align their FTA and non-FTA exports over the same time period for administrative efficiencies. Therefore, if this Proposal is adopted, DOE anticipates that authorization holders may elect to request a comparable extension in the export term of their existing FTA authorization(s) or any pending FTA applications.
DOE proposes to implement the Proposed Policy Statement as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
In each individual docket proceeding, the authorization holder or applicant would be required to submit an application (for #1 and #3) or an amendment to its pending application (for #2) with relevant facts and argument supporting the term request.
Following the notice and comment period in each proceeding, DOE would conduct a public interest analysis of the application (or amended application) under NGA section 3(a). DOE would also have to comply with NEPA, as discussed herein. For existing non-FTA orders, the public interest analysis would be limited to the application for an extended export term—meaning an intervenor or protestor could challenge the requested extension but not the existing non-FTA order. Consistent with its established practice, DOE would respond to any comments received in its final order on each application (or amendment) requesting the extended export term.
DOE notes that, in Cheniere's comments on the 2018 LNG Export Study requesting that DOE implement a 30-year export term, Cheniere urged DOE to consider a “consolidated proceeding” for all existing authorizations. Under this approach, Cheniere stated that DOE should “consider the [export term] extension of all existing authorizations in a single proceeding . . . because the public interest question in each case is identical.”
As indicated, DOE is currently proposing a voluntary application process for existing authorization holders that would be adjudicated in each individual proceeding (#1). DOE believes that not every authorization holder may want to have an extended export term, and that the public interest considerations in individual proceedings may vary. Additionally, DOE takes no position on Cheniere's suggestion that any decision by DOE to extend an existing export term would be eligible for a categorical exclusion from NEPA (such as categorical exclusion B5.7). If this Proposed Policy Statement is adopted, DOE would comply with its NEPA obligations in each individual application proceeding, consistent with its current practice.
In response to this document, any person may file comments addressing the Proposed Policy Statement. The comments will help to inform DOE's decision as to whether to adopt the Proposed Policy Statement for use in current and future non-FTA proceedings. DOE invites comment on any aspect of the Proposed Policy Statement, including but not limited to the potential benefits and impacts associated with the Proposal and the voluntary opt-in process for existing authorization holders and applicants. Interested parties will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice of proposed policy statement in which to submit their comments.
DOE is not establishing a new proceeding or docket in this document. Comments submitted in compliance with the instructions in this document will be placed in the administrative record for all of the above-referenced proceedings and need only be submitted once.
Additionally, the submission of comments in response to this Notice of proposed policy statement will not make commenters parties to any of the affected dockets. Persons with an
Comments may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the comments using the online form at
(2) Mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in
(3) Hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers comments to be filed electronically using the online form (method 1). All comments must include a reference to “Term Extension—Proposed Policy Statement” in the title line. The record in the above-referenced proceedings will include all comments received in response to this Notice of proposed policy statement. DOE will review the comments received on a consolidated basis.
The Proposed Policy Statement is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulation docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Additionally, the Proposed Policy Statement and any comments filed in response to this document will be available on the following DOE website:
In this Proposed Policy Statement, DOE is not proposing any new requirements for applicants or authorization holders under 10 CFR part 590. Rather, DOE's intent is to minimize administrative burdens and to enhance certainty for authorization holders in the U.S. natural gas export market, as well as for those who may purchase U.S. LNG.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this Proposed Policy Statement.
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 Shenandoah Municipal Airport, Shenandoah, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Shenandoah non-directional radio beacon (NDB), which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport. 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 27, 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-2019-0791; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-13, 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 the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Shenandoah Municipal Airport, Shenandoah, IA, 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 acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those
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 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of the Shenandoah Municipal Airport.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Shenandoah 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 6.5-mile radius of Shenandoah Municipal Airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that LANXESS Corporation has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of calcium formate as a feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in complete feeds for swine or poultry.
The food additive petition was filed on December 27, 2019.
For access to the docket, go to
Carissa Adams, Center for Veterinary
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2310) has been filed by LANXESS Corporation, 111 RIDC Park West Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15275. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573 (21 CFR part 573)
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
VA proposes to clarify implementation of sec. 642 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13), which eliminated automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) for insurable dependents who are members of a uniformed service and are automatically covered under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI). VA proposes that a SGLI-covered member who marries another SGLI-eligible member after January 1, 2013, the date on which the FY13 NDAA was enacted, or is married to a person who becomes eligible for SGLI after January 1, 2013, may only enroll or re-enroll in or increase FSGLI-spousal coverage, upon applying for such coverage and providing proof of his or her spouse's good health. Further, VA proposes not to require a SGLI covered member to apply or provide proof of good health for a member spouse or for a member dependent child to continue FSGLI coverage in force at the time the spouse or dependent child became a SGLI eligible member.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020.
Written comments may be submitted through
Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4404. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001 (“2001 Act”), Public Law 107-14, sec. 4, 115 Stat. 25, originally created FSGLI, which provides automatic coverage for spouses and dependent children of SGLI-covered members. The FSGLI automatic coverage provisions were created to simplify the process for obtaining FSGLI coverage during deployment. The 2001 Act provides for free, automatic dependent coverage for children in the amount of $10,000, which cannot be declined or reduced so long as the member carries SGLI.
In contrast, automatic FSGLI-spousal coverage requires payment of premiums and can be declined or reduced by the member to less than the $100,000 statutory maximum as long as the spousal coverage is equal to or less than the amount of SGLI coverage held by the member.
However, the automatic coverage provisions of the 2001 Act caused the unintended consequence of creating debts for servicemembers when lags occurred in updating personnel records to reflect changed marital status,
The FY13 NDAA, sec. 642, 126 Stat. 1632, 1783, was signed into law on January 2, 2013, to address the problem of premium debts, at least in multiple-
To promptly address the statutory gaps noted above, VA adopted an interim policy that (1) allows FSGLI coverage to continue for a spouse or dependent child who was covered by FSGLI prior to becoming a SGLI-covered member based on his or her own member status after January 1, 2013, and (2) permits a servicemember who marries another SGLI-eligible member after January 1, 2013, or is married to a person who becomes a SGLI-eligible member based on his or her own member status after January 1, 2013, to enroll or re-enroll in or increase FSGLI-spousal coverage only upon applying for such coverage and providing proof of the spouse's good health. In accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1967(c), this policy continues any FSGLI coverage in force, while requiring an application from the member and proof of the eligible spouse's good health to enroll or re-enroll an FSGLI-eligible spouse who is not so insured or to increase FSGLI coverage for the spouse. As such, this policy applies to member-spouses while they are in service as well as those member-spouses who separate from service.
VA proposes to implement regulatory guidance for the amended section 1967(a)(1) by adding a new paragraph (f) to 38 CFR 9.2, redesignating §§ 9.3 through 9.22 as §§ 9.4 through 9.23 and adding a new § 9.3. New paragraph (f) of 38 CFR 9.2 would state that the effective date of coverage for an insurable spouse who qualifies for FSGLI under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1) but who was not so insured or was insured at a reduced rate will be the date the uniformed service receives an application and proof of the insurable spouse's good health, subject to newly created 38 CFR 9.3.
New 38 CFR 9.3 would clarify VA's implementation of the amendments to 38 U.S.C. 1967(a) made by the FY13 NDAA that was enacted on January 2, 2013. VA therefore proposes to provide, in proposed § 9.3(a), that a SGLI-covered member who (1) marries another SGLI-eligible member after January 1, 2013, or (2) is married to a person who becomes a SGLI-eligible member after January 1, 2013, may only enroll or re-enroll the member-spouse in or increase FSGLI-spousal coverage upon applying for such coverage and providing proof of the member-spouse's good health. As proposed in § 9.3(c), consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1967(c), the requirements for application and proof of the spouse's good health also apply when a member seeks to enroll or re-enroll a member-spouse who is not insured in FSGLI, or seeks to increase FSGLI-spousal coverage, after the member-spouse separates from service. However, as provided in proposed § 9.3(b), if a member's spouse was insured under FSGLI at the time the spouse became a member, the pre-service FSGLI-spousal coverage would continue without the need for the member to apply or provide proof of the spouse's good health. Similarly, as provided in proposed § 9.3(c), if a member's spouse was insured under FSGLI at the time the spouse separates from military service, the FSGLI-spousal coverage carried in service would continue post-separation without the need for the member to apply or provide proof of the spouse's good health.
For a member married to another member, VA has determined that requiring an application that asks for proof of good health to enroll or re-enroll in or to increase spousal FSGLI strikes the appropriate balance between offering FSGLI coverage to the extent permitted by law and adhering to sound actuarial principles. By requiring an application that asks for proof of good health to enroll a member's spouse for FSGLI-spousal coverage, the proposed rule would provide insureds the opportunity to meet their financial needs while mitigating the potentially negative impact of “adverse selection” in the program.
Adverse selection occurs when individuals use their superior knowledge of their insurability to minimize the period of time over which they are likely to pay premiums for coverage. Such a practice unfairly shifts the premium paying burden to other individuals paying premiums for coverage over a longer period of time, and potentially undermines the financial health of the program to the detriment of all insureds. Insurance programs rely on a pooling of risks, and premium rates are set according to the expected mortality of the insurance pool. If a disproportionate number of insureds in substandard health enter the program or carry higher coverage amounts than healthier individuals in the program, the increased mortality experience will exceed that upon which the premium rates are based and could impact the program negatively by driving up the cost of premiums for all program participants. As such, the proof of health requirement incorporated in the proposed rule would minimize the potential for adverse selection.
Further, by initiating coverage from the date the member submits an FSGLI application to enroll their SGLI-eligible spouse, the proposed rule would remain consistent with Congressional intent to prevent debts resulting from retroactive coverage during an extensive period when the member had not paid premiums. Moreover, VA has determined that maintaining existing coverage for dependent spouses enrolled in FSGLI prior to becoming a SGLI-eligible member, or enrolled in FSGLI at the time of separation from service, should continue because it is not the type of “automatic coverage” intended to be curtailed by the FY13 NDAA and would not invoke the concerns with overpayments sought to be remedied by the change in law.
VA notes that SGLI-insurable dependent children, like a member married to another member (
We propose to provide in 38 CFR 9.3(d) that, after January 1, 2013, an insurable child who is a member when a parent's SGLI coverage commences is not eligible for automatic dependent coverage under the parent's FSGLI. We further propose that dependent coverage in effect for an insurable child prior to the child becoming a member shall remain in effect so long as the child remains an insurable dependent. However, if an insurable child was not
VA believes that this proposal would comply with the 2013 law change and allow FSGLI coverage to remain in place for those multiple-member families who (1) had been carrying FSGLI prior to a dependent child becoming a SGLI-eligible member and (2) anticipate keeping FSGLI coverage for the duration of their member-child's status as a dependent.
Because current statute at 38 U.S.C. 1967(c) prohibits requiring proof of good health to enroll any dependent child in FSGLI, regardless of whether the child is also eligible for SGLI as a member, VA cannot allow enrollment in FSGLI for this limited class of dependent children upon application and providing proof of good health. The statutory bar to requiring proof of good health to enroll dependent children makes such a policy necessary. VA believes that allowing dependent children with automatic SGLI coverage to also enroll in FSGLI by simply submitting an application, without also requiring proof of good health, would run counter to sound actuarial principles by encouraging adverse selection. VA recognizes that dependent children who are also eligible for SGLI would only be eligible to retain FSGLI coverage in force prior to becoming a member, and unlike a member married to another member, they would not be able to enroll in new FSGLI coverage upon application and providing proof of good health. However, because VA is precluded by statute from requiring proof of good health to enroll any dependent in FSGLI, we cannot adopt such a policy as was done for a member married to another member.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pamela Powers, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 5, 2020, for publication.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 9 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1965-1980A, unless otherwise noted.
(f) Except as provided in § 9.3:
(1) For an insurable spouse who was eligible for coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(ii) but was not so insured or was insured at a reduced rate and who became a member, and
(2) For a member-spouse covered under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(i) and who was also eligible for coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(ii) but who was not so insured or was insured at a reduced amount, the effective date of enrollment, re-enrollment, or an increase in coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1) shall be the date the uniformed service receives an application and proof of the insurable spouse's good health.
(a) A Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance-covered member who—
(1) Marries another Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance eligible member after January 1, 2013, or
(2) Is married to a person who becomes a Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance eligible member after January 1, 2013, may only enroll or re-enroll the member-spouse in or increase Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance spousal coverage upon applying for such coverage and providing proof of the spouse's good health.
(b) A spouse shall remain eligible to be covered by any existing Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance spousal coverage without the member applying for such coverage or providing proof of the spouse's good health in a case where the spouse is enrolled in coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(ii) prior to becoming a member married to another member.
(c) A member's spouse who was insured under Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance at the time the spouse separates from military service will continue to be covered under the spousal Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance carried while in service, and the member will not need to apply or provide evidence of the spouse's good health post-separation. However, if a member seeks to enroll or re-enroll for coverage under Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance a spouse who did not have such spousal insurance coverage, or seeks to increase Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage for such spouse, after the spouse separates from military service, the member will need to apply and provide proof of the spouse's good health post-separation.
(d) After January 1, 2013, an insurable child who is a member at the time a parent's Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage commences is not eligible for automatic dependent coverage under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dependent coverage in effect for an insurable child prior to becoming a member shall remain in effect so long as the child remains an insurable dependent. If an insurable child was not covered prior to becoming a member, the child cannot be covered under 38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(1)(A)(ii) after the child becomes a member.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted through two letters dated June 25, 2008, and September 12, 2018. The SIP revisions were submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau and modify the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations in the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP to address changes to the federal new source review (NSR) regulations in recent years for the implementation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the SIP revisions include updates to Chattanooga's regulations of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other miscellaneous typographical and administrative updates. This action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0294 at
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to approve changes to the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP regarding PSD permitting, as well as updates to the regulations of NOx and other miscellaneous typographical and administrative updates, submitted by TDEC on behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau (Bureau) through two letters dated June 25, 2008, and September 12, 2018.
Aside from making typographical and administrative corrections to some of the rules, these SIP revisions are meant to address changes to the federal NSR regulations, as promulgated by EPA in various rules and described below. Additional detail on EPA's analysis of these SIP revisions and its reasoning for proposing to approve them is presented in the sections below.
On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule revisions to title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs.
Following publication of the 2002 NSR Rule, EPA received numerous petitions requesting reconsideration of several aspects of the final rule, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules.
The 2002 NSR Reform Rules were challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), and the court issued a decision on the challenges on June 24, 2005.
Meanwhile, EPA continued to move forward with its evaluation of the portion of its NSR Reform Rules that were remanded by the D.C. Circuit. On March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10445), EPA responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions by proposing two alternative options to clarify what constitutes “reasonable possibility” and when the “reasonable possibility” recordkeeping requirements apply. The “reasonable possibility” standard identifies the circumstances under which a major stationary source must keep records for modifications that do not trigger major NSR. EPA later finalized these changes on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72607).
Separately from the petitions received that led to the 2002 NSR Reconsideration Rule, EPA received another petition for reconsideration on July 11, 2003. Specifically, the petitioner requested EPA to reconsider the inclusion of “fugitive emissions” when assessing whether a proposed physical or operational change qualified as a “major modification.” On November 13, 2007, EPA granted the petition for reconsideration, and on December 19, 2008, finalized the revision of the language to clarify which types of sources were required to include “fugitive emissions” in their calculations.
Finally, on February 17, 2009, EPA received one additional petition challenging the Fugitive Emissions Rule. Due to this petition, and after several stays,
In summary, after several court decisions and public petitions, the federal major NSR program (found in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21) no longer includes the provisions related to Clean Units or PCPs that were part of the 2002 NSR reform rules. Additionally, an indefinite stay has been placed on the language related to the Fugitive Emissions Rule. Chattanooga is adopting all of the surviving provisions from the 2002 NSR Reform Rules and is not adopting all those provisions that were either vacated or stayed indefinitely. More details on Chattanooga's adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules and our analysis of its submittals can be found in section III below.
On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA published the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
On February 11, 2010 (75 FR 6827), EPA proposed to repeal the grandfathering provision for PM
The NSR PM
Among the changes included in the 2008 NSR PM
On October 25, 2012 (77 FR 65107), EPA took final action to amend the definition, promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM
On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA published a final rule entitled “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (hereinafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule). The Phase 2 Rule addressed control and planning requirements as they applied to areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
The June 25, 2008, and September 12, 2018, revisions requesting adoption of Chattanooga's Rule 18 adopt all the NSR provisions of the Phase 2 Rule as they appear in the federal PSD rules, effectively recognizing NO
Under federal regulations, certain activities are not considered to be a physical change or a change in the method of operation at a source, and thus do not trigger NSR review. One category of such activities is routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). On October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61248), EPA published a rule titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion” (hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule). The ERP Rule provided criteria for determining whether an activity falls within the RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule also provided a list of equipment replacement activities that are exempt
Shortly after the October 27, 2003, rulemaking, several parties filed petitions for review of the ERP Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of the rule pending resolution of the petitions. A collection of environmental groups, public interest groups, and States, subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA, requesting that the Agency reconsider certain aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40278).
The June 25, 2008, submittal includes portions of the ERP Rule for adoption. Although the ERP rule is vacated, EPA is proposing to approve those portions of the June 25, 2008, submittal, consistent with EPA's December 20, 2019,
Chattanooga currently has a SIP-approved PSD program for new and modified stationary sources who wish to construct or modify in an area designated attainment, under Section4-41, Rule 18,
As part of the changes to Rule 18, Chattanooga adopts all the necessary provisions of the federal PSD rules (found in 40 CFR 51.166) to make them consistent with, and in some cases more stringent than, the federal rules. These changes include the adoption of several definitions in the federal PSD rules, such as the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant,” as well as provisions regarding major NSR applicability procedures, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, PALs, and recordkeeping. Slight differences between the Chattanooga PSD rules and the federal rules are discussed below in Section III.A.1.-5.
Additionally, as part of the changes included in the June 25, 2008, and September 12, 2018, SIP revisions, Chattanooga adopts the provisions from the Ozone Phase 2 Rule, as discussed in section II.C of this rulemaking. Consistent with TDEC's rules and the federal rules, Chattanooga adopts the same language regarding the Phase 2 rule found at 40 CFR 51.166. This includes amendments found in the federal PSD rules in subparagraphs 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 51.166(b)(2)(ii), 51.166(b)(23)(i), and 51.166(b)(49)(i).
EPA believes that the proposed approval of these changes, including all amendments mentioned in the following sections, will not have a negative impact on air quality in the Chattanooga-Hamilton County area. With these proposed changes, the local regulations will now be consistent with the State's current SIP-approved PSD program, which is slightly more stringent than the federal rules. Tennessee's PSD program already underwent updates concerning the 2002 NSR reform on September 14, 2007.
It is also important to note that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County area currently does not have any designated nonattainment areas, and all previous nonattainment areas have been redesignated to attainment and have clean data.
Although in most cases Chattanooga adopts the federal rules as enacted at 51.166, certain portions were modified or not adopted. These differences from the federal PSD rules, which are all discussed in the sections below, include: (1) Adopting a modified definition of “baseline actual emissions;” (2) not adopting the stayed language in the Fugitive Emissions Rule; (3) adopting a different major source baseline date for PM
Regarding the definition of “baseline actual emissions,” as promulgated in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47), Chattanooga adopts into Section 4-41, Rule 18, a definition mostly consistent with the federal definition. However, Chattanooga excluded a portion of the definition that would allow for different 24-month periods to be chosen for each regulated NSR pollutant when calculating baseline actual emissions for either PSD applicability determinations.
Chattanooga's adoption of “baseline actual emissions” in Rule 18 excludes the last sentence of subparagraphs 51.166(b)(47)(i)(c) and 51.166(b)(47)(ii)(d) of the federal PSD rules, which states that “a different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated NSR pollutant.” Instead, Chattanooga adopts specific language at Section 4-41, Rule 18.2(d)(1)(c), which states, “For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple emissions units, one consecutive 24-month period must be used to determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions units being changed.” With this difference in the definition, Chattanooga is not allowing for different baseline periods to be chosen for a single project that involves multiple units, which removes an additional flexibility built into the federal rules and makes the local rules slightly more stringent than the federal
However, like TDEC, Chattanooga does retain the authority to allow for the use of multiple 24-month baseline periods only if certain conditions are met. These conditions are: (1) The new source or modification would still be subject to major NSR when using a single 24-month period; (2) one or more pollutants were emitted at lower amounts than permitted during that time; (3) the use of multiple baseline periods for any of the pollutants in item (2) above would result in the source or modification not being subject to major NSR; and (4) the use of the multiple baselines is not prohibited by any applicable provision of the federal NSR regulations. Although this portion of the definition does allow for the Director to authorize the use of multiple baseline periods, Chattanooga's definition is still more stringent than the federal definitions because the source or modification would have to meet very specific conditions, would have to bear the burden for demonstrating that these conditions are met, and must obtain the Director's approval in order to use this flexibility.
As mentioned in Section II.A of this rulemaking, a portion of the Fugitive Emissions Rule was stayed indefinitely on March 30, 2011. For this reason, Chattanooga did not adopt into Section 4-41, Rule 18, the language found in the federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(v) and 51.166(b)(3)(iii)(d), which are part of the stayed Fugitive Emissions Rule provisions that can still be found in the CFR.
Given that the omitted language has been stayed indefinitely, EPA is proposing to approve the changes into the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP as consistent with federal requirements, and the Tennessee SIP.
Chattanooga's June 25, 2008, SIP revision makes changes to Chattanooga's PSD permitting regulations, in part, by adding a definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 18.2(vv) and by adding Section 18.22, which describes “basic design parameters” to be considered in determining whether the replacement of equipment should be considered a new or existing emission unit. Chattanooga's definition of “replacement unit” mirrors the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(32). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve these changes.
In addition, EPA's definition of “replacement unit” cross references the description of “basic design parameters” in 40 CFR 51.166(y)(2). The description of “basic design parameters” was added to the EPA's PSD regulations on October 27, 2003, as part of the ERP Rule, to provide a category of equipment replacement activities that are not subject to the NSR requirements under the existing RMRR. Soon after, the ERP Rule was vacated in its entirety, as noted in Section II.D of this proposed rulemaking, by the D.C. Circuit in the 2006
Lastly, on December 20, 2019, EPA published a NPRM intended to correct various errors in the NSR regulations, which proposed to remove the vacated ERP provisions. However, this proposal included incorporating into the federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(h), 51.166(y), and 52.21(cc) the concept of “basic design parameters” because EPA believes that as used in the definition of “replacement unit,” this is consistent with EPA's interpretation of that provision.
The September 12, 2018, submittal adopts the PM
In addition to proposing revisions to Section 4-41, Rule 18, to address changes to the federal NSR regulations, as promulgated by EPA in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, Chattanooga also seeks to delete several exemptions from the rule. Under Rule 18.8, Chattanooga currently has several exemptions for sources that have obtained or have requested to obtain a permit prior to a certain date, which range from 1977 through 1988.
The exemptions being proposed for deletion were found in Rule 18.8, paragraphs (a)(1) through (5), (9), and (10), as well as paragraphs (f) through (j). According to the Bureau, there are currently no sources operating within Hamilton County which obtained a PSD permit before 1988, and it is no longer possible for a source to request a permit before this date. As part of the June 25, 2008, and September 12, 2018, SIP revisions, Chattanooga seeks to delete the language in the paragraphs mentioned above, and instead place a “(Reserved)” notification in their place.
EPA has reviewed the changes to the exemptions in Section 4-41, Rule 18, and has determined that the changes do not decrease the stringency of the PSD
Lastly, the changes to Section 4-41, Rule 18, together with the differences mentioned above in section III.A.1. through 5., make Chattanooga's PSD regulations generally consistent with the federal requirements (and in some cases more stringent, as is the case of the definition of “baseline actual emissions”), as well as consistent with TDEC's PSD rules. With the exception of the vacated or stayed portions, as mentioned in section II, the adoption of vacated language from the ERP rule, the difference in the PM
Rule 9, of Section 4-41, regulates visible emissions from internal combustion engines in order to protect the visibility of an area by limiting the time an internal combustion engine may operate at certain conditions, as well as the level of opacity that may be caused by the visible emissions. The June 25, 2008, SIP revision seeks to correct a typographical error that was mistakenly approved into the rule.
Under paragraph 9.2, the rule currently states that “no person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the visible emission of air contaminants from diesel type engines for a period of more than sixty (60) consecutive seconds in excess of twenty (20)
EPA has reviewed this change and has preliminarily determined that the change to Section 4-41, Rule 9 is a minor typographical correction. Therefore, EPA believes that this change is approvable pursuant to section 110 of the Act and is proposing to approve the aforementioned change into the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP.
Rule 2 of Section 4-41 regulates the emissions of NO
Under the current SIP-approved version of Section 4-41, Rule 2, Portland cement plants are addressed in paragraph 2.6, which imposes a NO
Additionally, the proposed changes seek to restrict the time of year that Portland cement plant kilns may be operated. Currently, these do not have any restriction on when they may operate, as long as they stay within the current 1,500 ppm, 3-hour-average limit on NO
Lastly, the revisions add a new reporting requirement for sources previously subject to this rule. Although the time has expired for sources to meet the first condition of the reporting requirements, sources that were subject to this rule at the time of the local adoption were required to submit an initial report by April 30, 2007. This initial report was intended to provide the Director with two things: (1) A statement to confirm that the kiln is subject to the rule; and (2) a report demonstrating compliance with the new requirements of the rule. After the initial report was received, the source had to provide a NO
These changes to Section 4-41, Rule 2, are consistent with TDEC's regulations regarding the control of NO
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Chattanooga City Code, Part II, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-41, Rule 2—
EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are 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);
• Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, these rules do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve portions of the Tennessee infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) provided to EPA on September 13, 2018. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that states adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each such NAAQS, commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of the Tennessee infrastructure SIP submission related to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) infrastructure elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0203, at
Nacosta C. Ward of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, revising the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a new more protective level of 0.070 ppm.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
With respect to the PSD elements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submission that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants. The requirements of element 110(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) may also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
As discussed above, whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs that meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and PSD permitting of new major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by the CAA title I part C (
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).
Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components related to: (1) Consultation with government officials, (2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) visibility protection.
This proposed rulemaking relates only to the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) which as previously described, requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to provide for the preconstruction PSD permitting for major sources and prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state. More information on these requirements and EPA's rationale for this proposal that Tennessee is conditionally meeting this requirement for purposes of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below. All other applicable infrastructure requirements
For the major source PSD program sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA interprets the CAA to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission cites Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200-03-09-.01(4)
As mentioned above, Tennessee cites to TAPCR 1200-03-09-.01(4)
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of Tennessee's September 13, 2018, 2015 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission, respectively, that address the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). All other outstanding applicable infrastructure requirements for this SIP submission have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve portions of the Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) provided to EPA on September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, respectively. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each such NAAQS, commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of the Georgia and North Carolina infrastructure SIP submissions related to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) infrastructure elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0503, at
Nacosta C. Ward of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, revising the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a new more protective level of 0.070 ppm.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
With respect to the PSD elements of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submission that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants. The requirements of element 110(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) may also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
As discussed above, whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs that meet the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and PSD permitting of new major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by the CAA title I part C (
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).
Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components related to: (1) Consultation with government officials, (2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) visibility protection.
This proposed rulemaking relates only to the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) which as previously described, require that the SIP contain adequate provisions to provide for the preconstruction PSD permitting for major sources, and prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state. More information on these requirements and EPA's rationale for this proposal that Georgia and North Carolina are conditionally meeting these requirements for purposes of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS associated with these States have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites the following rules to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391-3-1-.02—
North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission cites the following rules to meet the PSD program requirements of 110(a)(2)(C): 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D .0500—“
These SIP-approved regulations were submitted to EPA by Georgia and North Carolina to provide that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for any given NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. However, the Georgia and North Carolina SIPs do not contain or reference the most recent version of EPA's
As mentioned above, Georgia and North Carolina cite to several regulations to demonstrate that their respective SIPs meet the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J), but their SIP-approved PSD programs do not contain or reference the most recent version of Appendix W. On November 14, 2019, and December 16, 2019, GA EPD and NC DEQ, respectively, submitted commitment letters to EPA requesting conditional approval of the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the aforementioned infrastructure SIP revisions. In these letters, Georgia and North Carolina make commitments to satisfy the PSD program requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by revising their PSD regulations to reflect the most recent version of Appendix W and submitting SIP revisions containing these revised rules within one year of final conditional approval.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of Georgia's and North Carolina's September 24, 2018, and September 27, 2018, 2015 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submissions, respectively, that address the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). All other outstanding applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency).
Proposed rule; reproposal.
On May 29, 2015, EPA proposed to revoke the current exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of banda de
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0230, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Anne Overstreet, Deputy Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA is taking this action under section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), which allows EPA to issue regulations, including establishing tolerances and revoking exemptions, on its own initiative. Under FFDCA section 408(e), the Agency applies the same standards for establishing tolerances and revoking exemptions found in FFDCA section 408(b) and (c), 21 U.S.C. 346a(b) and (c). FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate
The relevant portion of FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) requires the Agency to modify or revoke an exemption if the Agency determines it is not safe, where “safe” has the same definition as in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii).
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of FFDCA section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
EPA is proposing to revoke the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide BLAD in or on all food commodities that was established in the
EPA is taking this action in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential allergenicity of BLAD for lupin-sensitive and/or peanut-sensitive individuals following EPA's promulgation of the tolerance exemption of BLAD on all food commodities. (Ref. 1). Based on the potential uncertainty raised by those concerns, EPA sought additional data from the petitioner and reexamined the safety of the BLAD tolerance exemption. Following further review of BLAD and an assessment of the additional data that were provided, EPA has concluded that given the source of BLAD and the results of bioinformatics analysis, such data do not disprove the potential for BLAD to pose an allergenicity risk to lupin-sensitive and peanut-sensitive individuals. As a result, EPA no longer considers the existing tolerance exemption for residues of BLAD, which, on its face, permits unlimited residues of BLAD in or on all food commodities, to be safe. Nevertheless, EPA concludes that the available residue data and food processing information support a safety determination for establishing numerical tolerances at the LOQ for residues of BLAD in or on almond; almond, hulls; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; grape; hops, dried cones; strawberry; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.
The Agency considered the following sources of internationally accepted guidance in assessing the potential allergenicity of BLAD. Although these documents are primarily concerned with the safety of foods that have been genetically modified, the allergenicity analysis is relevant since it outlines a process for evaluating whether the gene (or protein) engineered into the food has introduced an allergen or resulted in a food that may be allergenic. EPA considers the recommended approaches for assessing potential allergenicity to apply equally to proteins that may be applied directly onto the plant as well as those directly incorporated into the plant via genetic engineering.
In 2001, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology was held at the headquarters of the FAO. The 28-expert consultation focused on the question of allergenicity of genetically modified foods and prepared a report providing scientific advice for the assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. (Ref. 2, hereinafter “2001 FAO/WHO Report”). The consultation developed a new decision tree identifying two paths for assessing allergenicity, depending upon whether the source of the gene is a known allergen. (
If the source of the gene is a known allergen, the analysis focuses on both sequence homology and specific sera testing. (
The 2001 FAO/WHO Report provides that for proteins derived from known allergenic sources where the sequence homology analysis is negative, a specific serum screen is to be conducted. (
The 2001 FAO/WHO Report concludes that any positive results from the sera screen will define the product as likely to be allergenic and will normally lead to discontinuation of product development. (
If the source of the protein is not a known allergen, the 2001 FAO/WHO Report decision tree advises consideration of four sets of data: (1) Sequence homology with known allergens; (2) targeted serum testing; (3) pepsin resistance; and (4) immunogenicity testing in animal models. (
The Codex Alimentarius Guidance is a “collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and other recommendations,” developed by an intergovernmental body with more than 180 members, within the framework of the Joint Food Standards Programme established by the FAO and WHO. (Ref. 3, preface). Contained within the Codex Alimentarius Guidance, the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants (“Codex Guideline”) addresses safety and nutritional aspects of genetically altered foods and recommends an approach for assessing the safety of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants and plants altered by other techniques. (
The Codex Guideline states that all newly expressed proteins in recombinant-DNA plants should be assessed for their potential to cause allergic reactions. (
The Codex Guideline states that “[i]t is important to establish whether the source is known to cause allergic reactions. Genes derived from known allergenic sources should be assumed to encode an allergen unless scientific evidence demonstrates otherwise.” (
The next piece of the allergenicity assessment is the amino acid sequence homology, the purpose of which is to determine whether a protein is similar in structure to a known allergen and thus has allergenic potential. (
The Codex Guideline also recognizes that many food allergens exhibit resistance to pepsin digestion and thus resistance to pepsin digestion can be used to assess potential allergenicity. (
The Codex Guideline states that for proteins that originate from a known allergenic source or that have sequence homology with a known allergen, testing in immunological assays should be performed where sera are available. (
BLAD is a protein fragment with fungicidal properties. More specifically, BLAD is a 20 kilodalton (kDa) polypeptide fragment of β-conglutin, a main storage protein in the flowering plant sweet lupin (
In the
Although the preamble to the March 2013 final rule did not discuss the potential allergenicity of BLAD, EPA's supporting memorandum for the establishment of a tolerance exemption examined BLAD's potential allergenicity, based on the available information EPA had about BLAD at the time. (Ref. 4). Observing that (i) BLAD comprises an internal segment ofβ-conglutin, (ii) β-conglutin exhibits a relatively strong homology to the other members of the vicilin family, including well-known allergens contained in peanuts and soybeans, and (iii) there were a considerable number of studies concerning the allergenicity of lupin-derived products, EPA conducted an allergenicity assessment of BLAD. (
Following EPA's establishment of this BLAD tolerance exemption, however, FDA expressed concerns about the potential allergenicity of BLAD for lupin-sensitive and/or peanut-sensitive individuals. (Ref. 1). FDA noted that the preamble to the March 2013 final rule did not discuss allergenicity and disagreed with EPA's statement in the tolerance exemption preamble about the long history of safe consumption of sweet lupins. (
FDA also provided information on BLAD's bioinformatics. Using publicly available sequence information, FDA determined that β-conglutin, the specific protein from which BLAD is derived, is a major lupin allergen, Lup an 1. (Ref. 1). FDA further concluded that BLAD has a high amino acid sequence identity to two major allergens—Lup an 1 and Ara h 1, a major peanut allergen. (
Taking this new information concerning BLAD's source into account along with BLAD's bioinformatics, EPA proceeded to analyze BLAD under the Codex Guideline approach for assessing proteins derived from known allergenic sources, which emphasizes the need for specific sera testing to overcome the presumption that the protein will be allergenic. (Ref. 6). This new approach differed from the approach EPA used in its initial assessment of BLAD; lacking information that the protein was derived from a known allergenic source, EPA had used the general assessment approach recommended for proteins that are not known to be derived from known allergenic sources. (
Applying the 2001 FAO/WHO Report and Codex Guideline processes for assessing substances derived from known allergenic sources, EPA requested that CEV submit additional data to overcome the presumption that BLAD would pose a potential allergenicity concern. EPA also required residue chemistry field trials and a residue decline study to determine likely residue levels of BLAD on treated commodities listed on the pesticide label. (
Based on that reexamination, on May 29, 2015, EPA proposed to revoke the established tolerance exemption, which, on its face, contains no numerical limit on permissible residues in or on all food commodities, and to establish tolerances for residues of BLAD in or on almonds, grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes at 0.005 ppm (the level of detection). 80 FR 30640 (May 29, 2015). In essence, the proposal noted that, since the available allergenicity data did not rule out the potential of BLAD's allergenicity, the Agency was unable to continue supporting the safety finding for the BLAD exemption, which set no numerical limits for exposures to BLAD on all food commodities, which facilitate the process for identifying residues that might be higher than expected in instances of pesticidal misuse. Nevertheless, the Agency determined that, because the available residue data indicate a lack of detectable residues on certain commodities (
The Agency received five timely comments on the proposal, as well as a number of late-filed comments. Of those timely comments, many expressed confusion about the Agency's basis for its proposal and challenged whether the proposal was based on the available data. Some commenters also expressed concerns for the proposal's impact on farmers and trade. Upon further review of that proposal and following additional consultation with FDA regarding the commenters' scientific challenges to the proposal (Refs. 7, 8), the Agency recognized that the rationale for its May 29, 2015, proposal could have been presented more clearly. In addition, the registrant requested that additional commodities be added to this tolerance rulemaking action. Consequently, in response to the concerns raised in the comments and the request for additional commodities, the Agency has decided to repropose with additional explanation addressing the basis for revoking the tolerance exemption and establishing tolerances set at the LOQ for residues in or on the commodities identified in the May 29, 2015, proposal, as well as other commodities requested by the registrant in the interim. This reproposal supersedes and replaces the proposal issued on May 29, 2015.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
As noted in the preamble to the March 22, 2013, final rule, all of the toxicity data requirements have been fulfilled. The toxicological profile of BLAD has not changed since that rule; therefore, EPA is relying on the toxicity findings in that document and supporting documents to support its continuing conclusion that BLAD does not present any toxic concerns. 78 FR at 17601-02 and Ref. 4.
As noted in Unit IV., upon receiving new information about BLAD's source from FDA, EPA reexamined the potential allergenicity of BLAD for lupin-sensitive and peanut-sensitive individuals, using the approach recommended in the 2001 FAO/WHO Report and in the Codex Guideline: (1) Identify the source of the protein; (2) assess the extent to which a protein is similar in structure to a known allergen; and (3) for substances derived from a known allergenic source and that have sequence homology with a known allergen, test sera of a sufficient number of individuals who are sensitized to the allergenic source. (Refs. 2, 3).
BLAD is a fragment of the β-conglutin protein produced in the sweet lupin (
EPA also assessed BLAD for any sequence homology to known allergens. EPA determined that BLAD exhibits a high sequence homology (58%) when compared to Ara h 1, a recognized allergen known for causing allergic reactions (sometimes severe) in peanut-sensitive individuals. (Ref. 4). In addition, FDA informed EPA that BLAD is also 86% identical and 91% similar in amino acid sequence (with no gaps) to Lup an 1.0101, the β-conglutin derived from
In response, CEV agreed to conduct studies that test for allergenicity, including a skin prick (
While the lack of reactivity indicates that BLAD may not cause an allergic response in the tested patients, EPA has determined, as discussed below, that this study is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of allergenicity for BLAD among the general population of lupin-sensitive and/or peanut-sensitive individuals, given the protein's source and sequence homology. (Ref. 16). As noted in Unit III.B., according to the Codex Guideline, “a negative result in
Both EPA and FDA have reviewed the submitted data to determine whether it supports a conclusion that BLAD is not an allergen. Because of FDA's initial concerns about BLAD and in light of FDA's experience evaluating food allergens, EPA discussed the submitted data with FDA and considered FDA's analysis of the sera testing in EPA's own assessment of the data. FDA identified several concerns about the sufficiency of the quantity and quality of the sera used in the testing, which raise questions about the scientific reliability of the data for proving that BLAD is not an allergen. As an initial matter, FDA noted that the sera testing method “is not the most robust for disproving allergenicity to a potential allergenic food ingredient.” (Ref. 8 at 4-5). FDA explained that the
[W]ithout confirmation of allergy by observed positive food allergen challenge, there remain uncertainties about how truly reactive these patients are to the food allergen and how representative they are of the population of potential reactors to the allergen. For example, depending on when the last allergic reactions occurred, a patient may have outgrown their food allergy yet still be sensitized (having specific IgE) to the allergen. Also, some subjects may have associated non-specific reactions,
In addition, FDA expressed a concern about the level of IgE response in the recruited patients:
In addition, IgE-specific level responses to lupin and/or peanut were not found to be robust in most patients, with levels reported to be low (less than 2 kU/L) in the majority of subjects. In clinical practice to determine if a patient with mild or unclear allergic-type symptoms to the food is allergic, most specialists would consider food challenge for a patient with peanut IgE levels less than 2 kU/L, as 50% of peanut-allergic individuals with a median measurement of 2 kU/L are reported to have negative challenges (Nowak-Wegrzyn et al., 2009; Perry et al., 2004). Although patients could still be clinically allergic at low levels of IgE, for peanut, universally accepted clinical cut-off IgE levels to predict likely clinical peanut allergy have been reported at much higher levels,
FDA again noted that “[r]ecruiting patients who had gone through and were observed to be reactive to peanut and/or lupin by the `gold standard' food challenge would have helped to eliminate these uncertainties about the robustness of the allergic sera characterization.” (
Finally, FDA expressed concern about the quality of the testing data, including an inadequate description of the methodology used and poor quality of the sera blot analyses, which further limit the ability to draw conclusions about the results of the sera testing. (
EPA gives great weight to FDA's expertise on the issue of allergenicity, given FDA's role in assessing food safety and their experience in evaluating foods for potential allergenicity concerns. As such, EPA has considered many of the concerns raised by FDA in its own analysis of the submitted data. After its initial conclusion that the lack of evidence of sera reactivity to BLAD provides an indication that BLAD may not be an allergen, EPA, taking into consideration FDA's concerns and the Codex Guideline warning that negative serum testing results may not be sufficient to disprove allergenicity, reexamined the adequacy of the submitted sera testing. (Ref. 6).
According to the Codex Guideline, “the availability of human sera from a sufficient number of individuals” and the “quality of the sera” are important to ensure the validity of the test results. For the present situation, the quality of the sera is the more significant issue for the BLAD test results. In order to evaluate the quality of the sera, EPA looks to the 2001 FAO/WHO Report, which cautions that patients should be carefully selected to ensure an adequate level of sensitivity to the protein. (Ref. 2 at 7). If patients have a low level of sensitization, then the usefulness of the sera to predict reactivity will be compromised. (
Taking into consideration the need to ensure the quality of the sera and FDA's concerns about the quality of the sera used in the serum study, EPA has determined that the study characterization of recruited patients' clinical history of allergic reactions and lack of verification of allergenic reactivity raises uncertainties about the reliability of the study results to conclusively disprove BLAD's potential to pose an allergenic risk to lupin-sensitive and/or peanut-sensitive individuals. (Ref. 16). The quality of the sera being used as a test reagent is a critical issue in ensuring the reliability of the study results for predicting reactivity. (
The Agency did not identify any points of departure for BLAD. The toxicity database does not contain any indication of toxic effects as a basis for any toxicological points of departure or levels of concern. Moreover, there is no known threshold for allergenicity to BLAD. As a result, the Agency is not conducting a quantitative assessment of risk from potential BLAD exposure. Rather, the Agency's assessment of safety is based on the lack of exposure to BLAD because, as discussed in Unit V.C., the available residue data indicate that, when applied under current label rates and using good agricultural practices, there will be negligible to no detectable residues of BLAD on treated crops.
1.
CEV initially submitted residue data for grape, tomato, and strawberry. Field trials were conducted applying PROBLAD PLUS (a fungicide product containing BLAD at 20%) at the maximum product-labeled application rate (0.75 pounds of active ingredient per acre, five broadcast foliar applications per season, at 7-day intervals). Those studies showed that there were no quantifiable residues (where the LOQ is 0.02 ppm) on any treated grape, tomato, or strawberry commodities, and the majority of samples showed no residues above the level of detection (0.005 ppm). (Ref. 15). CEV later submitted additional field residue studies on cherry, cucumber, and apple that similarly demonstrated that application consistent with labeled rates resulted in residues at or below the level of detection of 0.005 ppm. (Ref. 17).
The Agency also requested that CEV conduct field trials using exaggerated application rates of 5X and 10X to determine the rate of BLAD residue degradation. Since the 10X concentration would be phytotoxic, CEV conducted field trials on tomatoes and strawberries using only the 5X application rate (3.75 pounds of active ingredient per acre). The decline curve for the treated commodities indicated a half-life of 2 days. Based on the measured residue levels in the study and using a first order degradation model, EPA was able to calculate a theoretical rate of degradation of 0.4215, which was then used to predict BLAD residues following treatment. (Ref. 15). Applying this degradation rate to residue levels observed in field residue data and taking into consideration the required 1-day interval between application and harvest of treated crops, the Agency expects that there will be no residues of BLAD above the level of detection, if any remain at all, when commodities are treated in accordance with the label. (
Based on the available residue data, the Agency concludes that residues on grape, tomato, strawberry, apple, cherry, and cucumber will be below levels of detection and possibly non-existent when used in accordance with the label at the time of consumption. The Agency has also concluded that the available data is mutually supportive and is appropriate for supporting additional tolerances for certain crop groupings, hops, and almonds. (
Based on the available representative commodity data, the registrant requested use on and tolerances for the following crop groups: Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; fruit, pome, group 11-10; and fruit, stone, group 12-12. Although residue trials on all the representative commodities for those crop groups were not completed, the Agency has determined that trials on the remaining representative commodities are not necessary. The available residue data are mutually supportive and support a conclusion that any additional residue data for the other representative commodities would yield the same results. Given the similarity and consistency of the residue levels in these studies—in particular the consistency of results showing residues levels near or below the level of detection—the similarity in plant morphology between the representative commodity and the other commodities in the corresponding crop group, and the additional factors supporting the anticipated lack of exposure to residues of BLAD (
In addition, the Agency has concluded that no separate tolerances are needed for processed commodities of the raw agricultural commodities contained in these crop groups. (
Moreover, although no residue field trials were submitted to support the hops, dried cones tolerance, the Agency has assessed the potential for exposure to BLAD residues on hops by examining the short environmental persistence of BLAD and the additional processing steps to which hops is subject prior to consumption. Following application of BLAD to hops, at rates that are the same as for other labeled crops, initial residues of BLAD are expected to rapidly degrade during the drying phase. The long drying time would also allow a longer time for microbial degradation of the protein. Furthermore, processing of hops, which is used as a flavoring and preservative in fermented beverages, is expected to further mitigate exposure prior to consumption. All of these factors suggest an elimination of potential residues on hops by the time of consumption. (
Because the application rates and methods are the same for grape and almond, the residue data can be translated to almond hulls, and the Agency has determined that the residues on almond hulls will be similar to residues found on strawberries, grapes, and tomatoes. (Ref. 18). The general practice for harvesting almonds, which typically involves 7-10 days of drying before processing, is likely to further reduce residues on the almond hulls. Also, because BLAD is not applied directly to the almonds, the Agency expects residues on the almond nutmeat itself to be even lower.
Because almond hulls are an animal feed item, section 180.6 of EPA's regulations requires that EPA consider whether residues of BLAD present on animal feed items will result in residues of BLAD in meat, milk, eggs, or poultry commodities consumed by humans. 40 CFR 180.6(a). If there is no reasonable expectation of residues in the livestock commodities, the Agency can establish a tolerance on the raw agricultural commodity (in this case, the almond). 40 CFR 180.6(b). Based on the available information, EPA has concluded that the likely residues on almond hulls will be at or below levels of detection. Even if there are any residues remaining on almond hulls that are ingested by animals, EPA has concluded that there
2.
3.
4.
EPA has not found BLAD to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and BLAD does not appear to degrade into any toxic metabolite or other substance of concern. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that BLAD does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data are available to support the choice of a different safety factor.
Because the Agency has not identified any threshold effects for BLAD, this additional safety factor is not applicable for assessing risk to infants and children.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity, allergenicity, and exposure data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. Taking into consideration all available information on BLAD, EPA cannot conclude that unlimited exposures to BLAD on all food crops would not pose a risk of allergenicity to lupin-sensitive or peanut-sensitive individuals. The data submitted on the potential allergenicity does not overcome the burden for demonstrating that BLAD is not an allergen, given that BLAD is derived from a known allergenic source and the bioinformatics analysis demonstrates sequence similarity with other major allergens. Based on this information, the Agency can no longer support a safety determination for an unlimited exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of BLAD on all food commodities. As a result, EPA is proposing to revoke the current tolerance exemption for BLAD found in 40 CFR 180.1319.
Although EPA can no longer support the existing tolerance exemption for BLAD, which, on its face, places no limits on the levels of BLAD residues on any food commodities, EPA has determined, based on residue data supporting a conclusion of negligible to no exposure to BLAD residues on certain crops, that certain limited tolerances would be safe. That is, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of BLAD when it is applied as a fungicide in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices on the following commodities: Almond; almond, hulls; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; grape; hops, dried cones; strawberry; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.
Upon consideration of information regarding the likely levels of exposure to BLAD from approved use patterns, EPA concludes that the approved uses of BLAD are unlikely to result in residues above the level of detection when shipped in interstate commerce. Further, based on expected degradation rates, the Agency expects residue levels at the time of consumption to be even lower, likely non-existent. The lack of exposure to detectable residues of BLAD, if there are any residues at all, is the basis for the Agency's safety finding for these tolerances.
While the Agency, as a general matter, expects users to follow label directions on pesticide products and that residue data indicate that application in accordance with the label results primarily in undetectable residues or levels at or below levels of detection, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances at the lowest level for measuring quantifiable residues of BLAD (0.02 ppm). Given the potential severity of allergic reactions, the Agency believes that setting numerical tolerances, rather than leaving in effect an unlimited exemption, is the appropriate regulatory mechanism for monitoring residues and facilitates the removal of adulterated commodities from the food supply if residues are found above tolerance levels on any of these commodities. The expectation of negligible to no residues under proper use conditions, subject to the mechanisms of enforcement under the FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), provide assurance that consumers will not be exposed to residues of BLAD that may cause harm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the current exemption and establish tolerances for residues of BLAD in or on the following commodities at 0.02 ppm: Almond; almond, hulls; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; grape; hops, dried cones; strawberry; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.
Adequate enforcement methodology (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA: EASI Method No: RA029 and
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint FAO/WHO food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established an MRL for BLAD.
The Agency received comments on its May 29, 2015, proposal about the potential impact of the proposal on trade and farmers. The commenters alleged that the proposal failed to address possible impacts on international trade, including the potential to cause other countries to require or amend MRLs, to develop enforcement procedures consistent with international regulatory data requirements, and to impose new and more onerous data requirements. The commenters also expressed concern about the lack of harmonization with Canada, which has decided not to regulate residues of BLAD, and pointed to the potential for disruption in trade between the United States and Canada, or at least confusion at the border for enforcing the different standards, as a result. In addition, many commenters expressed concern that the proposal revoking the exemption would have an adverse impact on farmers who relied on BLAD as an effective fungicide.
Under the FFDCA, tolerances and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance may be established when EPA determines that they are safe. 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(i),
The only mention of a factor relevant to trade is found in FFDCA section 408(b)(4), which, as noted in Unit VI.B., requires EPA to determine whether an MRL has been established by Codex when establishing a tolerance and to explain its reasons for departing from that level, if applicable. 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(4). Here, as noted above, Codex has not established any MRLs for BLAD; therefore, there is nothing to harmonize and no discrepancies to explain. As a matter of policy and where the Agency can support the safety finding, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances whenever possible with Codex MRLs and the MRLs of other trading partners, including Canada, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. For BLAD, based on the available information, EPA can no longer maintain the safety finding to support the unlimited tolerance exemption for BLAD residues on all commodities. Harmonization with Canada's regulatory approach is not a legal basis for retaining the exemption under the FFDCA when EPA concludes that the exemption is not safe.
Notwithstanding the substantive restrictions of the FFDCA, EPA recognizes the obligations of the United States to comply with the procedural obligations under the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (SPS Agreement). Because the proposal is a regulation subject to the requirements of the SPS Agreement, EPA intends to comply with the provisions of that Agreement, including those related to notification and implementation, including allowing for a 6-month delay in the exemption revocation to provide exporting countries a period of time to adjust to the U.S. new tolerances. In any event, the revocation in this proposal is not discriminatory and is designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA.
EPA proposes to revoke the existing tolerance exemption for residues of BLAD in or on all food commodities as established in the
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
Although this proposed action would revoke an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, it also would establish new tolerances that would cover pesticide chemical residues resulting from existing registered uses under FFDCA section 408(e). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866, entitled
This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, but it does not regulate State or tribal governments. Nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). Therefore, the Agency has determined that Executive Orders 13132, entitled
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for the residues of Banda de
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and/or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 11, 2020 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
State agencies are required to perform Quality Control (QC) reviews for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In order to determine the accuracy of SNAP benefits authorized by State agencies, a statistical sample of SNAP cases is selected for review from each State agency. Relevant information from the case record, investigative work and documentation about individual cases is recorded on the form FNS-380, Worksheet for SNAP Quality Control Reviews.
The purpose is for State agencies to analyze each household case record including planning and carrying out the field investigation; gathering, comparing, analyzing and evaluating the review of data and forwarding selected cases to the Food and Nutrition Service for Federal validation, for the entire caseload.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request renewal of an approved information collection regarding the regulatory requirements associated with the production of meat from advanced meat recovery (AMR) systems. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2020.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2020.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18 and 2.53), as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601,
FSIS is announcing its intention to request renewal of the approved information collection regarding the regulatory requirements associated with the production of meat from advanced meat recovery systems. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2020.
The regulations at 9 CFR 318.24 state that meat, as defined in 9 CFR 301.2, may be derived by mechanically separating skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock, other than skulls or vertebral column bones of cattle 30 months of age and older as provided in 9 CFR 310.22, using advances in mechanical meat/bone separation machinery (
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
How To File a Complaint of Discrimination
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.),
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request renewal of the approved information collection regarding nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient raw meat or poultry products and ground or chopped meat and poultry products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2020.
Submit comments on or before April 13, 2020.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is announcing its intention to request renewal of the approved information collection regarding nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient raw meat or poultry products and ground or chopped meat and poultry products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2020.
FSIS requires nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. Major cuts are defined in the regulations and include such products as Beef Chuck Blade Roast, Beef Brisket, Chicken Breast, Turkey Thigh as found in 9 CFR 317.344 and 9 CFR 381.444 For these products, the nutrition labeling may be on the package or at point of purchase. FSIS also requires nutrition labels on all ground or chopped meat and poultry products, with or without added seasonings, unless an exemption applies. Further, the nutrition labeling requirements for all ground or chopped meat and poultry products are consistent with the nutrition labeling requirements for multi-ingredient and heat processed products (9 CFR 381.400(a), 9 CFR 317.300(a), 9 CFR 317.301(a), 9 CFR 381.401(a)).
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection associated with SNAP benefit storage and expungement provisions of the 2008 and 2018 Farm Bills. This collection involves both a new collection and an existing collection in use without an OMB control number which is in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The new collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice prior to the State agency expunging unused SNAP benefits from the household's Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) account due to nine months of account inactivity. The existing collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice of State agency action to store unused SNAP benefits offline due to three or more months of account inactivity and for those households to seek reinstatement of benefits prior to permanent expungement.
Written comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
•
•
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Vicky Robinson at 703-305-2476.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
These Farm Bill provisions require State agencies to provide a 30-day advance notice to Individuals/Households (SNAP recipients) in order to permanently expunging unused SNAP benefits after nine months of
The Department has identified and outlined these activities and the estimated burden hours associated with (1) Expungement Notice (2) Off-line Storage Notice and (3) Off-line Benefit Reinstatement for Individuals/Households and State Agencies.
The grand total annual burden hours is 163,970.49 (133,232.16 for individuals/households + 30,738.34 for State agencies) and 5,923,688 total annual responses (2,961,834 for individuals/household + 2,961,834 for State agencies).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Umatilla National Forest, Columbia County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Dayton, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct general business and review proposed projects.
The meeting will be held on March 16, 2020, and will begin at 6:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Best Western Hotel, 507 E Main St., Dayton, WA.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Mike Rassbach, RAC Designated Federal Official, USDA Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362; (509) 522-6293; Email
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Idaho, Washington Relay Service at 1-800-377-3529, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed above.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review of past projects and progress of continuing projects. (2) Discussion and selection of proposed projects and if there are participants, (3) Public Comment.
Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 9, 2020, to be scheduled on the agenda. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Mike Rassbach, RAC Designated Federal Official, USDA Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Deer Lodge, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 9 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Powell County Community Center, 416 Cottonwood Avenue, Deer Lodge, MT 59722.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Jeanne Dawson, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-683-3987 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Introduce the new RAC members;
2. Elect a Tri-County RAC Chairperson;
3. Discuss and determine if the RAC would recommend fee change proposals for developed recreation sites on National Forest lands;
4. Discuss and determine whether RAC funds will be used to fund committee members' travel costs to the public meetings;
5. Discuss and recommend new Title II projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Wednesday, March 11, 2020, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Record of decision.
This notice of availability presents the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Little Otter Creek Watershed Plan (LOCWP) in Caldwell County, Missouri. This task has been to help plan and implement watershed projects. This notice announces the plan to proceed with the installation of the preferred alternative identified in the FSEIS. The preferred alternative, which includes the construction of a 344-acre multiple purpose reservoir, will avoid environmental impacts to the extent possible while minimizing and mitigating for impacts that are unavoidable.
Chris Hamilton, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources and Easements, at
NRCS has decided to implement the LOCWP preferred alternative, which includes construction of a 344-acre multiple purpose reservoir while avoiding impacts to the extent possible and minimizing and mitigating for impacts that are unavoidable.
The proposed Federal action includes providing technical assistance and financial assistance related to construction costs for one approximately 344-acre multiple purpose reservoir on Little Otter Creek, a water intake structure, a raw water line, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and recreational facilities. The purpose of the proposed Federal action is to:
• Provide approximately 1.24 million gallons per day (mgd) of locally-controlled raw water supply to meet the projected 50-year usage demand for Caldwell County;
• Provide approximately 60,000 annual recreational user-days; and
• Provide an approximately 96 percent reduction in annual flood damages in the 3.8 miles of Little Otter Creek between the reservoir and the confluence with Otter Creek.
The 6,323-acre Little Otter Creek Watershed is located two miles east of Hamilton in Caldwell County in northwest Missouri. It is a tributary to Otter Creek that drains to Shoal Creek; the Grand River, and the Missouri River.
Engineering reports dating back nearly 50 years document water supply problems in Caldwell County. Underlying geologic formations severely limit groundwater quality and availability. The Missouri Drought Plan places Caldwell County in a region classified as having “severe surface and groundwater supply drought vulnerability.” Digital models estimate that existing water sources could supply only 37 percent of the county's demand during the drought of record. In addition, the LOCWP documented annual flood damages to crop and pasture land, fences, roads and bridges. LOCWP also identified the need for additional recreational opportunities in the surrounding area.
At the request of the Caldwell County Commission and the Caldwell County Soil and Water Conservation District, NRCS began watershed planning activities in July 2000 under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1008). NRCS issued a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as published in the
LOCWP established three project purposes: water supply, flood damage reduction, and recreation. The SEIS included a range of alternatives to address the three plan purposes. Reasonable alternatives were evaluated independently for each project purpose. Alternatives that met a project purpose were evaluated to estimate their environmental impacts. Alternatives that met one or two but not all three purposes were combined with other alternatives to develop multipurpose alternatives that met all three project purposes.
The planned water supply purpose is to provide a dependable long-term water supply to meet a projected 50-year demand of 1.24 mgd for Caldwell County residents. Nineteen water supply alternatives plus the No Action alternative were considered. The alternatives included various combinations of groundwater sources, streams and rivers, connecting to existing systems, existing lakes and five potential new reservoir locations.
Each alternative was screened for its ability to meet the water supply purpose and need by four selected criteria (below). Alternatives that met these criteria either alone or in combination with other alternatives were then evaluated to estimate the environmental impacts of each. The results of these evaluations were used to carry alternatives forward for further analysis.
• Alternatives must reliably provide 1.24 mgd of water during a drought equivalent to the drought of record in the 1950s to a centrally located site in Caldwell County near Hamilton, Missouri.
• Alternatives must comply with existing state and federal codes and regulations issued by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, USEPA, and other agencies that may have jurisdiction over all or portions of the water supply infrastructure.
• Alternatives must provide raw or finished water of a quality that can be brought to current and future drinking water standards using treatment methods that are reasonable and typical for the region.
• Alternatives must provide a water supply through willing participation of potential suppliers.
Five alternatives met the water supply purpose and need criteria and were carried forward to be considered in the multipurpose analysis.
A planned goal of 60 percent reduction in annual flood damages was selected. This value was high enough to provide significant benefits but low enough to allow analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives. Twelve flood damage reduction alternatives plus the No Action alternative were considered. The alternatives included various combinations of zoning, floodplain acquisition, conservation measures, wetlands storage, conveyance, constructing levees and raising bridges, valley encroachment berms, and dry and wet detention structures.
Each alternative was screened for its ability to meet the flood damage reduction purpose and need by three selected criteria (below). Alternatives that met these criteria either alone or in combination with other alternatives were then evaluated to estimate the environmental impacts of each. The results of these evaluations were used to carry alternatives forward for further analysis.
• Sixty percent or greater annual flood damage reduction.
• Compliance with existing codes and regulations.
• No increase in peak flow.
Three alternatives met the flood damage reduction purpose and need criteria independently and were carried forward to be considered in the multipurpose analysis. Two additional alternatives, when combined, met the flood damage reduction purpose and need criteria and were carried forward as a combination to be considered in the multipurpose analysis.
The planned recreation purpose is to provide water-based recreation to help meet the unmet demand for Caldwell County and the 25-mile radius Recreation Market Area. Nine recreation alternatives plus the No Action alternative were considered. These alternatives considered combinations of creating recreational stream access, expanding existing private lake access, developing ponds, and several alternative reservoir locations.
Each alternative was screened for its ability to meet the recreation purpose and need by three selected criteria (below). Alternatives that met these criteria either alone or in combination with other alternatives were then evaluated to estimate the environmental impacts of each. The results of these evaluations were used to carry alternatives forward for further analysis.
• Alternatives must meet or exceed 45 percent of the unmet demand for water-based recreation user-days.
• Alternatives must comply with existing codes and regulations.
• Alternatives must be available for public use and have public access.
Three alternatives met the recreation purpose and need criteria independently and were carried forward to be considered in the multipurpose analysis. Two additional alternatives, when combined, met the recreation purpose and need criteria and were carried forward as a combination to be considered in the multipurpose analysis.
The multipurpose analysis considered the alternatives carried forward that alone or in combination with other alternatives would meet planned purposes and needs. These alternatives were evaluated for their relative impacts to the environment including aquatic resources and threatened and endangered species. Relative impacts of alternatives were quantified according to their estimated impacts to streams, wetlands, and forests. Alternatives were also evaluated for their “practicability.” An alternative is practicable if it is “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.”
The multipurpose analysis found the LOCWP preferred alternative, which includes construction of a 344-acre multiple purpose reservoir, had the lowest permanent impact on both aquatic resources and potential threatened and endangered species habitat among all practicable alternatives and is the Proposed Action. This alternative will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA section 101. Intentional discharge from the reservoir at water surface elevations below the principal spillway crest is planned to minimize the impacts of the reservoir on downstream aquatic resources.
Following all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the preferred alternative, compensatory mitigation will be applied to the remaining unavoidable impacts. The LOCWP preferred alternative will result in approximately 36,243 linear feet of stream lost due to inundation and fill. This total includes 20,220 linear feet of perennial; 14,569 linear feet of intermittent, and 1,454 linear feet of ephemeral stream channel. The Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (MSMM) is a debit-credit system that guides stream mitigation activities in Missouri. Unavoidable impacts resulting from the dam and permanent pool total 183,376 debits under the MSMM. To compensate for these impacts, an equal or greater number of stream mitigation credits must be provided. In addition, approximately 4.1 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by preferred alternative. All required wetlands credits plus 51,000 stream credits will be purchased from Swallow Tail LLC's North Grand River Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank. Permittee responsible mitigation projects are planned to generate the following estimated in-stream mitigation credits:
(1) Four aquatic organism passage (AOP) barrier removal projects in Caldwell and Daviess counties (94,749 credits).
(2) Riparian plantings on property owned by the Caldwell County Commission (54,779 credits).
The final compensatory mitigation plan fully compensates for jurisdictional wetlands impacts and offers 200,528 stream mitigation credits, exceeding the preferred alternative credit requirements (183,376) by 17,152 credits.
The following conclusions were reached after carefully reviewing the proposed Little Otter Creek Watershed project in light of all national goals and policies, particularly those expressed in NEPA, and after evaluating the overall merit of possible alternatives to the project:
a. The LOCWP preferred alternative will employ reasonable and practical means that are consistent with NEPA while permitting the application of other national policies and interests. These means include a project planned and designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment while accomplishing authorized project purposes. Project features designed to preserve existing environmental values for future generations include:
(1) Provisions to recover significant archaeological and historic resources discovered during project construction;
(2) Establishing vegetation on construction areas with plant species beneficial to wildlife;
(3) Compensatory mitigation for impacts to stream and wetlands habitat;
(4) Supplemental flows to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources;
(5) Reduction in total watershed erosion and the amount of sediment delivered to downstream areas.
b. The Little Otter Creek Watershed project was planned using a systematic interdisciplinary approach involving integrated uses of the natural and social sciences and environmental design arts. All conclusions concerning the environmental impact of the project and overall merit of existing plans were based on a review of data and information that would be reasonably expected to reveal significant environmental consequences of the proposed project. These data included studies prepared specifically for the project and comments and views of all interested Federal, State, and local agencies and individuals. The results of this review constitute the basis for the conclusions and recommendations. The project will not affect any cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Nor will the project affect any species of fish, wildlife, or plant or their habitats that have been designated as endangered or threatened.
c. In studying and evaluating the environmental impact of the Little Otter Creek Watershed project, every effort was made to express all significant environmental values quantitatively and to identify and give appropriate weight and consideration of nonquantifiable environmental values.
d. Every possible effort has been made to identify those adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is constructed.
e. The long and short-term resource uses, long-term productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources are described in the FEIS and FSEIS.
f. All reasonable and viable alternatives to project features and to the project itself were studied and analyzed with reference to national policies and goals, especially those expressed in NEPA and the Federal water resource development legislation under which the project was planned. Each possible course of action was evaluated as to its possible economic, technical, social, and overall environmental consequences to determine the tradeoffs necessary to accommodate all national policies and interests. No alternative or combination of alternatives will afford greater protection of the environmental values while accomplishing the other project goals and objectives.
g. The proposed project will be the most effective means of meeting national goals and is consistent in serving the public interest by including provisions to protect and enhance the environment. The recommended plan is the environmentally preferable plan.
One comment was submitted during the FSEIS public comment period specifying a preference for the No Action alternative, but the commenter provided no rationale, additional alternatives, or other impacts to consider. As such, no further action is being taken to address the comment.
The LOCWP uses all practical means, consistent with considerations of national policy, to meet the goals established in NEPA. The project will serve the overall public interest and meet the needs of the project sponsors. The EIS and FSEIS have been prepared, reviewed, and accepted in accordance with the provisions of NEPA as implemented by Departmental regulations for the preparation of EIS. After considering a broad range of alternatives, the EIS and FSEIS have found the LOCWP preferred alternative to be the environmentally preferable plan to serve the Sponsor's purpose and need.
NRCS has decided to implement the LOCWP preferred alternative, which includes construction of a 344-acre multiple purpose reservoir while avoiding impacts to the extent possible and minimizing and mitigating for impacts that are unavoidable.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:30 a.m. (EST) on Tuesday, February 18, 2020. The purpose of the project planning meeting is to discuss the draft Committee report titled, School Discipline and the School-to-Prison Pipeline in PA.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 800-353-6461 and conference call ID number: 6813288. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 800-353-6461 and conference call ID number: 6813288.
Members of the public are invited to make brief statements during the Public
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday February 20, 2020 at 3 p.m. Eastern time. The Committee will discuss civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will take place on Thursday February 20, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday February 12, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss next steps in their study of civil rights and mass incarceration in the state.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday February 12, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central time.
Public Call Information: Dial: 800-367-2403, Conference ID: 6600777.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the North Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will by teleconference at 12 p.m. (CST) on Wednesday, February 19, 2020. The purpose of the meeting is for planning of its next civil rights project.
Evelyn Bohor, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-367-2403 and conference call 91223280. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-367-2403 and conference call 91223280.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012, faxed to (213) 894-3435, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Florida Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday February 7, 2020, at 2 p.m. (Eastern) for the purpose of discussing next steps in hearing testimony regarding voting rights in Florida.
The meeting will be held on Friday February 7, 2020, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls
Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or may be emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that in the countervailing duty investigations on utility scale wind towers (wind towers), critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of wind towers from Indonesia and do not exist with respect to imports of wind towers from Canada or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Applicable February 11, 2020.
Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 (Canada), Alex Wood at (202) 482-1955 (Indonesia), or Julie Geiger at (202) 482-2057 (Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations, Offices II and VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In response to petitions filed on July 9, 2019, the Commerce initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations concerning wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce will determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A) The alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) of the World Trade Organization; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce considered the evidence currently on the record of the Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam CVD investigations. In each of the three preliminary determinations, we examined a single mandatory respondent and assigned the all-others
Therefore, Commerce preliminarily determines, for purposes of these critical circumstances determinations, that there are no subsidies in the Canada investigation that are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, and that there are subsidies in the Indonesia and Vietnam investigations that are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
Because the petitions were filed on July 9, 2019, in order to determine whether there was a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments during the period July 2019 through November 2019 with the volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of February 2019 through June 2019. With respect to Canada and Vietnam, we preliminarily determine that there were no massive surges in imports for the respective mandatory respondents. With respect to Indonesia, we preliminarily determine there was a massive surge in imports for Kenertec.
For “all others,” in each of the three countries, we also attempted to analyze monthly shipment data for the same time periods, using import data from Global Trade Atlas (GTA),
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of wind towers by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows.
We will issue critical circumstances determinations when we issue our final countervailing duty determinations.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in each respective investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations.
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for PT Kenertec Power System and all other exporters/producers in Indonesia, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from Indonesia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after September 14, 2019, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
This determination is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206.
Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of a roundtable discussion on capturing the value of digital services in industrial machinery.
The Industry and Analysis (I&A) unit of the International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce is leading an effort to develop a methodology to calculate the value of machinery-based digital services in international trade. Better understanding of the true value of digital services in the machinery sector will allow the United States Government to more effectively advocate for U.S. industry in trade negotiations and international dialogues. Through this notice, I&A announces a roundtable to facilitate a discussion with industry stakeholders and experts as an important step in improving the Department's understanding of the value of digital services in industrial machinery.
I&A recognizes that data and knowledge gaps exist in assessing the value of digital services as it relates to industrial machinery, a $430 billion segment of the economy, and international trade in this sector. As emerging technologies increasingly become integrated into industrial machinery and manufacturing, the machinery itself becomes a platform for a host of digital services. In many cases, a U.S. machinery manufacturer's competitive advantage lies in its ability to deliver these services, which has begun to alter global supply chains. Currently, there are no reliable sources of data to track the value and trade of digital services associated with industrial machinery. Therefore, I&A is working to develop a methodology to both categorize and value trade of these services.
As an important step in developing a data-collection methodology, I&A is hosting an exploratory roundtable designed for industry stakeholder input. The goal of this roundtable is to receive guidance from stakeholders on what categories compose the most impactful digital services for automation equipment, as well as effective survey methodology that can be used to collect information from U.S. companies regarding digital services in the future.
The roundtable is intended for individuals involved in their companies' digital services business development and/or production and performance metrics, including technical experts, services product managers, or individuals serving in a similar capacity. Representatives from U.S. companies or companies with a substantial manufacturing presence in the United States are encouraged to apply to participate. As a result, we are not encouraging attendance by trade associations, consulting organizations, or academic institutions. The roundtable is designed to gather information to improve data collection and will not be utilized to seek consensus on any policy items. The sharing of confidential business information will not be permitted during the roundtable.
I&A is seeking applications from companies that meet the selection criteria outlined below to participate in the March 11 roundtable, which will be led by I&A.
Persons seeking to participate in the roundtable will be evaluated based on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria outlined below. A maximum of 10 participants will be selected. Interested parties must submit their applications for participation in the roundtable by email to
Applications for the March 11 roundtable must be received by February 28, 2020. I&A will evaluate registrations based on the submitted information and selection criteria (see
Interested parties must send an email to
Applicants should be capable of identifying and discussing digital services' impact on U.S. firms, industry and/or the manufacturing sector. Company representatives attending the roundtable should be technical experts, services product managers, or individuals serving in a similar capacity.
Diversity of company size, location, and industry will also be considered during the selection process. Selection will be made without regard to political affiliation.
Applicants should include the following information in their application email:
• Name of applicant and a short biography, including the applicant's ability to speak to the impact of digital services on the U.S. industrial machinery sector or a specific U.S. firm.
• Name of company and brief description of company size, location, and industry.
• A statement describing whether the applicant represents a U.S. company that fits one or both of the following profiles: (1) U.S. manufacturers utilizing digital services in their daily operations or bundling digital services in their finished goods sales, (2) digital service providers with clients in industrial machinery industries.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Importance of the company's existing manufacturing process, products, and/or services to the industrial machinery sector.
• The degree to which the company represents the broader diversity of the industrial machinery sector, with respect to company size, location, and industry.
• Suitability of the representative's position, biography, and ability to meaningfully contribute to the conversation.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this administrative review received countervailable subsidies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable February 11, 2020.
Gene H. Calvert AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On March 14, 2019, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China).
The products covered by the countervailing duty order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building integrated materials. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily finds that there is a subsidy, (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested
Further, Commerce received a timely filed certification of no shipments from Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen Glory).
Commerce preliminarily determines the net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, are as
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general rule, to calculate an all-others rate using the weighted average of the subsidy rates established for the producers/exporters individually examined, excluding any zero,
Commerce intends to disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), Commerce assigned a subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. For companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
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 the Republic of India (India) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable February 11, 2020.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On March 14, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CVP 23 from India with respect to Pidilite.
The merchandise covered by the order is CVP 23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily finds that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, Commerce preliminarily finds that the net countervailable subsidy rate for the POR regarding Pidilite is as follows:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching these preliminary results within five days of the date this notice is published in the
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of Commerce's analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the four companies under review had no reviewable transactions during the January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, period of review (POR).
Applicable February 11, 2020.
Thomas Hanna, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0835.
On October 10, 2019, Commerce published its
The product covered by the
In the
Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, we are not conducting a review of that entity
For additional details,
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Pursuant to Commerce's practice in non-market economy cases, if there are any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR under the case numbers of the four companies that claimed no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, they will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.
This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is September 15, 2017 through December 31, 2018. We have determined that Zhongshan Geelong Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Geelong), the sole producer subject to this administrative review, received countervailable subsidies during the POR.
Applicable February 11, 2020.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On October 9, 2019, Commerce published the
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Only the Government of China (GOC) submitted a case brief in this proceeding, while Geelong submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief expressing agreement with the
We conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable during the POR, we find that there is a subsidy,
Based on the comments received from the GOC, we made no changes to our subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the sole respondent, Geelong, for the period September 15, 2017 through December 31, 2018:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced by and/or exported by Geelong, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 15, 2017 through December 31, 2018, at the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Geelong for 2018 (
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Notice; Request for information.
On behalf of the Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Resource Management Subcommittee and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as Co-Chairs of the Ocean Policy Committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests input from all interested parties on the permitting process for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities. The public input provided in response to this Request for Information (RFI) will inform the Ocean Policy Committee as it works with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to increase the efficiency of the permitting and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities across agencies.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 12, 2020.
Responses should be submitted via email to
Brock Eckel, OSTP, 202 456-4336.
The U.S. Government, in coordination with non-U.S. Government entities, conducts hundreds of ocean exploration, mapping, and research activities every year across the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ). These activities improve our understanding of our oceans, including by identifying potential new sources of critical minerals, biopharmaceuticals, energy,
Presidential Memorandum, Ocean Mapping of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and the Shoreline and Nearshore of Alaska, 84 FR 64699 (Nov. 11, 2019), directs the Ocean Policy Committee, through its Ocean Resource Management Subcommittee, to identify opportunities and recommend actions to the Director of the OSTP and the Chairman of the CEQ that will increase the efficiency of the permitting and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities across agencies. The Ocean Policy Committee is soliciting public input through this RFI to obtain information from a wide range of stakeholders, including academia, private industry, and other relevant organizations and institutions, in order to inform the Ocean Policy Committee as it prepares to identify these opportunities and develop recommended actions.
Through this RFI, the Ocean Policy Committee seeks responses to the following questions to identify opportunities and inform development of recommendations that will increase the efficiency of the permitting and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities that take place in the U.S. EEZ.
1. Please describe any challenges related to identifying and obtaining the necessary information, permits, and authorizations required to conduct ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities in the U.S. EEZ, particularly with respect to applicable regulations and agency policies.
2. Please describe opportunities to increase the efficiency of permitting and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities in the U.S. EEZ.
3. What innovative tools, platforms, and technologies could increase the efficiency of permitting, reporting, and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities in the U.S. EEZ? To the extent innovative capabilities already exist, but are not being effectively used, what are the barriers to adopting them?
4. After authorization is obtained, are there any reporting or paperwork requirements that are unduly burdensome or lack utility? If yes, please describe such requirements and provide suggestions for addressing them.
5. Is there any additional information related to permitting and authorization processes for ocean research, mapping, and characterization activities in the U.S. EEZ, not requested above, that you believe the Ocean Policy Committee should consider?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Notice; request for information.
On behalf of the Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Science and Technology Subcommittee and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as Co-Chairs of the Ocean Policy Committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests input from all interested parties on the development of a National Strategy for Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ). Through this Request for Information (RFI), the Ocean Policy Committee seeks input from the public on ways to map, explore, and characterize the U.S. EEZ; that is, to reveal the terrain of the ocean floor and identify areas of particular interest, and to identify and evaluate natural and cultural resources within these areas. The public input provided in response to this RFI will inform the Ocean Policy Committee as it works with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to develop the strategy.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 12, 2020.
Responses should be submitted via email to
Kris Dellapina, OSTP, 202 456-6038.
Presidential Memorandum, Ocean Mapping of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and the Shoreline and Nearshore of Alaska, 84 FR 64699 (Nov. 19, 2019), directs the Director of the OSTP and the Chairman of the CEQ, in their capacity as Co-Chairs of the Ocean Policy Committee, to coordinate the development of a national strategy for mapping, exploring, and characterizing the U.S. EEZ. Pursuant to this requirement, the Ocean Policy Committee, through its Ocean Science and Technology Subcommittee and in coordination with the Administrator of NOAA, seeks to develop a proposed strategy (“Strategy”) to map the U.S. EEZ, identify priority areas within the U.S. EEZ, and explore and characterize the priority areas. The Ocean Policy Committee has commenced development of the Strategy and is soliciting public input through this RFI to obtain information from a wide range of stakeholders, including academia, private industry, and other relevant organizations and institutions. The public input provided in response to this RFI will inform the Ocean Policy Committee as it continues to develop the Strategy.
Through this RFI, the Ocean Policy Committee seeks responses to the following questions to inform development of a national strategy for ocean mapping, exploration, and characterization.
1. Given the tools, platforms, and technologies of which you are aware, what is the most effective approach for mapping the remaining unmapped portions of the U.S. EEZ? How should areas be prioritized for mapping?
2. What innovative tools, platforms, and technologies could advance our capability to map, explore, and characterize the U.S. EEZ more efficiently and effectively? To the extent innovative capabilities already exist, but are not being effectively used, what are the barriers to adopting them? How can these barriers be overcome?
3. Given the tools, platforms, and technologies of which you are aware, what is the most effective approach for exploring and characterizing priority areas of the U.S. EEZ?
4. What selection criteria should inform the determination of priority areas of the U.S. EEZ for exploration and characterization?
5. How can public-private partnerships be utilized to effectively implement the Strategy?
6. Which Federal programs are best positioned to support public-private partnerships to advance ocean exploration, mapping, and characterization? What changes are needed, if any, to these programs to improve their effectiveness?
7. How should the data generated by the Strategy be managed so that it is most useful to public and private sectors?
8. Is there any additional information related to mapping, exploring, and characterizing the U.S. EEZ, not requested above, that you believe the Ocean Policy Committee should consider?
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on February 26, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) will hold a public meeting in the Conference Center at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's headquarters in Washington, DC. At this meeting, the TAC will hear presentations on stablecoins, audit trails, compliance solutions, and cryptocurrency self-regulatory organizations, insurance, and custody. The TAC will also discuss and vote on a recommendation from its Cybersecurity Subcommittee regarding the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Profile.
The meeting will be held on February 26, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by March 4, 2020.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. You may submit public comments, identified by “Technology Advisory Committee,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Any statements submitted in connection with the committee meeting will be made available to the public, including publication on the CFTC website,
Meghan Tente, TAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5785.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.
•
•
•
The meeting agenda may change to accommodate other TAC priorities. For agenda updates, please visit the TAC committee website at:
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's website at:
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Announcement of public meeting.
DoD is hosting a public meeting to facilitate implementation planning by obtaining the views of DoD industry partners, associations, and interested parties regarding implementation of the prohibition in section 889(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 on contracting with an entity that uses certain telecommunications and video surveillance services and equipment.
The public meeting will be held in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLCC), Conference Room B6, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301. Conference Room B6 is located on the lower level of the PLCC.
Ms. Heather Kitchens, telephone 571-372-6104.
DoD is hosting a public meeting to facilitate the Department's planning for the pending implementation of section 889(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232). The Department is focused on achieving an efficient implementation of the prohibition in section 889(a)(1)(B). To achieve this goal, DoD is seeking the views of DoD industry partners and associations regarding how industry will implement this prohibition, including what, if any, impacts there will be to DoD business.
Section 889(a)(1)(B) prohibits Executive agencies, including DoD, from entering into a contract (or extending or renewing a contract) with an entity that uses any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. Covered telecommunications equipment means any of the following:
• Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).
• For the purpose of public safety, security of Government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).
• Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment.
• Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of the People's Republic of China.
On July 19, 2019, DoD, the General Services Administration, and the National Space and Aeronautics Administration hosted a public meeting to obtain views of experts and interested parties regarding implementation in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) of section 889 of the NDAA for FY 2019, with specific focus on the implementation of paragraph (a)(1)(B). Unlike the July public meeting, the intent of this public meeting is to facilitate DoD's implementation by focusing on DoD industry partner plans for implementation. DoD is seeking information on the following:
• What key barriers do you see to industry implementation of this prohibition, and how might they be overcome?
• How long will it take companies to cease use of covered equipment or services?
• What impact will implementation of this requirement have on your supply chains and your ability to contract with DoD?
• What distinct impacts will implementation of this requirement have on small business?
This public meeting is not related to the implementation of the prohibition in section 889(a)(1)(A) of the NDAA for FY 2019. Section 889(a)(1)(A) prohibits executive agencies, including DoD, from procuring or obtaining, or extending or renewing a contract to procure or obtain, any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
DoD participated with the FAR Council in implementing in the FAR the prohibition in section 889(a)(1)(A) via the interim rule published in the
DoD issued DoD procedures for implementing the FAR rule that implemented section 889(a)(1)(A) (see
The FAR Council published a second interim rule in the
(1) Full name.
(2) Valid email address.
(3) Valid telephone number.
(4) Company or organization name.
(5) Whether the individual is a U.S. citizen.
(6) The date(s) of the public meeting(s) the individual wishes to attend.
(7) Whether the individual intends to make a presentation, and, if so, the individual's title.
One valid government-issued photo identification card (
Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to accommodate security procedures.
Public parking is not available at the PLCC.
The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let him or her know the agency is the Department of Defense and the point of contact is Valencia Johnson at 571-372-6099.
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability of proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) and notice of public meeting.
The DoD requests comments on proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) (MCM). The proposed changes implement certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 and concern (1) the rules of procedure and evidence applicable in trials by courts-martial; and (2) the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The approval authority for these changes is the President. These proposed changes have not been coordinated within the DoD under DoD Directive 5500.01, “Preparing, Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters, and Testimony,” June 15, 2007, and do not constitute the official position of the DoD, the Military Departments, or any other Government agency.
Comments on the proposed changes must be received no later than April 13, 2020. A public meeting for comments will be held on February 19, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces building, 450 E Street NW, Washington DC 20442-0001.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Kazin, U.S. Army, Executive Secretary, JSC, (571) 256-8132,
The full text of the 2019 MCM is available electronically at
This notice is provided in accordance with DoD Instruction 5500.17, “Role and Responsibilities of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC),” February 21, 2018 (available at
The JSC invites members of the public to comment on the proposed changes; such comments should address specific recommended changes and provide supporting rationale.
This notice also sets forth the date, time, and location for a public meeting of the JSC to discuss the proposed changes.
This notice is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government. It is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the American Overseas Research Centers (AORC) program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.274A. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
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
Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 257-09, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5690. 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.
Provide professional development opportunities to participants from community colleges and minority-serving institutions. The opportunities must include: Foreign language instruction at the beginning level to introduce participants to the languages of the center, or at the intermediate and advanced levels to strengthen participants' foreign language proficiency; curriculum development workshops for incorporating global content into courses; and conferences related to the scholarly focus of the center. The professional development opportunities may be provided in the United States or overseas where the center is located.
Projects that promote international scholarship by providing open access to center-related research studies, conference proceedings, online libraries, digital archives, foreign language instructional materials, scholarly publications, and other resources related to the thematic focus of the center.
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.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information.
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 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,
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or 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, Application for Federal Assistance cover sheet (SF 424); the Supplemental Information Form SF 424B; Part II, ED 524 (Summary Budget A) and the detailed budget justification (Summary Budget C); or Part IV, assurances and certifications. The recommended page limit also does not apply to the project abstract, curriculum vitae, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to the entire application narrative.
1.
(a)
The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the proposed project promotes postgraduate research, exchanges, and area studies.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(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 following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(ii) The extent to which time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(f)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(ii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(g)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the context within which the project operates.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
All applications submitted to the FY 2020 AORC competition will be evaluated and scored by peer reviewers who are subject matter experts in area studies, international studies, and world languages. The Department will develop a rank order slate of all applicants in the competition, from the highest score to the lowest score. Applications selected
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).
AORC program grantees are required to submit their performance reports into the web-based International Resource Information System (IRIS) data reporting system. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
The grantee performance reports collected in IRIS will be the data source for these measures. The AORC program reporting screens may be viewed at:
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
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
In compliance with the
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 12, 2020.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically via
Dr. Nichelle Williams at 301-563-3919, or email
The EAC issues the EAVS to meet its obligations under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to serve as national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information with respect to the administration of Federal elections; to fulfill both the EAC and the Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) data collection requirements under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and meet its National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) mandate to collect information from states concerning the impact of that statute on the administration of Federal elections. In addition, under the NVRA, the EAC is responsible for collecting information and reporting, biennially, to Congress on the impact of that statute. The information the states are required to submit to the EAC for purposes of the NVRA report are found under Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations. States that respond to questions in this survey concerning voter registration-related matters will meet their NVRA reporting requirements under 52 U.S.C. 20508 and EAC regulations. Finally, UOCAVA mandates that FVAP work with the EAC and chief state election officials to develop standards for reporting UOCAVA voting information (52 U.S.C. 20302) and that FVAP will store the reported data and present the findings within the congressionally-mandated report to the President and Congress. Additionally, UOCAVA requires that “not later than 90 days after the date of each regularly scheduled general election for Federal office, each state and unit of local government which administered the election shall (through the state, in the case of a unit of local government) submit a report to the EAC on the combined number of absentee ballots transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters for the election and the combined number of such ballots which were returned by such voters and cast in the election, and shall make such a report available to the general public.” States that complete and timely submit the UOCAVA section of the survey to the EAC will fulfill their UOCAVA reporting requirement under 52 U.S.C. 20302. In order to fulfill the above requirements, the EAC is seeking information relating to the period from the Federal general election day 2018 +1 through the November 2020 Federal general election. The EAC will provide the data regarding UOCAVA voting to FVAP after data collection is completed. This data sharing reduces burden on local election offices because FVAP does not have to conduct its own data collection to meet its reporting requirements.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years a currently approved collection of information with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The information collection request, State Energy Program, was previously approved on June 30, 2017
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before March 12, 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, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
and to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Amy Royden-Bloom, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585 or by email at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection request contains: (1)
Title 42, Chapter 81, Subchapter III, Part A of the United States Code (U.S.C.), (42 U.S.C. 6867(a)).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before April 10, 2020. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Emily Stanton at (202) 287-5641.
This information collection request contains: (1)
Section 641 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7251.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a determination that the State of Alaska has made a complete Serious Area State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter nonattainment area.
The EPA has established a docket for this notice under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0702. All documents in the docket are listed and publicly available at
Matthew Jentgen at (206) 553-0340, or
On December 13, 2019, EPA received the State of Alaska State Implementation Plan to meet the serious area nonattainment plan requirements for purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM
A completeness determination indicates that the SIP submission meets the minimum criteria that a plan must satisfy for the EPA to review the submittal to determine whether the SIP submission meets the applicable substantive requirements of the CAA and implementing regulations for the type of SIP submission at issue. A completeness determination does not constitute a finding on the merits of the SIP submission or whether it meets the relevant criteria for SIP approval. Consequently, this completeness determination does not constitute final agency action and is not reviewable pursuant to Section 307 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607, nor section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702. The EPA's subsequent rulemaking action or actions on this complete SIP submission will be final agency action, capable of judicial review at the appropriate time.
42 U.S.C. 7401
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, 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 the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 11, 2020.
1.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The
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
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—RFA-CK-20-004, Prevention Epicenters Program: Protecting Patients from Infections, Antibiotic Resistance and Other Adverse Events; May 21, 2020, 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., (EDT).
Teleconference, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 1080, 8 Corporate Square Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30329 which was published in the
The meeting is being amended to change the date to May 20-21, 2020.
The meeting is closed to the public.
Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop US8-1, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (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
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, 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 of Child Support Enforcement; Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing to collect data as part of the rigorous evaluation of the
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 PJAC demonstration will yield information about the efficacy of applying procedural justice principles via a set of alternative services to the current use of a civil contempt process to address nonpayment of child support. It will generate knowledge regarding how the PJAC intervention operates, the effects the alternative services have, and whether the benefits of this approach exceed the costs. The information gathered will help inform future policy decisions related to the contempt process within the field of child support enforcement.
PJAC demonstration will include three interconnected evaluation components:
1.
2.
3.
This notice is specific to the following data collection activities: the noncustodial parent participant interviews (these interview topic guides were approved under a previous submission and require content modification which also significantly lowers the collective public burden hours); the staff survey; the staff time study; and the custodial parent interviews. Data collection activities that were previously approved by OMB, following public comment, are the staff data entry on participant baseline information, study MIS to track receipt of services, staff and community partner interview topic guide, the participant interview topic guide, and the participant survey tracking letter. A participant survey has been eliminated from the data collection plans so the OMB-approved participant survey tracking letter will no longer be used.
42 U.S.C. 1315.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 13, 2020.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Recipients funded under RWHAP Parts A, B, C, and D are required to report financial data to HRSA at the beginning (Allocations Report) and at the end of their grant budget period (Expenditures Report). The A&E Reports request information recipients already collect, including the use of RWHAP grant funds for core medical and support services and for various program components, such as administration, planning and evaluation, and clinical quality management. The reports are identical in content; however, in the first report recipients document the allocation of their RWHAP grant award at the beginning of their grant budget period, and in the second report recipients document actual expenditures of their RWHAP grant award (including any carryover dollars) at the end of their grant budget period.
HRSA is proposing several modifications to the A&E Reports. Recipients would be required to report program income and pharmaceutical rebate amounts in the Expenditures
In addition to these substantive modifications, minor changes are proposed to (1) the layout of the A&E Reports that affects how already required data is reported; (2) align service categories with HRSA Policy Clarification Notice #16-02: RWHAP Services: Eligible Individuals & Allowable Uses of Funds, updated October 22, 2019; and (3) add clarity to language used.
Recipients funded under RWHAP Parts A and B are required to report information about their service provider contracts or sub awards in the CLC, a report that is generated from data entered through other systems. The CLC form identifies a recipient's contracts with service providers for the current grant year, the contract amount, the types of services the service provider provided, and the service provider's status as a minority or faith-based provider. HRSA is not proposing any changes to the CLC.
The primary purposes of these forms are to provide information on the number of grant dollars spent on various services and program components and oversee compliance with the intent of Congressional appropriations in a timely manner. In addition to meeting the goal of accountability to Congress, RWHAP clients, advocacy groups, and the general public, information collected through these reports is critical for HRSA, state, and local grant recipients, and individual providers to evaluate the effectiveness of the RWHAP. The addition of program income, pharmaceutical rebates, and EHE funding to the A&E Reports will allow HRSA the ability to assess progress toward meeting the national goals for ending the HIV epidemic.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 13, 2020.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0955-New-60D, and project title for reference, to Sherrette Funn, the Reports Clearance Officer,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimated budget for fiscal year (FY) 2020 includes $34,800,000 for the IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP) for health professional educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) in return for full-time clinical service as defined in the IHS LRP policy at
This notice is being published early to coincide with the recruitment activity of the IHS which competes with other Government and private health management organizations to employ qualified health professionals.
This program is authorized by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) Section 108, codified at 25 U.S.C. 1616a.
The estimated amount available is approximately $22,405,000 to support approximately 492 competing awards averaging $45,565 per award for a two-year contract. The estimated amount available is approximately $12,395,000 to support approximately 500 competing awards averaging $24,790 per award for a one-year extension. One-year contract extensions will receive priority consideration in any award cycle. Applicants selected for participation in the FY 2020 program cycle will be expected to begin their service period no later than September 30, 2020.
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1616a(b), to be eligible to participate in the LRP, an individual must:
(1)(A) Be enrolled—
(i) In a course of study or program in an accredited institution, as determined by the Secretary, within any State and be scheduled to complete such course of study in the same year such individual applies to participate in such program; or
(ii) In an approved graduate training program in a health profession; or
(B) Have a degree in a health profession and a license to practice in a State; and
(2)(A) Be eligible for, or hold an appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS); or
(B) Be eligible for selection for service in the Regular Corps of the PHS; or
(C) Meet the professional standards for civil service employment in the IHS; or
(D) Be employed in an Indian health program without service obligation; and
(3) Submit to the Secretary an application for a contract to the LRP. The Secretary must approve the contract before the disbursement of loan repayments can be made to the participant. Participants will be required to fulfill their contract service agreements through full-time clinical practice at an Indian health program site determined by the Secretary. Loan repayment sites are characterized by physical, cultural, and professional isolation, and have histories of frequent staff turnover. Indian health program sites are annually prioritized within the Agency by discipline, based on need or vacancy. The IHS LRP's ranking system gives high site scores to those sites that are most in need of specific health professions. Awards are given to the applications that match the highest priorities until funds are no longer available.
Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government, a State, or other entity, is not eligible for the LRP unless the obligation will be completely satisfied before they begin service under this program.
25 U.S.C. 1616a authorizes the IHS LRP and provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall establish a program to be known as the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program (hereinafter referred to as the Loan Repayment Program) in order to assure an adequate supply of trained health professionals necessary to maintain accreditation of, and provide health care services to Indians through, Indian health programs.
For the purposes of this program, the term “Indian health program” is defined in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(a)(2)(A), as follows:
(A) The term Indian health program means any health program or facility funded, in whole or in part, by the Service for the benefit of Indians and administered—
(i) Directly by the Service;
(ii) By any Indian Tribe or Tribal or Indian organization pursuant to a contract under—
(I) The Indian Self-Determination Act, or
(II) Section 23 of the Act of April 30, 1908, (25 U.S.C. 47), popularly known as the Buy Indian Act; or
(iii) By an urban Indian organization pursuant to Title V of [the Indian Health Care Improvement Act].
25 U.S.C. 1616a, authorizes the IHS to determine specific health professions for which IHS LRP contracts will be awarded. Annually, the Director, Division of Health Professions Support, sends a letter to the Director, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, IHS Area Directors, Tribal health officials, and Urban Indian health programs directors to request a list of positions for which there is a need or vacancy. The list of priority health professions that follows is based upon the needs of the IHS as well as upon the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(a) Medicine—Allopathic and Osteopathic doctorate degrees.
(b) Nursing—Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) (Clinical nurses only).
(c) Nursing—Bachelor of Science (BSN) (Clinical nurses only).
(d) Nursing (NP, DNP)—Nurse Practitioner/Advanced Practice Nurse in Family Practice, Psychiatry, Geriatric, Women's Health, Pediatric Nursing.
(e) Nursing—Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM).
(f) Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA).
(g) Physician Assistant (Certified).
(h) Dentistry—DDS or DMD degrees.
(i) Dental Hygiene.
(j) Social Work—Independent Licensed Master's degree.
(k) Counseling—Master's degree.
(l) Clinical Psychology—Ph.D. or Psy.D.
(m) Counseling Psychology—Ph.D.
(n) Optometry—OD.
(o) Pharmacy—PharmD.
(p) Podiatry—DPM.
(q) Physical/Occupational/Speech Language Therapy or Audiology—MS, Doctoral.
(r) Registered Dietician—BS.
(s) Clinical Laboratory Science—BS.
(t) Diagnostic Radiology Technology, Ultrasonography, and Respiratory Therapy: Associate and B.S.
(u) Environmental Health (Sanitarian): BS and Master's level.
(v) Engineering (Environmental): BS and MS (Engineers must provide environmental engineering services to be eligible.).
(w) Chiropractors: Licensed.
(x) Acupuncturists: Licensed.
Not applicable.
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied health professions is effective for applicants for FY 2020. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded.
Each applicant will be responsible for submitting a complete application. Go to
• Employment Verification—Documentation of your employment with an Indian health program as applicable:
○ Commissioned Corps orders, Tribal employment documentation or offer letter, or Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50)—For current Federal employees.
• License to Practice—A photocopy of your current, non-temporary, full and unrestricted license to practice (issued by any State, Washington, DC, or Puerto Rico).
• Loan Documentation—A copy of all current statements related to the loans submitted as part of the LRP application.
• Transcripts—Transcripts do not need to be official.
• If applicable, if you are a member of a federally recognized Tribe or an Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide a certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Certification: Form BIA—4432 Category A—Members of federally Recognized Indian Tribes, Bands or Communities or Category D—Alaska Native).
Applications for the FY 2020 LRP will be accepted and evaluated monthly beginning February 15, 2020, and will continue to be accepted each month thereafter until all funds are exhausted for FY 2020 awards. Subsequent monthly deadline dates are scheduled for the fifteenth of each month until August 15, 2020.
Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(1) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(2) Received after the deadline date, but with a legible postmark dated on or before the deadline date. (Applicants should request a legibly dated U.S.
Applications submitted after the monthly closing date will be held for consideration in the next monthly funding cycle. Applicants who do not receive funding by September 30, 2019, will be notified in writing.
Application documents should be sent to: IHS Loan Repayment Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857.
This program is not subject to review under Executive Order 12372.
Not applicable.
New applicants are responsible for using the online application. Applicants requesting a contract extension must do so in writing by February 15, 2020, to ensure the highest possibility of being funded a contract extension.
The IHS will utilize the Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) score developed by the Health Resources and Services Administration for each Indian health program for which there is a need or vacancy. At each Indian health facility, the HPSA score for mental health will be utilized for all behavioral health professions, the HPSA score for dental health will be utilized for all dentistry and dental hygiene health professions, and the HPSA score for primary care will be used for all other approved health professions.
In determining applications to be approved and contracts to accept, the IHS will give priority to applications made by American Indians and Alaska Natives and to individuals recruited through the efforts of Indian Tribes or Tribal or Indian organizations.
Loan repayment awards will be made only to those individuals serving at facilities with have a site score of 17 or above through March 1, 2020, if funding is available.
One or all of the following factors may be applicable to an applicant, and the applicant who has the most of these factors, all other criteria being equal, will be selected.
(1) An applicant's length of current employment in the IHS, Tribal, or Urban program.
(2) Availability for service earlier than other applicants (first come, first served).
(3) Date the individual's application was received.
Not applicable.
Notice of awards will be mailed on the last working day of each month. Once the applicant is approved for participation in the LRP, the applicant will receive confirmation of his/her loan repayment award and the duty site at which he/she will serve his/her loan repayment obligation.
Applicants may sign contractual agreements with the Secretary for two years. The IHS may repay all, or a portion, of the applicant's health profession educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) for tuition expenses and reasonable educational and living expenses in amounts up to $20,000 per year for each year of contracted service. Payments will be made annually to the participant for the purpose of repaying his/her outstanding health profession educational loans. Payment of health profession education loans will be made to the participant within 120 days, from the date the contract becomes effective. The effective date of the contract is calculated from the date it is signed by the Secretary or his/her delegate, or the IHS, Tribal, Urban, or Buy Indian health center entry-on-duty date, whichever is more recent.
In addition to the loan payment, participants are provided tax assistance payments in an amount not less than 20 percent and not more than 39 percent of the participant's total amount of loan repayments made for the taxable year involved. The loan repayments and the tax assistance payments are taxable income and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The tax assistance payment will be paid to the IRS directly on the participant's behalf. LRP award recipients should be aware that the IRS may place them in a higher tax bracket than they would otherwise have been prior to their award.
Any individual who enters this program and satisfactorily completes his or her obligated period of service may apply to extend his/her contract on a year-by-year basis, as determined by the IHS. Participants extending their contracts may receive up to the maximum amount of $20,000 per year plus an additional 20 percent for Federal withholding.
Please address inquiries to Ms. Jacqueline K. Santiago, Chief, IHS Loan Repayment Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: 301/443-3396 [between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays].
Indian Health Service area offices and service units that are financially able are authorized to provide additional funding to make awards to applicants in the LRP, but not to exceed the maximum allowable amount authorized by statute per year, plus tax assistance. All additional funding must be made in accordance with the priority system outlined below. Health professions given priority for selection above the $20,000 threshold are those identified as meeting the criteria in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(g)(2)(A), which provides that the Secretary shall consider the extent to which each such determination:
(i) Affects the ability of the Secretary to maximize the number of contracts that can be provided under the LRP from the amounts appropriated for such contracts;
(ii) Provides an incentive to serve in Indian health programs with the greatest shortages of health professionals; and
(iii) Provides an incentive with respect to the health professional involved remaining in an Indian health program with such a health professional shortage, and continuing to provide primary health services, after the completion of the period of obligated service under the LRP.
Contracts may be awarded to those who are available for service no later than September 30, 2020, and must be in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 1616a. In order to ensure compliance with the statutes, area offices or service units providing additional funding under this section are responsible for notifying the LRP of such payments before funding is offered to the LRP participant.
Should an IHS area office contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that area. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from their Health Professions Shortage Areas (HPSA) scores. For
Should an IHS service unit contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that service unit. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from their HPSA scores.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is committed to encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to enter the health professions and to assuring the availability of Indian health professionals to serve Indians. The IHS is committed to the recruitment of students for the following programs:
•
•
•
Full-time and part-time scholarships will be funded for each of the three scholarship programs. The scholarship award selections and funding are subject to availability of funds.
Scholarship.
An estimated $13.7 million will be available for fiscal year (FY) 2020 awards. The IHS Scholarship Program (IHSSP) anticipates, but cannot guarantee, student scholarship selections from any or all of the approved disciplines in the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, and Health Professions Scholarship programs for the scholarship period 2020-2021 academic year. Due to the rising cost of education and the decreasing number of scholars who can be funded by the IHSSP, the IHSSP previously changed the funding policy for Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship awards and reallocated a greater percentage of its funding in an effort to increase the number of Health Professions Scholarship, and inherently the number of service-obligated scholars, to better meet the health care needs of the IHS and its Tribal and Urban Indian health care system partners. This policy continues in effect for 2020-2021 academic year.
Approximately 25 new awards will be made by the IHSSP under the Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship programs for Indians. The awards are for 10 months in duration, with an additional 2 months for approved summer school requests, and will cover both tuition and fees and other related costs (ORC). The average award to a full-time student in both programs is approximately $40,372.61. Approximately 100 new awards will be made by the IHSSP under the Health Professions Scholarship program. The awards are for 12 months in duration and will cover both tuition and fees and ORC. The average award to a full-time student is approximately $120,814.38. Approximately a total of 300 awards will be made under the IHSSP Scholarship Program for FY 2020-2021.
The project period for the Preparatory Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC is limited to 2 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 2 years, not to exceed 4 years for part-time students. The project period for the Pre-graduate Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC is limited to 4 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 4 years, not to exceed 8 years for part-time students. The Health Professions Scholarship provides stipend support, tuition, fees, and ORC and is limited to 4 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 4 years, not to exceed 8 years for part-time students.
This is a limited competition announcement. New and continuation scholarship awards are limited to “Indians” as defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(13).
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment in a compensatory, pre-professional general education course or curriculum.
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment or are enrolled in an accredited pre-graduate program leading to a baccalaureate degree in pre-medicine or pre-dentistry.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
Awardees of the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, or Health Professions Scholarship, who accept outside funding from other scholarship, grant, and fee waiver programs, will have these monies applied to their student account tuition and fees charges at the college or university they are attending, before the IHSSP will pay any of the remaining balance, unless said outside scholarship, grant, or fee waiver award letter specifically excludes use for tuition and fees. These outside funding sources must be reported on the student's invoicing documents submitted by the college or university they are attending. Student loans and Veterans Administration (VA)/G.I. Bill benefits accepted by Health Professions Scholarship recipients will have no effect on the IHSSP payment made to their college or university.
Applicants must go online to:
This information is listed below. Please review the following list to identify the appropriate IHS ASC for your State.
Each applicant will be responsible for entering their basic applicant account information online, in addition to submitting required documents as requested. Applicants must initiate an application through the online portal or the application will be considered incomplete. For more information on how to use the online portal, go to
The following documents must be submitted by February 28, 2020, 7:00 p.m. Eastern:
• A completed online application.
• Official transcript(s) must be uploaded from the last college/university degree you earned, and from your current degree program. Official transcript(s) must support your intended enrollment/classification status for 2020-2021.
• Two Faculty/Employer Evaluations with faculty evaluators identified, evaluations transmitted and completed in the online applicant portal.
• Online narratives-reasons for requesting the scholarship.
• Delinquent Debt form completed in the online applicant portal.
• Course Curriculum Form completed in the online applicant portal.
Non-selected applicants will be notified by mail by the end of May. Selected applicants will be notified to upload the following documents within 30 days of notification:
• Current Letter of Acceptance from a college/university or proof of application to a college/university or health professions program.
• Applicant's Documents for Indian Eligibility.
If you are a member of a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide evidence of
A. Certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Certification: Form 4432—Category A or D, (whichever is applicable).
B. For Preparatory Scholarship or Pre-graduate Scholarship, only: If you are a member of a Tribe terminated since 1940 or a State-recognized Tribe, provide official documentation that you meet the requirements of Tribal membership as prescribed by the charter, articles of incorporation or other legal instrument of the Tribe and have been officially designated as a Tribal member as evidenced by an accompanying document signed by an authorized Tribal official; or other evidence, satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, that you are a member of the Tribe. In addition, if the terminated or State-recognized Tribe of which you are a member is not on a list of such Tribes published by the Secretary of the Interior in the
C. For Preparatory Scholarship or Pre-graduate Scholarship, only: If you are not a Tribal member, but are a natural child or grandchild of a Tribal member you must submit: (1) Evidence of that fact,
• Degree/Major Plan of Study.
• Declaration of Federal Employment—OMB Form 3206-0162.
• Addendum OF 306 Form—OMB Form 0917-0028.
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
No more than five percent of available funds will be used for part-time scholarships this fiscal year. Students are considered part-time if they are enrolled for a minimum of six hours of instruction and are not considered in full-time status by their college/university. Documentation must be received from part-time applicants that their school and course curriculum allows less than full-time status. Both part-time and full-time scholarship awards will be made in accordance with the applicable authorizing statutes at 25 U.S.C §§ 1613 and 1613a and the regulations at 42 CFR part 136 Subpart J, Subdivisions J-3, J-4, and J-8 and this information will be published in all IHSSP Application and Student Handbooks as they pertain to the IHSSP.
New and continuation applicants are responsible for using the online application system. See section 3. Submission Dates for application deadlines.
Selected applications will be reviewed and scored with the following criteria.
•
•
•
The applicant's narrative will be judged on how well it is written and its content.
Applications for each health career category are reviewed and ranked separately.
• Applicants who are closest to graduation or completion of training are awarded first. For example, senior and junior applicants under the Pre-graduate Scholarship receive funding before freshmen and sophomores.
•
○ Preparatory Scholarship is limited to sophomore students pursuing the following degrees.
A. Pre-Nursing.
○ Pre-graduate Scholarship is limited to junior year and above students pursuing the following degrees.
A. Pre-Dentistry.
B. Pre-Medicine.
○ Health Professions Scholarship. This scholarship is limited to students who are or will be in the following plan of study by August 1, 2020.
A. Medicine—Allopathic and Osteopathic doctorate degrees.
B. Nursing—Bachelor of Science (BSN).
C. Nursing (NP, DNP)—Nurse Practitioner/Advanced Practice Nurse.
D. Nursing—Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM).
E. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA).
F. Physician Assistant (certified).
G. Dentistry—DDS or DMD degree.
H. Social Work—Master's degree (Clinical).
I. Clinical Psychology—Ph.D. or PsyD.
J. Counseling Psychology—Ph.D.
K. Optometry—OD.
L. Pharmacy—PharmD.
M. Podiatry—DPM.
N. Physical Therapy—DPT.
Selected applications will be reviewed and scored by the IHSSP Application Review Committee appointed by the IHS. Reviewers will not be allowed to review an application from their area or their own Tribe. Each application will be reviewed by three reviewers. The average score of the three reviews provides the final ranking score for each applicant. To determine the ranking of each applicant, these scores are sorted from the highest to the lowest within each scholarship health discipline by date of graduation and score. If several students have the same date of graduation and score within the same discipline, the computer will randomly sort the ranking list and will not sort by alphabetical name. Selections are then made from the top of each ranking list to the extent that funds allocated by the IHS among the three scholarships are available for obligation.
It is anticipated that recipients applying for extension of their scholarship funding will be notified in writing during the second week of June 2020 and new applicants will be notified in writing during the second week of July 2020. An Award Letter will be issued to successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing.
Regulations at 42 CFR 136.304 provide that the IHS shall, from time to time, publish a list of allied health professions eligible for consideration for the award of the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, and Health Professions Scholarship. Section 104(b)(1) of the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a(b)(1), authorizes the IHS to determine the distribution of scholarships among the health professions.
Awards for the Health Professions Scholarship will be made in accordance with the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a and 42 CFR 136.330-136.334. Awardees shall incur a service obligation prescribed under the IHCIA, Section 1613a(b), shall be met by service, through full-time clinical practice (as detailed on page 18 of the IHSSP Service Commitment Handbook at:
(1) In the IHS;
(2) In a program conducted under a contract or compact entered into under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638) and its amendments;
(3) In a program assisted under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-437) and its amendments; or
(4) In a private practice option of his or her profession if the practice (a) is situated in a health professional shortage area, designated in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and (b) addresses the health care needs of a substantial number (75 percent of the total served) of Indians as determined by the Secretary in accordance with guidelines of the Service.
Pursuant to the IHCIA Section 1613a(b)(3)(C), an awardee of a Health Professions Scholarship may, at the election of the awardee, meet his or her service obligation prescribed under IHCIA Section 1613a(b) by a program specified in options (1)-(4) above that:
(i) Is located on the reservation of the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled; or
(ii) Serves the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled, if there is an open vacancy available in the discipline for which the awardee was funded under the Health Professions Scholarship during the required 90-day placement period.
In summary, all awardees of the Indian Health Professions Scholarship are reminded that acceptance of this scholarship will result in a service obligation required by both statute and contract, that must be performed, through full-time clinical practice, at an approved service payback facility. The IHS Director (Director) reserves the right to make final decisions regarding assignment of scholarship recipients to fulfill their service obligation.
Moreover, the Director has the authority to make the final determination, designating a facility, whether managed and operated by the IHS, or one of its Tribal or Urban Indian partners, consistent with IHCIA, as approved for scholar-obligated service payback.
It is the policy of the IHS that a scholarship awardee funded under the Health Professions Scholarship Program of the IHCIA must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good academic standing each semester/trimester/quarter, maintain full-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum hours” constituting full-time enrollment applies) or part-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum and maximum” hours constituting part-time enrollment applies) for the entire academic year, as indicated on the scholarship application submitted for that academic year. The Health Professions Scholarship awardee may not change his or her enrollment status between terms of enrollment during the same academic year unless approved in advance by the Chief, Scholarship Program. New recipients may not request a leave of absence the first academic year. All requests for leave of absence are to be approved in advance by the Director, Division of Health Professions Support.
An awardee of a scholarship under the Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship authority must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good standing each semester/trimester/quarter and be a full-time student (institutional definition of “minimum hours” constituting full-time enrollment applies, typically 12 credit hours per semester) or a part-time student (institutional definition of “minimum and maximum” hours constituting part-time enrollment applies, typically 6-11 credit hours). The Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship awardee may not change from part-time status to full-time status or vice versa in the same academic year unless approved in advance by the Chief, Scholarship Program. New recipients may not request a leave of absence the first academic year.
The following reports must be sent to the IHSSP at the identified time frame. Each scholarship awardee will have access to online Student and Service Commitment Handbooks and required program forms and instructions on when, how, and to whom these must be submitted, by logging into the IHSSP website at
Within thirty days from the beginning of each semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees must submit a Recipient's Initial Program Progress Report (Form IHS-856-8), found on the IHS Scholarship Program website at:
Within thirty days from the end of each academic period,
If at any time during the semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees are advised to reduce the number of credit hours for which they are enrolled below the minimum of the 12 (or the number of hours considered by their school as full-time) for a full-time student or at least 6 hours for part-time students, or if they experience academic problems, they must submit this report (Form IHS-856-9), found on the IHS Scholarship Program website at:
•
•
•
1. Questions on the application process may be directed to the appropriate IHS Area Scholarship Coordinator.
2. Questions on other programmatic matters may be addressed to: Ms. Reta Brewer, Chief, Scholarship Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-6197 (This is not a toll-free number).
3. Questions on payment information may be directed to: Mr. Craig Boswell, Grants Scholarship Coordinator, Division of Grants Management, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: (09E65A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-0056 (This is not a toll-free number).
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible IHSSP health and allied professions is effective for applicants for the 2020-2021 academic year. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded. Applicants who apply for health career categories not listed as a priorities during the current scholarship cycle will not be considered for a scholarship award.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel NIH Research Enhancement Award (AREA and REAP) (R15), March 03, 2020, 12:00 p.m. to March 03, 2020, 05:00 p.m., which was published in the
The meeting start date is being changed to April 20, 2020 start time 12:00 p.m. and ending April 21, 2020 05:00 p.m. The meeting format is being changed to Virtual Meeting. The location remains the same. 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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: HIV/AIDS Innovative Research Applications, March 5, 2020, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. The meeting date and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Drug Discovery for the Nervous System Study Section, February 27, 2020 to February 28, 2020, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Holiday Inn Bayside, 4875 North Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92106 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from February 27-28, 2020 to February 27, 2020. The meeting location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Nominations have been extended until Friday, February 21, 2020.
Nominations are due by Friday February 21, 2020 and may be sent to Dr. Susan Daniels, Director, Office of Autism Research Coordination/NIMH/NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 7220, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 by standard or express mail, or via email to
Susan Daniels at 301-827-1437 or email at
On November 26, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Nominations of new non-federal public members are encouraged, and current non-federal public members may also be re-nominated to continue to serve if they have served only one term previously, in accordance with the provisions of the Autism CARES Act of 2019. Self-nominations and nominations of other individuals are both permitted. Only one nomination per individual is required. Multiple nominations of the same individual will not increase likelihood of selection. The Secretary may select non-federal public members from the pool of submitted nominations and other sources as needed to meet statutory requirements and to form a balanced committee that represents the diversity within the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) community.
Those eligible for nomination include individuals on the autism spectrum, parents or guardians of individuals with ASD, leaders or representatives of major ASD research, advocacy and service organizations, healthcare and service providers, educators, researchers and other individuals with professional or personal experience with ASD. Nominations of individuals with a variety of disability and support needs, individuals from all U.S. states and territories, and individuals representing diverse populations within the autism community, including all genders and gender identities, cultural, ethnic and racial groups are encouraged. Requests for reasonable accommodation to enable participation on the Committee should be indicated in the nomination submission.
IACC non-federal public members are appointed as special government employees and are required to be U.S. citizens. To serve, they must submit an annual confidential financial disclosure report used to determine conflicts of interest as well as a foreign activities questionnaire. Prohibited foreign activities include holding a position or title with a foreign governmental entity (including certain universities), and from receiving compensation and certain gifts from a foreign government.
As specified in the Committee's authorizing statute (section 399CC of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 280i-2, as amended), the Committee will carry out the following responsibilities: (1) Monitor autism spectrum disorder research, and to the extent practicable, services and support activities, across all relevant Federal departments and agencies, including coordination of Federal activities with respect to autism spectrum disorder; (2) develop a summary of advances in autism spectrum disorder research related to causes, prevention, treatment, early screening, diagnosis or ruling out a diagnosis; interventions, including school and community-based interventions, and access to services and supports for individuals with autism spectrum disorder across the lifespan of such individuals; (3) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding any appropriate changes to such activities, including with respect to the strategic plan; (4) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding public participation in decisions relating to autism spectrum disorder, and the process by which public feedback can be better integrated into such decisions; (5) develop a strategic plan for the conduct of, and support for, autism spectrum disorder research, including, as practicable, for services and supports, for individuals with an autism spectrum disorder across the lifespan of such individuals and the families of such individuals, which shall include (A) proposed budgetary requirements; and (B) recommendations to ensure that autism spectrum disorder research, and services and support activities to the extent practicable, of the Department of Health and Human Services and of other Federal departments and agencies are not unnecessarily duplicative; and (6) submit to Congress and the President: (A) an annual update on the summary of advances; and (B) an annual update to the strategic plan, including any progress made in achieving the goals outlined in such strategic plan.
In accordance with the Committee's authorizing statute, “Not more than
All non-Federal public members are appointed as Special Government Employees for their service on the IACC, of which:
• At least three such members shall be individuals with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder;
• At least three such members shall be parents or legal guardians of an individual with an autism spectrum disorder; and
• At least three such members shall be representatives of leading research, advocacy, and service organizations for individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that diverse views and perspectives are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees and, therefore, the Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates of all genders, cultural, ethnic, and racial groups, people with disabilities, and individuals who may belong to other underrepresented groups. The Department also seeks geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Requests for reasonable accommodation to enable participation on the Committee should be indicated in the nomination submission.
Non-Federal public members of the Committee “shall serve for a term of 4 years, and may be reappointed for one additional 4-year term. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member [with a valid appointment] may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor has been appointed.”
“The Committee shall meet at the call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Secretary. The Committee shall meet not fewer than 2 times each year.”
In the years 2014-2019, the IACC held an average of 4 meetings, 1 workshop and 2 phone conferences per year, including full committee, subcommittee, working and planning group meetings, and workshops. Travel expenses are provided for non-federal public Committee members to facilitate attendance at in-person meetings. Members are expected to be committed to making every effort to attend all full committee meetings and workshops in person and relevant subcommittee, working and planning group meetings by phone. For those who occasionally cannot travel or for individuals with a disability that prevents travel, remote access options are provided.
Nominations should include a cover letter of no longer than 3 pages describing the candidate's interest in seeking appointment to the IACC, including relevant personal and professional experience with ASD, indication of any membership eligibility requirements met, disability accommodation requests, and an indication of commitment to attend IACC meetings if selected, as well as full contact information and a current resume or curriculum vitae. Up to 2 letters of support are permitted in addition to the nomination, with a page limit of 3 pages per letter. Please do not include other materials unless requested.
Nominations are due by Friday February 21, 2020 and may be sent to Dr. Susan Daniels, Director, Office of Autism Research Coordination/NIMH/NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 7220, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 by standard or express mail, or via email to
More information about the IACC is available at
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 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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning the opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-0361.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use
SAMHSA will request OMB approval for a revision of the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) for federal agency and federally regulated drug testing programs which must comply with the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Urine (UrMG) dated January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920) and using Oral Fluid (OFMG) dated October 25, 2019, and OMB approval for information provided by test facilities (laboratories and Instrumented Initial Test Facilities, IITFs) for the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP).
The CCF is used by all federal agencies and employers regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to document the collection and chain of custody of urine specimens at the collection site, for HHS-certified test facilities to report results, and for Medical Review Officers (MROs) to document and report a verified result. SAMHSA allows the use of the CCF as a paper or electronic form.
The current OMB-approved CCF has an August 31, 2020 expiration date. SAMHSA has resubmitted the CCF with major content revisions to the form for OMB approval. These revisions are:
Based upon information from federal agencies and from DOT concerning their regulated industries, the number of respondents has increased from 5.4 million to 6.7 million, which increases the total burden hours by 170,701.8.
Laboratories and IITFs seeking HHS certification under the NLCP must complete and submit the NLCP application form. The NLCP application form has not been revised compared to the previous form.
Prior to an inspection, an HHS-certified laboratory or IITF is required to submit specific information regarding its procedures. Collecting this information prior to an inspection allows the inspectors to thoroughly review and understand the testing procedures before arriving for the onsite inspection. The NLCP information checklist has not been revised compared to the previous form.
The annual total burden estimates for the CCF, the NLCP application, the NLCP information checklist, and the NLCP recordkeeping requirements are shown in the following table.
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15-E-57-A, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
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 and other Federal agencies to take the 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 Individual Assistance customer satisfaction survey responses and information for assessment and improvement of the delivery of disaster assistance to individuals and households.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 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
Jessica Guillory, Statistician, Customer Survey & Analysis Section, Recovery Directorate, FEMA at
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 (GPRA) requires agencies to set missions and goals and measure performance against them and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires quarterly performance assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency performance and improvement. FEMA will fulfill these requirements by collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of the Recovery Directorate's external customers.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the information collection activities required to administer the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP).
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 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
Duane Davis, Section Chief, FEMA, Grant Programs Directorate, 202-680-4060,
Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70107), authorizes the PSGP to provide for the risk-based allocation of funds to implement Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans among port authorities, facility operators, and State and local government agencies required to provide port security services and to train law enforcement personnel under 46 U.S.C. 70132. Before awarding a grant under the program, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security shall provide for review and comment by the appropriate Federal Maritime Security Coordinators and the Maritime Administrator. In administering the grant program, the Secretary shall take into account national economic, energy, and strategic defense concerns based upon the most current risk assessments available. In addition, any information collected by FEMA for this program is in accordance with general reporting requirements (
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before March 12, 2020.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 10, 2020.
Send your comments on the information collection request by mail to the Service Information Collection
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, 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.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (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 Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service 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.
• Species taken,
• Number of birds taken,
• Months and years in which the birds were taken,
• State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken,
• General purpose for which the birds were taken (such as for protection of agriculture, human health and safety, property, or natural resources), and
• Disposition of non-target species (released, sent to rehabilitation facilities, etc.).
We use the information to:
• Identify the person or entity acting under depredation orders;
• Assess the impact to non-target migratory birds or other species;
• Ensure that agencies and individuals operate in accordance with the terms, conditions, and purpose of the orders;
• Inform us as to whether there are areas in which control activities are concentrated and might be conducted more efficiently; and,
• Help gauge the effectiveness of the following orders in mitigating order-specific related damages:
§ 21.43—Depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, grackles, and magpies;
§ 21.44—Depredation order for horned larks, house finches, and white-crowned sparrows in California;
§ 21.46—Depredation order for depredating California scrub jays and Steller's jays in Washington and Oregon;
§ 21.49—Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and military airfields;
§ 21.50—Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs;
§ 21.51—Depredation order for resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities;
§ 21.52—Public health control order for resident Canada geese;
§ 21.53—Control order for purple swamphens;
§ 21.54—Control Order for Muscovy ducks in the United States;
§ 21.55—Control order for invasive migratory birds in Hawaii;
§ 21.60—Conservation Order for light geese; and
§ 21.61—Population control of resident Canada geese.
Recordkeeping Requirements (50 CFR 13.48)—Persons and entities operating under these orders must keep accurate records to complete Forms 3-436. The records must be legibly written or reproducible in English of any taking and maintained for five years after they have ceased the activity authorized by this Order. Persons or entities who reside or are located in the United States and persons or entities conducting commercial activities in the United States who reside or are located outside the United States must maintain records at a location in the United States where the records are available for inspection.
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species Take Report (50 CFR 21)—If attempts to trap any species under a depredation order injure a bird of a non-target species that is federally listed as endangered or threatened, or that is a candidate for listing, the bird must be delivered to a rehabilitator and must be reported by phone or email to the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office or Special Agent. Capture and disposition of all non-target migratory birds must also be reported on the annual report.
Previously, all persons or entities acting under depredation orders provided information on the annual report via FWS Form 3-202-21-2143, “Annual Report—Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Grackles, Magpies, and Crows” or FWS Form 3-2500, “Depredation Order for Depredating Jays in Washington and Oregon.” In February 2019, the Service received OMB approval to pretest FWS
As part of this revision, we will also request OMB approval to automate FWS Form 3-2436 in the Service's new “ePermits” initiative, an automated system that will allow the agency to move towards a streamlined permitting and reporting process to improve customer experience and to reduce public burden. Public burden reduction is a priority for the Service; the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; and senior leadership at the Department of the Interior. This new system will enhance the user experience by allowing users to enter data from any device that has internet access, including personal computers (PCs), tablets, and smartphones.
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
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
February 6, 2020.
Julie Duffy (202-708-2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On January 3, 2020, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final investigations (85 FR 933, January 8, 2020). The Commission is revising its schedule by changing the hearing date and date for filing posthearing briefs.
The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on April 29; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 6.
For further information concerning this proceeding see the Commission's
These investigations being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 7, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Sonos, Inc. of Santa Barbara, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio players and controllers, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,195,258 (“the '258 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,209,953 (“the '953 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,588,949 (“the '949 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,219,959 (“the '959 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,439,896 (“the '896 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 17, 21-24, and 26 of the '258 patent; claims 7, 12-14, and 22-24 of the '953 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the '949 patent; claims 5, 9, 10, 29, and 35 of the '959 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 12 of the '896 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is ”networked speaker devices, and devices (for example, mobile phones and laptops) capable of controlling these devices;”
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Sonos, Inc., 614 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is/are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.
Alphabet Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-638 and 731-TA-1473 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of corrosion inhibitors from China, provided for in subheading 2933.99.82 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach preliminary determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by March 23, 2020. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by March 30, 2020.
February 5, 2020.
Lawrence Jones 202 (205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection OMB 1140-0056 (Special Agent Medical Preplacement—ATF F 2300.10), is being revised due to an increase in the number of respondents, public burden hours, and mailing costs since the last renewal 2017, as well as a change in the mailing address.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 10, 2020.
If you have additional comments, regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact: Danielle Thompson Murray, Recruitment, Diversity and Hiring Division, either by mail at Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 99 New York Ave. NE, 2S-125, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
We are proposing to request that OMB renew its approval of our currently-approved information collection on applying to use space in one of our Presidential libraries. People submit this application to request the use of space in the library for a privately sponsored activity. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection.
We must receive comments in writing by April 13, 2020.
Send comments to Tamee Fechhelm, by mail at Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (MP), Room 4100; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Rd; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by fax at 301-837-0319, or by email at
Tamee Fechhelm, by phone at 301.837.1694 or by fax at 301.837.0319, with requests for additional information
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite people to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) whether the proposed information collection is necessary for us to properly perform our agency's functions; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. We will summarize the comments you submit and include them in our request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, we are soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 174 and 172 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively SNC); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on January 28, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Cayetano Santos, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7270; email:
The NRC is issuing License Amendment Nos. 174 and 172 to COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively, and is granting an exemption from Tier 1 information in the plant-specific DCD for the AP1000. The AP1000 DCD is incorporated by reference in appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to SNC for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML19350C627 and ML19350C661, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML19350C686 and ML19350C714, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated August 9, 2019, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 19-015, “Onsite Standby Diesel Generator Loading Changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.2 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML19350C750, the Commission finds that, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, SNC is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the facility Combined License, as described in the licensee's request dated August 9, 2019. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 174 [for Unit 3, 172 for Unit 4], which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML19350C750), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated August 9, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19221B669), SNC requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this notice.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that SNC requested on August 9, 2019.
The exemptions and amendments were issued on January 28, 2020, as part of a combined package to SNC (ADAMS Accession No. ML19350C549).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to section 189.a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from January 14, 2020, to January 27, 2020. The last biweekly notice was published on January 28, 2020.
Comments must be filed by March 12, 2020. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by April 13, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Bernadette Abeywickrama, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, 301-415-4081, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0042, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0042, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown below, the Commission finds that the licensee's analyses provided, consistent with title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The table below provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensee's proposed NSHC determination. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, including the applicable notice period, see the individual notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to an August 28, 2019, request from NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company (NorthStar NDC), for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, from the requirement to investigate and report to the NRC when NorthStar NDC does not receive notification of receipt of a shipment, or part of a shipment, of low-level radioactive waste within 20 days after transfer from the Vermont Yankee facility. NorthStar NDC requested that the time period for it to receive acknowledgement that the shipment has been received by the intended recipient be extended from 20 to 45 days to avoid an excessive administrative burden as operational experience indicates that rail or mixed mode shipments may take more than 20 days to reach their destination.
The exemption was issued on February 5, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0039 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jack D. Parrott, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6634, email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY), licensed under Title 10 of the
The VY renewed operating license was transferred to NorthStar NDC by NRC order issued October 11, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18248A096). Upon implementation of the license transfer, on January 11, 2019, NorthStar NDC commenced dismantlement and decommissioning activities at the VY site that included the generation of low-level radioactive waste. This waste is primarily destined for transfer to the Waste Control Specialists disposal site in Andrews, Texas by rail or mixed mode shipment, such as a combination of truck/rail shipments. Decommissioning of VY is scheduled to be complete by 2030.
By letter dated August 28, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19252A056), NorthStar NDC requested an exemption from 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, “Requirements for Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed Land Disposal Facilities and Manifests,” section III.E. for disposals from the VY facility. Section III.E requires that the shipper of any low-level radioactive waste to a licensed land disposal facility must investigate and trace the shipment if the shipper has not received notification of the shipment's receipt by the disposal facility within 20 days after transfer. In addition, Section III.E requires licensees to report such missing shipments to the NRC. Specifically, NorthStar NDC is requesting an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2301, “Applications for exemptions,” to extend the time period for NorthStar NDC to receive acknowledgement that the shipment has been received from 20 to 45 days after transfer for rail or mixed mode shipment from VY to the intended recipient.
Inherent to the decommissioning process, large volumes of low-level radioactive waste are generated and require disposal. The licensee has transported low-level radioactive waste from VY to distant locations such as the waste disposal facility operated by Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas. Experience with waste shipments from VY and other decommissioning power reactor sites indicates that rail or mixed-mode transportation time to waste disposal facilities has, in several instances, exceeded the 20-day receipt of notification requirement. In addition, administrative processes at the disposal facility and mail delivery times can further delay the issuance or arrival of the receipt of notification.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 20.2301 allow the Commission to grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR part 20 if it determines the exemption would be authorized by law and would not result in undue hazard to life or property. There are no provisions in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (or in any other Federal statute) that impose a requirement to investigate and report on low-level radioactive waste shipments that have not been acknowledged by the recipient within 20 days of transfer. Therefore, the NRC concludes that there is no statutory prohibition on the issuance of the requested exemption and the NRC is authorized to grant the exemption by law.
With respect to compliance with Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (NEPA), the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, namely, the approval of the NorthStar NDC exemption request, is within the scope of the two categorical exclusions listed at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(B) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(C). The categorical exclusion listed at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(B) concerns approval of exemption requests from reporting requirements and the categorical exclusion listed at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(C) concerns approval of exemption requests from inspection or surveillance requirements. Therefore, no further analysis is required under NEPA.
The purpose of 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E is to require licensees to investigate, trace, and report radioactive shipments that have not reached their destination, as scheduled, for unknown reasons. Data from the VY (for example see NorthStar NDC reports on investigation pursuant to 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19233A015, ML19233A032, ML19233A019, ML20014D560, and ML19347B109) found that several shipments took longer than 20 days, and one up to 59 days, to reach the Waste Control Specialist disposal facility in Andrews, Texas once they left the VY facility. The NRC acknowledges that, based on the history of low-level radioactive waste shipments from VY, the need to investigate, trace and report on shipments that take longer than 20 days could result in an excessive administrative burden on the licensee. As stated in the request for exemption, NorthStar NDC will request a daily update to be provided for the location of the shipment from the appropriate carriers of the low-level radioactive waste shipments.
Because of the oversight and monitoring of radioactive waste shipments throughout the entire journey from VY to the disposal site, it is unlikely that a shipment could be lost, misdirected, or diverted without the knowledge of the carrier or NorthStar NDC. Furthermore, by extending the elapsed time for receipt acknowledgment to 45 days before requiring investigations, tracing, and reporting, a reasonable upper limit on shipment duration (based on historical analysis) is still maintained if a breakdown of normal tracking systems were to occur. Consequently, the NRC finds that extending the receipt of notification period from 20 to 45 days after transfer of the low-level radioactive waste as described by NorthStar NDC in its August 28, 2019, letter would not result in an undue hazard to life or property.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the exemption is authorized by law and will not result in undue hazard to life or property. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants NorthStar NDC an exemption from 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E to extend the receipt of notification period from 20 days to 45 days after transfer for rail or mixed-mode shipments of low-level radioactive waste from the VY facility to a licensed land disposal facility.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment and exemption to Combined Licenses (NPF-91 and NPF-92), issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively, SNC), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
Submit comments by March 12, 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 before this date. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by April 13, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Donald Habib, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-000; telephone: 301-415-1035; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, issued to SNC for operation of the VEGP Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed changes would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and related changes to the VEGP Units 3 and 4 combined license (COL) Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific DCD Tier 1) information. Specifically, the request proposes to remove the natural circulation test of the passive residual heat removal (PRHR) heat exchanger, which is conducted during preoperational testing, from the scope of the initial test program described in the UFSAR. In lieu of performing this test according to Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) 2.2.03.08b.01 specified in COL Appendix C, the ITAAC would be updated to reflect the heat removal performance test of the PRHR heat exchanger under forced flow conditions. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse AP1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with section 52.63(b)(1) of title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiates an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, or components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes remove the requirement to perform the preoperational PRHR heat exchanger natural circulation test and revise ITAAC which demonstrates the heat removal capability of the PRHR heat exchanger. The remaining preoperational testing and ITAAC will confirm the PRHR heat exchanger can perform its design and licensing bases functions. The changes do not adversely affect any methodology which would increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
The changes do not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical or fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed changes remove the requirement to perform the preoperational PRHR heat exchanger natural circulation test and revise ITAAC related to the PRHR heat exchanger. The remaining tests will demonstrate the heat removal capabilities of the PRHR heat exchanger. The remaining preoperational testing and ITAAC will confirm the PRHR heat exchanger can perform its design and licensing bases functions. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any design function of any SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain the existing safety margin and provide adequate protection through continued application of the existing requirements in the UFSAR. The proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. The changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.
Since no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is changed, the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, the Commission will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated September 6, 2019, and supplement dated January 31, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for indirect transfer of license; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of an application filed by the Dow Chemical Company (TDCC, the licensee) on November 22, 2019. The application seeks NRC approval of the indirect transfer of control of TDCC's interests in the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor (DTRR, the facility) Renewed Facility Operating License No. R-108 to Dow, Inc. The indirect transfer resulted from the merger of TDCC with E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company in August 2017, which established a new parent company, DowDuPont, Inc. Subsequently, in April 2019, Dow, Inc. was formed as a separate company from DowDuPont, Inc. and TDCC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow, Inc.
Comments must be filed by March 12, 2020. A request for a hearing must be filed March 2, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Geoffrey Wertz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0893, email:
Please refer to
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0048 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under § 50.80, “Transfer of licenses,” of title 10 of the
According to the application for approval filed by TDCC, the indirect transfer resulted from the merger of TDCC with E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company in August 2017, which established a new parent company, DowDuPont, Inc. Subsequently, in April 2019, Dow, Inc. was formed as a separate company from DowDuPont, Inc. and TDCC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow, Inc. TDCC will continue to own and operate the facility and hold the license.
No physical changes to the DTRR or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.80 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the transaction will not affect the qualifications of the licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated November 22, 2019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of February 10, 17, 24, March 2, 9, 16, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 10, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 17, 2020.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 9, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2020.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intention to request extension of OMB approval of information collections.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2020.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and refer to multiemployer information collection. All comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website at
Copies of the collections of information may also be obtained by writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans may be accessed on PBGC's website at
Hilary Duke (
OMB has approved and issued control numbers for seven collections of information in PBGC's regulations relating to multiemployer plans. These collections of information are described below. OMB approvals for these collections of information expire August 31, 2020. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval of these collections of information for three years. 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. PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments should identify the specific part number(s) of the regulation(s) they relate to.
Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA allow PBGC to permit a multiemployer plan to adopt special rules for determining whether a withdrawal from the plan has occurred, subject to PBGC approval.
The regulation specifies the information that a plan that adopts special rules must submit to PBGC about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the plan operates. PBGC uses the information to determine whether the rules are appropriate for the industry in which the plan functions and do not pose a significant risk to the insurance system.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits a request each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 3 hours and $7,000.
If an employer's covered operations or contribution obligation under a plan ceases, the employer must generally pay withdrawal liability to the plan. Section 4204 of ERISA provides an exception, under certain conditions, where the cessation results from a sale of assets. Among other things, the buyer must furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale contract must provide for secondary liability of the seller.
The regulation establishes general variances (rules for avoiding the bond/escrow and sale-contract requirements) and authorizes plans to determine whether the variances apply in particular cases. It also allows buyers and sellers to request individual variances from PBGC. Plans and PBGC use the information to determine whether employers qualify for variances. PBGC estimates that each year, 100 employers submit, and 100 plans respond to, variance requests under the regulation, and one employer submits a variance request to PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1,050 hours and $501,000.
Section 4207 of ERISA allows PBGC to provide for abatement of an employer's complete withdrawal liability, and for plan adoption of alternative abatement rules, where appropriate.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of complete withdrawal liability, and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.5 hours and $450.
Section 4208 of ERISA provides for abatement, in certain circumstances, of an employer's partial withdrawal liability and authorizes PBGC to issue additional partial withdrawal liability abatement rules.
Under the regulation, an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of partial withdrawal liability and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.50 hours and $450.
Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA requires PBGC to prescribe how plans can, with PBGC approval, change the way they allocate unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability.
The regulation prescribes the information that must be submitted to PBGC by a plan seeking such approval. PBGC uses the information to determine how the amendment changes the way the plan allocates unfunded vested benefits and how it will affect the risk of loss to plan participants and PBGC.
PBGC estimates that 10 plan sponsors submit approval requests each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 100 hours and $100,000.
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA requires that PBGC prescribe regulations for the allocation of a plan's total unfunded vested benefits in the event of a “mass withdrawal.” ERISA section 4209(c) deals with an employer's liability for de minimis amounts if the employer withdraws in a “substantial withdrawal.”
The reporting requirements in the regulation give employers notice of a mass withdrawal or substantial withdrawal and advise them of their rights and liabilities. They also provide notice to PBGC so that it can monitor the plan, and they help PBGC assess the possible impact of a withdrawal event on participants and the multiemployer plan insurance program.
PBGC estimates that there are six mass withdrawals and three substantial withdrawals per year. The plan sponsor of a plan subject to a withdrawal covered by the regulation provides notices of the withdrawal to PBGC and to employers covered by the plan, liability assessments to the employers, and a certification to PBGC that assessments have been made. (For a mass withdrawal, there are two assessments and two certifications that deal with two different types of liability. For a substantial withdrawal, there is one assessment and one certification (combined with the withdrawal notice to PBGC).) The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 45 hours and $148,500.
Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan may within certain limits adopt special plan rules regarding when a withdrawal from the plan occurs and how the withdrawing employer's withdrawal liability is determined. Any such special rule is effective only if, within 90 days after receiving notice and a copy of the rule, PBGC either approves or fails to disapprove the rule.
The regulation provides rules for requesting PBGC's approval of an amendment. PBGC needs the required information to identify the plan, evaluate the risk of loss, if any, posed by the plan amendment, and determine whether to approve or disapprove the amendment.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits an approval request per year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 2 hours and $5,000 dollars.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 5, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 5, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On May 10, 2019, the Commission issued an order granting LTSE's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section II(C) of the LULD Plan, any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (1) Becoming a participant in the applicable Market Data Plans; (2) executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (3) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (4) effecting an amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III (B) of the Plan. Section III(B) of the LULD Plan sets forth the process for a prospective new Participant to effect an amendment of the Plan. Specifically, the LULD Plan provides that such an amendment to the Plan may be effected by the new national securities exchange or national securities association by executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the only changes being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II(A) of the Plan); and submitting such executed Plan to the Commission. The amendment will be effective when it is approved by the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
LTSE has become a participant in the applicable Market Data Plans,
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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.
By the Commission.
On October 17, 2019, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
The Exchange has proposed to amend NYSE American Rule 903G(c) to allow for cash settlement of certain FLEX Equity Options.
As proposed, the Exchange would allow for the cash settlement of a FLEX ETF Option if the underlying ETF, measured over the prior six-month period, has (1) an average daily notional value of at least $500 Million; and (2) a national average daily volume (“ADV”) of at least 4,680,000 shares.
In support of its proposal, the Exchange stated that it believes it is appropriate to introduce cash settlement as an alternative contract term to the select group of ETFs because they are “among the most highly liquid and actively-traded securities,”
The Exchange represented that the table below provides the list of the 26 securities that, as of December 31, 2019, would be eligible to have cash settlement as a contract term.
The Exchange proposed that cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would be subject to the position limits set forth in NYSE American Rule 904 and the exercise limits set forth in NYSE American Rule 905, which rules also apply to the standardized options market.
The Exchange noted in its filing that cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would not be available for trading until The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) represents to the Exchange that it is fully able to clear and settle such options.
The Exchange stated that it believes that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options and intends to apply the same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
The Exchange represented that it is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement dated June 20, 1994.
Finally, the Exchange represented that, given the novel characteristics of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options, the Exchange will conduct a review of the trading in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options over an initial five-year period and furnish annual reports to the SEC based on this review.
After careful review of the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the Exchange's modified proposal would allow cash settlement for FLEX Equity Options only on ETFs, and only where the underlying ETF, as measured over the prior six-month period, has (1) an average daily notional value of at least $500 Million; and (2) a national ADV of at least 4,680,000 shares.
The Commission also notes that the Exchange has proposed to use the same position limits and exercise limits for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options that are applicable to the non-FLEX standardized options market, and to aggregate the positions in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options with all positions in physically-settled options on the same underlying ETF for purposes of calculating the position and exercise limits.
The Commission notes that the Exchange will conduct a biannual review of the underlying ETFs to determine whether they no longer meet the requirements for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options on those ETFs.
The Commission recognizes that the proposal is unique in that it would allow options on ETFs that currently are only available to be traded on a national securities exchange with physical settlement to now have a cash-settlement alternative. The Exchange, acknowledging the “novel characteristics” of its proposal has committed to perform periodic data analyses with written assessments and to make such analyses and assessments available to the Commission on an annual basis for the first five years of trading in the subject options.
The Commission notes that surveillance is important, among other things, to detect and deter fraudulent and manipulative trading activity as well as other violations of Exchange rules and the federal securities laws. The Exchange has represented that it has adequate surveillance procedures in place to monitor trading in these options and the underlying securities, including to detect manipulative trading activity in both the options and the underlying ETF.
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes that cash-settled FLEX ETF Options will be subject to the same trading rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of other FLEX Options on the Exchange, with the exception of the rules to accommodate the cash settlement feature being approved herein. The Commission also notes that the Exchange has represented that it will monitor any effect additional options series listed under the proposal have on market fragmentation and the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems. The Commission notes that FLEX ETF Options, as the Exchange represented, cannot be traded until OCC represents to the Exchange that it is fully able to clear and settle such options.
Based on the Exchange's representations with respect to the proposed cash-settlement of FLEX Equity Options, whose underlying security is an ETF, and for the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
The Commission notes that the changes made to the original proposal in Amendment No. 1 narrows the scope of the proposed rule change and limits its applicability to ETFs, which should help to mitigate potential risks of manipulation and market disruption. The amendment to aggregate position and exercise limits also addressed similar concerns. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the original, broader proposal, including the proposed numerical eligibility criteria applied to the underlying ETFs, was published for comment in the
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) provides that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) may recognize, as generally accepted for purposes of the securities laws, any accounting principles established by a standard setting body that meets certain criteria. Consequently, Section 109 of the Act provides that all of the budget of such a standard setting body shall be payable from an annual accounting support fee assessed and collected against each issuer, as may be necessary or appropriate to pay for the budget and provide for the expenses of the standard setting body, and to provide for an independent, stable source of funding, subject to review by the Commission. Under Section 109(f) of the Act, the amount of fees collected for a fiscal year shall not exceed the “recoverable budget expenses” of the standard setting body. Section 109(h) amends Section 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the Act.
On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (“FAF”), satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting standards as “generally accepted” under Section 108 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act also provides that the standard setting body can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional source of revenue shall not jeopardize, in the judgment of the Commission, the actual or perceived independence of the standard setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB, and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”), the FASB's sister organization, which sets accounting standards used by state and local government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that neither the FAF, the FASB, nor the GASB accept contributions from the accounting profession.
The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined the FASB's spending of the 2020 accounting support fee is sequestrable under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
After its review, the Commission determined that the 2020 annual accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of the Act. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This advance notice is filed by OCC this advance notice is filed by OCC [sic] in connection with a proposed change to its operations in the form of enter into a committed master repurchase agreement with a bank counterparty as part of OCC's overall liquidity plan. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. 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 and B below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed change to OCC's operations through which OCC would enter into a committed master repurchase agreement with a bank counterparty (the “Repo Liquidity Facility”) to access an additional committed source of liquidity to meet its settlement obligations.
OCC's current liquidity plan provides it with access to a diverse set of funding sources, including OCC's syndicated credit facility,
Although the MRA would be based on the standard form of master repurchase agreement,
The MRA would be structured like a typical repurchase arrangement in which the buyer (
At all times while a transaction is outstanding, OCC would be required to maintain a specified amount of securities or cash margin with the buyer.
As in a typical master repurchase agreement, an event of default would occur with respect to the buyer if the buyer failed to purchase securities on a Purchase Date, failed to transfer purchased securities on any applicable Repurchase Date, or failed to transfer any interest, dividends or distributions on purchased securities to OCC within a specified period after receiving notice of such failure. An event of default would occur with respect to OCC if OCC failed to transfer purchased securities on a Purchase Date or failed to repurchase purchased securities on an applicable Repurchase Date. The MRA would also provide for standard events of default for either party, including a party's failure to maintain required margin or an insolvency event with respect to the party. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the non-defaulting party, at its option, would have the right to accelerate the Repurchase Date of all outstanding transactions between the defaulting party and the non-defaulting party, among other rights. For example, if OCC were the defaulting party with respect to a transaction and the buyer chose to terminate the transaction, OCC would be required to immediately transfer the Repurchase Price to the buyer. If the buyer were the defaulting party with respect to a transaction and OCC chose to terminate the transaction, the buyer would be required to deliver all purchased securities to OCC. If OCC or the buyer did not timely perform, the non-defaulting party would be permitted to buy or sell, or deem itself to have bought or sold, securities as needed to be made whole and the defaulting party would be required to pay the costs related to any covering transactions. Additionally, if OCC was required to obtain replacement securities as a result of an event of default, the buyer would be required to pay the excess of the price paid by OCC to obtain replacement securities over the Repurchase Price.
In addition to the typical repurchase arrangements, OCC would require the MRA, or an annex thereto, to contain certain additional provisions tailored to help ensure certainty of funding and operational effectiveness.
The buyer would provide a funding commitment of $500 million, with the commitment extending for one year and one day. The buyer would be obligated to enter into transactions under the MRA up to its committed amount so long as no default had occurred and OCC transferred sufficient Eligible Securities. The buyer would be obligated to enter into transactions even if OCC had experienced a material adverse change, such as the failure of a Clearing Member. This commitment to provide funding would be a key departure from ordinary repurchase arrangements and a key requirement for OCC.
Funding mechanics would be targeted so that OCC would receive the Purchase Price in immediately available funds within 60 minutes of its request for funds and delivery of Eligible Securities and, if needed, prior to OCC's regular daily settlement time.
The buyer would not be permitted to grant any third party an interest in purchased securities. This requirement is important to reduce the risk that a third party could interfere with the buyer's transfer of the purchased securities on the Repurchase Date. Further, the buyer would agree to provide OCC with daily information about the account the buyer uses to hold the purchased securities. This visibility would allow OCC to act quickly in the event the buyer violates any requirements.
OCC would have the ability to terminate any transaction upon written notice to the buyer, but the buyer would only be able to terminate a transaction upon the occurrence of an event of default with respect to OCC, as further described below. A notice of termination by OCC would specify a new Repurchase Date prior to the originally agreed upon Repurchase Date. Upon the early termination of a transaction, the buyer would be required to return all purchased securities to OCC and OCC would be required to pay the Repurchase Price. This optional early termination right is important to OCC because OCC's liquidity needs may change unexpectedly over time and as a result OCC may not want to keep a transaction outstanding as long as originally planned.
OCC would have the ability to substitute any Eligible Securities for purchased securities in its discretion by a specified time, so long as the Eligible Securities satisfy any applicable criteria contained in the MRA and the transfer
Beyond the standard events of default for a failure to purchase or transfer securities on the applicable Purchase Date or Repurchase Date, as described above, OCC would require that the MRA not contain any additional events of default that would restrict OCC's access to funding. Most importantly, OCC would require that it would not be an event of default if OCC suffers a “material adverse change.”
Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as a clearing agency performing central counterparty services. OCC believes that the overall impact of the Repo Liquidity Facility on the risks presented by OCC would be to reduce settlement risk associated with OCC's operations as a clearing agency. The Repo Liquidity Facility would reduce settlement risk by providing an additional source of liquidity that would promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its Clearing Members and the options market in general because it would allow OCC to obtain short-term funds to address liquidity demands arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member, in anticipation of a potential default or suspension of Clearing Members, the insolvency of a bank or another securities or commodities clearing organization, or the failure of a bank or another securities or commodities clearing organization to achieve daily settlement. The resulting reduction in OCC settlement risk would lead to a corresponding reduction in systemic risk and would have a positive impact on the safety and soundness of the clearing system by enabling OCC to have continuous access to funds to settle its obligations to its Clearing Members. In order to sufficiently perform this key role in promoting market stability, it is critical that OCC continuously has access to funds to settle its obligations.
Providing for another committed source of liquidity resources would also help OCC manage the allocation between its sources of liquidity by giving OCC more flexibility to adjust the mix of liquidity resources based on market conditions, availability and shifting liquidity needs. If circumstances arise that affect OCC's current liquidity resources from another of its facilities,
The Repo Liquidity Facility, like any liquidity source, would involve certain risks, but OCC would structure the program to mitigate those risks. Most of these risks are standard in any master repurchase agreement. For example, the buyer could fail to deliver, or delay in delivering, purchased securities to OCC by the applicable Repurchase Date. OCC will address this risk by seeking a security interest from the buyer in that portion of the purchased securities representing the excess of the market value over the Repurchase Price, or by obtaining other comfort from the buyer that the purchased securities will be timely returned. Further, the purchased securities generally will not be “on-the-run” securities,
The mechanics under the Repo Liquidity Facility would be structured so that OCC could avoid losses by paying the Repurchase Price. For example, OCC will have optional early termination rights, under which OCC would be able to accelerate the Repurchase Date of any transaction by providing written notice to the buyer and paying the Repurchase Price. Through this mechanism, OCC can maintain the benefit of the Repo Liquidity Facility, while mitigating any risk associated with a particular transaction.
The Repo Liquidity Facility would be structured to avoid potential third-party risks, which are typical of repurchase arrangements. The prohibition on buyer rehypothecation and use of purchased securities would reduce the risk to OCC of a buyer default.
As with any repurchase arrangement, OCC is subject to the risk that it may have to terminate existing transactions and accelerate the applicable Repurchase Date with respect to the buyer due to changes in the financial health or performance of the buyer. Terminating transactions could negatively affect OCC's liquidity position. However, any negative effect is
Under the MRA, OCC would be obligated to transfer additional cash or securities as margin in the event the market value of any purchased securities decreases. OCC seeks to ensure it can meet any such obligation by monitoring the value of the purchased securities and maintaining adequate cash resources to make any required payments. Such payments are expected to be small in comparison to the total amount of cash received for each transfer of purchased securities.
The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Exchange Act in furtherance of these objectives and principles.
OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
OCC believes that the Repo Liquidity Facility is also consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.
As described above, the Repo Liquidity Facility would provide OCC with a readily available liquidity resource that would enable it to, among other things, continue to meet its obligations in a timely fashion and as an alternative to selling Clearing Member collateral under what may be stressed and volatile market conditions. For these reasons, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to satisfy payment obligations owed to Clearing Members.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information
OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
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-2020-801 and should be submitted on or before February 26, 2020.
By the Commission.
9 a.m. on February 13, 2020.
The Lyric Theatre, 1006 Van Buren Avenue, Oxford, Mississippi.
Open.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 13, 2020, at the Lyric Theatre, 1006 Van Buren Avenue, Oxford, Mississippi. The meeting will be called to order at 9 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below. TVA management will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.
On February 12, at the Powerhouse, 413 South 14th Street, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a board-hosted public listening session which begins at 3:30 p.m. CT and will last until 5:30 p.m. Preregistration is required to address the Board.
For more information: Please call Jim Hopson, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of product exclusions and amendments.
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $34 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative's determination included a decision to establish a product exclusion process. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated the exclusion process in July 2018, and stakeholders have submitted requests for the exclusion of specific products. In December 2018, and March, April, May, June, July, September, October, and December 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative granted exclusion requests. This notice announces the U.S. Trade Representative's determination to grant additional exclusions, as specified in the Annex to this notice, and makes amendments to certain notes in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The U.S. Trade Representative will continue to issue decisions as necessary.
The product exclusions will apply as of the July 6, 2018 effective date of the $34 billion action, and will extend to October 1, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. The amendments announced in
For general questions about this notice, contact Assistant General Counsel Philip Butler or Director of Industrial Goods Justin Hoffmann at (202) 395-5725. For specific questions on customs classification or implementation of the product exclusions identified in the Annex to this notice, contact
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see the prior notices issued in the investigation, including 82 FR 40213 (August 23, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 33608 (July 17, 2018), 83 FR 38760 (August 7, 2018), 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018), 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018), 83 FR 65198 (December 19, 2018), 83 FR 67463 (December 28, 2018), 84 FR 7966 (March 5, 2019), 84 FR 11152 (March 25, 2019), 84 FR 16310 (April 18, 2019), 84 FR 21389 (May 14, 2019), 84 FR 25895 (June 4, 2019), 84 FR 32821 (July 9, 2019), 84 FR 49564 (September 20, 2019), 84 FR 52567 (October 2, 2019), and 84 FR 69016 (December 17, 2019).
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional 25 percent duties on goods of China classified in 818 8-digit subheadings of the HTSUS, with an approximate annual trade value of $34 billion.
Under the July 11 notice, requests for exclusion had to identify the product subject to the request in terms of the physical characteristics that distinguish the product from other products within the relevant 8-digit subheading covered by the $34 billion action. Requestors also had to provide the 10-digit subheading of the HTSUS most applicable to the particular product requested for exclusion, and could submit information on the ability of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to administer the requested exclusion. Requestors were asked to provide the quantity and value of the Chinese-origin product that the requestor purchased in the last three years. With regard to the rationale for the requested exclusion, requests had to address the following factors:
• Whether the particular product is available only from China and specifically whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or third countries.
• Whether the imposition of additional duties on the particular product would cause severe economic harm to the requestor or other U.S. interests.
• Whether the particular product is strategically important or related to “Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.
The July 11 notice stated that the U.S. Trade Representative would take into account whether an exclusion would undermine the objective of the Section 301 investigation.
The July 11 notice required submission of requests for exclusion from the $34 billion action no later than October 9, 2018, and noted that the U.S. Trade Representative periodically would announce decisions. In December 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative granted an initial set of exclusion requests.
Based on the evaluation of the factors set out in the July 11 notice, which are summarized above, pursuant to sections 301(b), 301(c), and 307(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and in accordance with the advice of the interagency Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to grant the product exclusions set out in the Annex to this notice. The U.S. Trade Representative's determination also takes into account advice from advisory committees and any public comments on the pertinent exclusion request.
Exclusions from the duties have been established in two different formats: (1) As an exclusion for an existing 10-digit subheading from within an 8-digit subheading covered by the $34 billion action, or (2) as an exclusion reflected in specially prepared product descriptions. The exclusions announced in this notice take the form of four specially prepared product descriptions.
In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusions are available for any products that meet the descriptions in the Annex, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. Furthermore, the scope of the exclusions are governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS subheadings and product descriptions in the Annex, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.
The Annex also makes technical amendments to certain notes in the HTSUS. Subparagraphs B(1-26) clarify periodic revisions in U.S. notes 20(i)(6-7), 20(m)(16-18), 20(m)(27), 20(n)(13-27), 20(n)(30), 20(q)(19-21), and 20(x)(20) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as set out in the Annexes of the notices published at 84 FR 11153 (March 25, 2019), 84 FR 25895 (June 4, 2019), 84 FR 32821 (July 9, 2019), 84 FR 49564 (September 20, 2019), and 84 FR 52567 (October 2, 2019).
In order to correct typographical or other ministerial errors, subparagraphs B(27-29) of the Annex make amendments to U.S. notes 20(n)(86), 20(q)(102), and 20(q)(170) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as set out in the Annexes of the notices published at 84 FR 32821 (July 9, 2019) and 84 FR 49564 (September 20, 2019).
The U.S. Trade Representative will continue to issue determinations on a periodic basis as needed.
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
A. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 6, 2018, and before October 2, 2020, U.S. note 20(x) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified by inserting the following exclusions in numerical order after exclusion (93):
(94) Centrifugal pumps, submersible, designed for use in artificial lift systems for extracting oil and gas (described in statistical reporting number 8413.70.2004)
(95) Pistons and housings for hydraulic fluid power pumps of the type used in power lawn mowers (described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9050 prior to January 1,
(96) Furnace roll end-shafts of steel (described in statistical reporting number 8417.90.0000)
(97) Multi-phase AC motors of an output of at least 5.8 kW but not exceeding 14.92 kW, each assembled with planetary gears and a gearbox (described in statistical reporting number 8501.52.4000)
B. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 6, 2018:
1. U.S. note 20(i)(6) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “or described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095, post January 1, 2019” and inserting “; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095, January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
2. U.S. note 20(i)(7) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “or described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095, post January 1, 2019” and inserting “; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095, January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
3. U.S. note 20(m)(16) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9060” and inserting “8413.91.9050 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9060 effective January 1, 2019” in lieu thereof.
4. U.S. note 20(m)(17) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9060” and inserting “8413.91.9050 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9060 effective January 1, 2019” in lieu thereof.
5. U.S. note 20(m)(18) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8414.90.4190” and inserting “8414.90.4175 prior to July 1, 2018; described in statistical reporting number 8414.90.4190 effective July 1, 2018” in lieu thereof.
6. U.S. note 20(m)(27) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8427.10.8070 and 8427.10.8095” and inserting “8427.10.8090 prior to July 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8427.10.8070 or 8427.10.8095 effective July 1, 2019” in lieu thereof.
7. U.S. note 20(n)(13) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020)” in lieu thereof.
8. U.S. note 20(n)(14) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting numbers 8413.91.9065, 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
9. U.S. note 20(n)(15) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting ” 8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
10. U.S. note 20(n)(16) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
11. U.S. note 20(n)(17) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
12. U.S. note 20(n)(18) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
13. U.S. note 20(n)(19) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
14. U.S. note 20(n)(20) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
15. U.S. note 20(n)(21) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
16. U.S. note 20(n)(22) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
17. U.S. note 20(n)(23) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
18. U.S. note 20(n)(24) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
19. U.S. note 20(n)(25) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
20. U.S. note 20(n)(26) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
21. U.S. note 20(n)(27) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
22. U.S. note 20(n)(30) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “(described in statistical reporting number 8427.20.8090)” and inserting “(described in statistical reporting number 8427.20.8000 prior to July 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8427.20.8090 effective July 1, 2019)” in lieu thereof.
23. U.S. note 20(q)(19) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
24. U.S. note 20(q)(20) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting numbers 8413.91.9065, 8413.91.9085 or 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
25. U.S. note 20(q)(21) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8413.91.9095” and inserting “8413.91.9080 prior to January 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9095 effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8413.91.9096 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof.
26. U.S. note 20(x)(20) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “statistical note 1 to chapter 84” and inserting “statistical note 1 to chapter 84 effective July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, or in statistical note 2 to chapter 84 effective January 1, 2020” in lieu thereof, and deleting “8427.10.8020” and inserting “8427.10.8010 prior to July 1, 2019; described in statistical reporting number 8427.10.8020 effective July 1, 2019” in lieu thereof.
27. U.S. note 20(n)(86) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “18” and inserting “39” in lieu thereof.
28. U.S. note 20(q)(102) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “Cold-chamber die casting machines having a maximum casting volume of 52.78 m
29. U.S. note 20(q)(170) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified by deleting “8.9 kW or more but not exceeding 12 kW” and inserting “12 W or more but not exceeding 16 W” in lieu thereof.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).
The meeting will be held on February 27, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Requests to attend the meeting must be received by February 20, 2020.
Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by February 14, 2020.
Requests to submit written materials to be provided to the committee prior to the meeting must be received no later than February 20, 2020.
The meeting will be held at the National Transportation Safety Board Boardroom and Conference Center located at 420 10th Street SW, Washington, DC 20594. Members of the public who wish to attend, must register by emailing
Gary Kolb, UAS Stakeholder & Committee Liaison, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, at
The DAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C. App. 2) to provide the FAA with advice on key UAS integration issues by helping to identify challenges and prioritize improvements.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics
A detailed agenda will be posted on the DAC internet website at
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first served basis, as space is limited. Members of the public who wish to attend in person must RSVP by emailing
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to time constraints. The public may present written statements to the committee at any time. Written statements submitted by February 20, 2020, will be provided to DAC members before the meeting. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and Solicitation of Project Proposals.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the availability of $2,000,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312) funds for the redesign of the transit bus operator compartment to improve operator and public safety. Bus operator assaults have been increasing. On July 6, 2015, the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) published report 14-01, “Reinventing and Mitigating Transit Worker Assaults in the Bus and Rail Transit Industry,” (14-01 Report) highlighting news articles documenting bus operator assaults. The report recommended incorporating measures such as installing protective barriers and educating the workforce in conflict resolution tactics. This NOFO provides an opportunity to reevaluate the bus operator compartment and develop innovative solutions to the space around the bus operator with the purpose to not just increase safety, but also to improve bus operator efficiency and passenger accessibility. FTA is seeking to fund cooperative agreements to engage in the research and development of new transit bus operator compartment designs in partnership with bus manufacturers, technology vendors, vehicle engineering and design firms, and transit agencies. The major goals of this program are to support a redesign of the bus operator compartment that improves bus operator and public safety, and to improve bus operator access to key vehicle instruments and controls without hindering the accessibility of the bus. Transit agency partners would have an important role to test a promising compartment redesign. This research will apply only to transit buses that are 40 ft. or longer, and almost exclusively used for local, fixed-route public transportation revenue service.
An eligible lead applicant and eligible project partners and subrecipients under this program may include, but are not limited to, providers of public transportation; State and local governmental entities; departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government, including Federal laboratories; private or non-profit organizations; institutions of higher education; and technical and community colleges. This notice solicits competitive proposals to address the objectives described under the Program Description of this notice, provides instructions for submitting proposals, describes criteria FTA will use to identify meritorious proposals for funding, and the process to apply for funding.
This announcement is also available at:
A synopsis of this funding opportunity will be posted in the FIND module of the government-wide electronic grants at
Complete proposals are due by 11:59 p.m. EST on Tuesday, March 24, 2020.
All proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Please send any questions related to this notice to Jamel El-Hamri, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation (TRI), by email at
FTA's Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312) authorizes FTA to fund research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects to improve public transportation. The “Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility Program” is a competitive research and development opportunity under FTA's research emphasis areas of innovation, infrastructure and safety. This program supports the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safety and Infrastructure goals to provide technical and financial support to design, build, and deploy innovative solutions and advanced-technology systems to make crucial improvements in public transit infrastructure that reduce injuries and fatalities.
Over the past decade, the level and intensity of assaults on transit bus operators has increased. Bus operators are being physically assaulted and do not have enough protection in their bus compartment. Bus operators need a compartment that is safe and secure, and one where they can safely steer transit buses through congested traffic, protecting the lives of passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers of other vehicles. The physical and emotional impact of these assaults on transit bus operators and their travelers is significant. While many bus operators recover from their physical wounds, the mental and debilitating emotional damage may linger indefinitely.
Transit agencies are not immune to the effects of these assaults. Lost work hours due to related injuries and illness have impacted service. As an indirect consequence ridership decreases due to declines in service reliability and loss of public confidence in buses being secure and safe.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, there is an increased risk of workplace violence for workers who have direct contact with the public, have mobile workplaces or deliver services, work in community settings, deliver passengers, handle money, and work in small numbers. Transit bus operators fall into this larger group. Therefore, a safe working environment coupled with access to key instruments and controls is critical for transit bus operators.
The Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) states in its 14-01 Report, “protective infrastructure can hinder assault through design and technology, thereby playing a key role in assault mitigation and prevention systems.” Additionally, TRACS recommended FTA conduct further research on protective infrastructure for situations in which transit workers must leave the bus or rail transit vehicle unattended.
For these reasons, FTA is issuing this NOFO to fund innovative proposals that will increase workplace safety for bus operators, reduce the opportunity for assaults, and increase security and safety for travelers. Modifying the bus operator compartment, however, cannot be at the expense of operator visibility of other roadway users or passenger accessibility. Because of this, FTA also seeks to address recommendations put forth by the public transit industry to improve operator visibility of other roadway users and passenger accessibility as equal evaluation criteria for this project.
The primary objectives of this project are as follows:
• Increase bus operator safety from assaults.
• Increase operator visibility to improve safety of pedestrians and other roadway users (
• Increase passenger accessibility for positive interactions between operators and passengers, including assisting passengers in need of special assistance.
• Improve ergonomics to reduce bus operator work-related health issues and injuries, as well as locate key instrument and control interfaces to improve operational efficiency and convenience.
• Reduce operator distractions.
• Accommodate Americans with Disabilities Act compliance for passenger boarding, alighting and securement.
The Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency and Passenger Accessibility Program will be carried out in two phases, based on the availability of Federal funding.
This notice will provide funding for Phase I; thus, applicants should submit proposals to address Phase I. The post award evaluation process will be managed and conducted by FTA personnel along with FTA hired independent evaluators. Recipients of Phase I awards with the most promising redesigns—as determined by FTA in accordance with the evaluation criteria—will be eligible for Phase II, subject to the availability of funding.
A total of $2,000,000 in FY 2018 funds is available for award under this announcement. FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible under this announcement, and FTA recognizes that the available funding may be insufficient to fund all meritorious projects. FTA may, at its discretion, select an application for award of less than the originally-proposed amount if doing so is expected to result in a more advantageous portfolio of projects. Consequently, proposals should provide a detailed budget proposal for the fully-realized project as well as a reduced scope and budget if the project can be scaled down and still achieve useful results. Applicants should specify and justify the minimum award amount needed to achieve effective project results.
FTA anticipates a minimum grant award of $250,000 to maximum amount of $1,000,000. Only proposals from eligible recipients (see section C.1, below) for eligible activities will be considered for funding. Funds made available under this program may be used to fund operating expenses and preventive maintenance directly associated with the demonstration of the proposed prototype transit bus, but may not be used to fund such expenses for equipment not essential to the project.
FTA may, at its discretion, provide additional funds for selections made under this announcement or for additional meritorious proposals, if additional funding is made available for Section 5312 of title 49, United States Code. FTA will announce final selections on its website (
To be eligible for funding under this notice, applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is supported by a lead applicant in partnership with one or more strategic partner(s) with a substantial interest and involvement in the project. An application must clearly identify the eligible lead applicant and all project partners on the team.
Eligible lead applicants must be one of the listed entities prescribed below. Additionally, project partners and subrecipients under this program may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Public Transportation Systems;
(b) Private for profit and not-for-profit organizations, including technology system suppliers and bus manufacturers;
(c) Operators of transportation, such as employee shuttle services or airport connector services or university transportation systems;
(d) State or local government entities; and
(e) Other organizations that may contribute to the success of the project team including consultants, research consortia or not-for-profit industry organizations, and institutions of higher education.
The lead applicant must have the ability to carry out the proposed agreement and procurements with strategic partners in compliance with its respective State and local laws. FTA may determine that any named strategic partner in the proposal is a key party and make any award conditional upon the participation of that key party. A key party, as approved by FTA, is essential to the project and is, therefore, eligible for a noncompetitive award to the lead applicant to provide the goods or services described in the application. A key party on a selected project may not later be substituted without FTA's approval. For-profit companies may participate as a strategic partner; however, entities receiving funding under this program may not charge a fee or profit from the FTA research program funding.
In instances where a provider(s) of public transportation is a partner and not the lead applicant, a detailed statement regarding the role of the provider(s) in the conduct of the project is required. Also required is a signed letter from the public transportation service provider's General Manager, or equivalent, of their commitment to the project and the understanding of the agency's roles/responsibilities in the project.
Applicants may submit one proposal for each project but not one proposal containing multiple projects. Applicants can submit multiple proposals, but each eligible project proposal must demonstrate the redesign proposal meets the three main objectives: Operator safety, operational efficiency, and passenger accessibility.
The goal of this program is to ultimately manufacture the selected redesign proposals from Phase I in Phase II. For this reason, lead applicants must partner with at least one transit agency and at least one transit vehicle manufacturer in Phase I to ensure the redesigns are feasible and can be manufactured into a prototype. Proposals should include a cost-benefit analysis of the redesign.
Proposals should also show how bus operators and their unions will be consulted and involved in the process. FTA will assess the strength of these partnerships and inclusion activities in the evaluation of applications.
At the conclusion of Phase I, feasible redesign project(s) will be selected and move forward to Phase II where applicants will then need to develop and test a prototype bus(es). Proposals in Phase I should include how they intend to test their future prototype, including, but not limited to, a test procedure that validates the redesign's operability, and identification of the test laboratory that will be running the test.
Phase I proposals should be separated into a research phase and design phase. The research phase should document the process to partner with a vehicle transit manufacturer and transit agency. It should also demonstrate how the prototype will meet the objectives described in the Program Description section of this notice, above. The design phase should include engineering drawings and computer renderings that are ready for prototype manufacturing. The design phase should demonstrate that the redesign complies with Federal requirements applicable to buses.
The Federal share of project costs under this program is limited to eighty percent (80 percent). Applicants may seek a lower Federal contribution. The applicant must provide the local share of the net project cost in cash or in-kind, and must document in its application the source of the local match. Regardless of minimum share requirements, cost sharing is an evaluation criterion and proposals with higher local cost share than the minimum twenty percent (20 percent) share requirement will be considered more favorably. Cash and other high-quality match will be considered more favorably than in-kind cost matching, though all are acceptable. Eligible sources of local match are detailed in FTA Research Circular 6100.1E. (available at
Upon completion of Phase I, projects funded under this announcement will be required to gather and share all relevant and required data with FTA or its designated independent evaluator within appropriate and agreed-upon timelines, to support project evaluation. The Department may make available a secure data system to store data for evaluation (more information available at
In response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum dated February 22, 2013, entitled “Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research,” U.S. DOT is incorporating public access requirements into all funding awards (grants and cooperative agreements) for scientific research. All work conducted under the Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility Program must follow the Department data policies outlined in the DOT Public Access Plan at:
FTA expects recipients to remove confidential business information (CBI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) before providing public access to project data. Recipients must ensure the appropriate data are accessible to FTA and/or the public for a minimum of five years after the award period of performance expires.
Additionally, information submitted as part of or in support of this demonstration program-funded project shall make every attempt to use publicly-available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. FTA recognizes that certain partnerships may pose a challenge to data sharing and will work with each recipient to develop an appropriate data management plan (DMP). Recipients must make available to FTA copies of all work developed in performance of a project funded under this announcement, including but not limited to software and data. Data rights shall be in accordance with 2 CFR 200.315, Intangible property.
If the submission includes information the applicant considers to be trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI)”; (2) mark each affected page “CBI”; and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. FTA protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. If FTA receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, FTA will follow the procedures described in the U.S. DOT FOIA regulations (49 CFR part 7). Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Should FTA receive an order from a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the release of the information, FTA will provide the recipient timely notice of such order to allow the recipient the opportunity to challenge such an order. FTA will not challenge a court order on behalf of a recipient.
Project teams may be asked to participate in information exchange meetings, webinars, or outreach events to support FTA's goal of advancing the state of the practice. Project teams will be required to work with FTA to support knowledge transfer by participating in a relevant community of practice or similar activity. Applicants should allocate a portion of their budgets to support such work, which may include travel or presentations at key industry gatherings, such as conferences of the American Public Transportation Association, Transportation Research Board, and U.S. DOT, among others.
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Within 24 to 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive 3 email messages from
Applicants are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the
At a minimum, every proposal must include an SF-424 form, with the Applicant and Proposal Profile supplemental form attached. The Applicant and Proposal Profile supplemental form for this Program can be found on the FTA website at
Consistent with the Department's R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative (
All applicants are required to provide detailed information on the Applicant and Proposal Profile supplemental form, including:
(a) State the project title, the overall goals of the project, and describe the project scope, including anticipated deliverables.
(b) Discuss the current state of practice regarding bus operator safety, visibility, and passenger accessibility,
(c) Details on whether the proposed project is a new effort or a continuation of a prior research and degree of improvement over current bus compartment design and practices.
(d) Address each evaluation criterion separately, demonstrating how the project responds to each criterion as described in Section E of this notice, below.
(e) Provide a line-item budget for the total project with enough detail to indicate the various key components of the project. As FTA may elect to fund only part of some project proposals, the budget should provide for the minimum amount necessary to fund specific project components of independent utility. If the project can be scaled, provide a scaling plan describing the minimum funding necessary for a feasible project and the impacts of a reduced funding level.
(f) Provide the Federal amount requested and document the matching funds, including amount and source of the match (may include local or private sector financial participation in the project). Provide support documentation, including financial statements, bond-ratings, and documents supporting the commitment of non-federal funding to the project, or a timeframe upon which those commitments would be made.
(g) A project time-line outlining steps from project implementation through completion, including significant milestones and the roles of the responsible team members.
(h) The proposed methods to demonstrate the engineering designs and computer renderings of Phase I.
(i) The technologies and design modifications to be used in this project and explanation of the principle of operation.
(j) A description of any exceptions or waivers to FTA requirements or policies necessary to successfully implement the proposed project. FTA is not inclined to grant exceptions from its requirements, but may consider exceptions if the applicant can show a compelling benefit.
(k) Potential issues (technical or other) that may impact the success of the project.
(l) Address whether other Federal funds have been sought for the project.
(m) Provide Congressional district information for the project's place(s) of performance.
FTA recommends allowing ample time for completion of all steps.
STEP 1: Obtain DUNS Number: Same day. If requested by phone (1-866-705-5711) DUNS is provided immediately. Go to the Dun & Bradstreet website at
STEP 2: Register With SAM: Three to five business days or up to two weeks. If you already have a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), your SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. If you are applying for an EIN please allow up to 2 weeks. Ensure that your organization or an authorizing official is registered with SAM. FTA may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make a Federal award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
STEP 3: Username & Password: Same day. Complete your Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) profile on
STEP 4: AOR Authorization: Same day. The organization's E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC) must login to
STEP 5: Track AOR Status: At any time, you can track your AOR status by logging in with your username and password. Login as an Applicant under applicant profile.
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse projects for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement unless FTA has issued a “Letter of No Prejudice” for the project before the expenses are incurred.
This program is a research and development effort and as such FTA Circular 6100.1E rules will apply in administering the program (available at
Projects will be evaluated by FTA according to the five evaluation criteria described in this section. Each applicant is encouraged to demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to all the criteria shown below with the most relevant information that the proposer can provide.
Consistent with the Department's R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative (
FTA will assess the extent to which a proposal addresses the following criteria:
i. Effectiveness of the project in achieving and demonstrating the specific requirements identified under the objectives of this program.
ii. Degree of public and operator safety, and operational efficiency improvement over current and existing technologies applicable to the bus operator compartment design and passenger accessibility.
i. Quality of the project approach, including bus interface design, existing partnerships and collaboration strategies in meeting the objectives of the program.
ii. Level of cost share by project partners to support the proposed project (in-kind or cash).
iii. Details on whether the proposed project is a new effort or a continuation of a related research project and how the project plans to move from Phase I to Phase II if the proposed redesign is selected.
i. Degree to which the new compartment design could be replicated by other transit bus manufacturers regionally or nationally.
ii. Ability to evaluate technologies and designs in a wide variety of conditions and locales.
iii. Degree to which the proposed redesign could be used for buses of different capacity such as 35-foot or 60-foot buses. Applicability to smaller body-on-chassis buses is not required for this program, but is desirable.
iv. Degree to which the compartment design elements could be retrofitted to existing transit buses.
i. Timeliness of the proposed project schedule, and reasonableness of the proposed milestones.
ii. Availability of existing resources (physical facilities, human resources including bus operators and civil rights specialists, partnerships with TVMs and vendors) to carry out the project.
iii. Demonstrated capacity and experience of the partners to carry out project of similar size and/or scope.
iv. Clear performance management strategy for tracking results and a public data management plan approach including where data will be housed and shared.
i. Demonstrates cost-effective manufacturability of the redesigned compartment.
ii. Description of how the project team plans to disseminate the result of the project to the transit industry.
iii. The anticipated intangible benefits, such as increasing bus operator retention, making public transportation service more appealing to potential passengers, providing educational opportunities, or reducing negative externalities such as bus operator injuries, stress, and downtime.
A technical evaluation panel comprised of FTA subject matter expert and possibly other U.S. DOT staff will review project proposals against the evaluation criteria listed above. Members of the technical evaluation panel reserve the right to seek clarification from any applicant about any ambiguous statement in the proposal. FTA may also request additional documentation or information to be considered during the evaluation process. After a thorough evaluation of all valid proposals, the technical evaluation panel will provide project recommendations to the FTA Administrator. The FTA Administrator will determine the final list of project selections, and the amount of funding for each project. Geographic diversity, diversity of project type, and the applicant's receipt of other Federal funding may be considered in FTA's award decisions.
FTA, prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $350,000), is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. FTA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in § 200.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.
FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible to support executing eligible project activities. To enhance the value of the portfolio of research and demonstration projects to be implemented, FTA reserves the right to request an adjustment of the project scope and budget of any proposal selected for funding. Such adjustments shall not constitute a material alteration of any aspect of the proposal that influenced the proposal evaluation or decision to fund the project.
FTA also reserves the right to terminate and re-compete a project(s) awarded under this notice when a project sponsor(s) fail to meet the requirements set forth under this notice.
FTA will publish final project selections on the FTA website, to include a list of the selected projects, including Federal dollar amounts and recipients.
FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection. FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected and the applicable Federal requirements are met. Preparation of proposals is not an eligible pre-award expense.
Successful proposals will be awarded through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) as Cooperative Agreements.
FTA encourages applicants to engage the appropriate State Departments of Transportation, Regional Transportation Planning Organizations, or Metropolitan Planning Organizations in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under this program.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant or cooperative agreement. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant or cooperative 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 submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in FTA's electronic grants management system on a quarterly basis for all projects.
For further information concerning this notice please contact Jamel El-Hamri at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of grant of a petition for a temporary exemption from three provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, “Low-speed vehicles.”
This notice grants the petition of Nuro, Inc. (Nuro) for a temporary exemption from three requirements of FMVSS No. 500 under two bases: (1) That an exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; and (2) that compliance with these requirements would prevent Nuro from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of a nonexempt vehicle. The vehicle that Nuro intends to manufacture under this exemption—the “R2X”—is a highly automated, electric, low-speed vehicle (LSV) that lacks seating positions and manual driving controls and is smaller, lower, and narrower than conventional vehicles. The exemption applies to the requirements that an LSV be equipped with exterior and/or interior mirrors; have a windshield that complies with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials”; and a backup camera system that meets the requirement in FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility,” limiting the length of time that a rearview image can remain displayed by the system after a vehicle's transmission has been shifted out of reverse gear.
Nuro's petition is granted as of February 11, 2020.
Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing address for this official is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
This document grants a petition submitted by Nuro Inc. (Nuro) for a temporary exemption of a vehicle from three requirements of FMVSS No. 500, Low-speed vehicles. Nuro's vehicle, the R2X, is a highly automated (SAE Level 4 or L4), low-speed (25 mph maximum), electric-powered delivery vehicle.
Nuro seeks exemptions from various FMVSS that are designed to provide safety benefits for occupants. Since the R2X does not accommodate any occupants, Nuro argues that these FMVSS do not serve their intended functions in the R2X. Accordingly, Nuro has sought exemptions from these requirements. NHTSA has analyzed the request for exemption and is granting them in accordance with its exemption authority under the Vehicle Safety Act and its implementing regulations in part 555.
Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA may grant an exemption from an FMVSS if NHTSA determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the Act, and meets at least one of four additional bases for exemption, described further below.
The three substantive requirements in FMVSS No. 500 from which the agency is granting an exemption are the exterior and/or interior mirror requirement (S5(b)(6)), the windshield requirement (S5(b)(8)), and the backup camera “Linger time” requirement (S5(b)(11)).
NHTSA made its decision to grant Nuro's petition after making several statutorily mandated agency findings, including its finding that exempting the R2X from three of the requirements in FMVSS No. 500 would not lower the safety of the R2X as compared to a compliant version of the vehicle—which, as described below, means that this finding is sufficient for the safety determinations required under both the “Low Emission Vehicle” (LEV) and the “equivalent overall safety” (EOS) bases. To examine the effects of the requested exemptions and make this finding, NHTSA compared two nearly identical versions of the same vehicle: A compliant version of the R2X
The question of whether an exemption would lower the safety of an exempt version of the R2X as compared to a compliant version of the vehicle turns on the very limited differences between those two versions of the R2X, which are only that the exempted R2X would not comply with the certain requirements described in this notice. Importantly, under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are permitted include any design feature they want on a vehicle so long as the vehicle conforms to the FMVSS, and the vehicle does not contain a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to safety. As discussed in more detail below, because NHTSA does not currently have in place FMVSS requirements that regulate Automated Driving System (ADS) driving capability, and NHTSA does not have any basis to believe that it poses an unreasonable risk to safety, no barrier prevents including such a system on a vehicle. Moreover, because LSVs (unlike most vehicle classes) are not required to have human-operated driving and signaling controls, nothing in the FMVSS prevents a manufacturer from producing an LSV without manual controls that is operated exclusively by an ADS. Given that both an exempted and compliant R2X would have no occupants and would operate without a human driver, compliance with the three requirements from which Nuro seeks an exemption would not provide a safety benefit.
First, the requirement for internal and external mirrors is meant to improve situational visibility for human drivers, who internalize information about the driving environment through direct or reflected line of sight. In a vehicle without manual controls that operates using an ADS, mirrors do not serve a safety purpose because the ADS perceives the driving environment using cameras and sensors that directly feed it information about the vehicle's surroundings. Moreover, because exterior mirrors protrude from the side of the vehicle, they may act as a potential hazard to other road users in certain situations. Second, the requirement for a windshield made of compliant glazing material is meant to protect human occupants from intrusion, ejections, or laceration while ensuring driver visibility. In an occupantless vehicle that operates using an ADS, there are no human occupants for the glazing to protect, and, as we have already noted, visibility through the windshield is not a concern because the ADS obtains information about the driving environment through the use of cameras and sensors. Lastly, the requirement that a rearview camera image cease to be illuminated (
Based on its engineering expertise and the information available to it, NHTSA finds that exempting the R2X from these three requirements would result in a vehicle that is at least as safe as a compliant version of the R2X. NHTSA has also determined that an exemption would be consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act because, by allowing for the manufacture and commercial deployment of their desired design vehicle, an exemption would further the development of innovative technologies used in the R2X (most notably, its ADS), which could lead to safety, environmental, and economic benefits to the communities in which the R2X operates, and could eventually lead to benefits for other communities where ADS vehicles are deployed in the future. Moreover, an exemption would further the development and implementation of innovative business models, like Nuro's delivery service, for putting those technologies to use. This determination is consistent not only with NHTSA's exercise of its longstanding safety authority and expertise on motor vehicle issues, but also, with the broad authority that Congress vested in the Secretary of Transportation to grant exemptions in the public interest.
The R2X will be the first ADS vehicle exempted under NHTSA's general exemption authority, and, according to Nuro, will be deployed as part of a commercial operation that will involve frequent interaction with the public. Accordingly, the agency has taken efforts to ensure the vehicles operate in as safe a manner as a non-exempted vehicle. Specifically, NHTSA has determined that it is in the public interest to establish a number of reporting and other terms of deployment of the vehicles that will apply throughout the useful life of these vehicles—violation of which can result in the termination of this exemption. The agency also notes that it retains the full suite of its investigative and enforcement authorities with respect to Nuro's vehicles and operations.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), codified at Chapter 301
In exercising this authority, NHTSA must look comprehensively at the request for exemption and find that an exemption would be consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the Vehicle Safety Act.
(i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.
NHTSA's procedural regulations implementing these statutory requirements are codified at 49 CFR part 555, “Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards.”
The statute and implementing regulations provide the Secretary and, as delegated, NHTSA with significant discretion in making these required determinations.
NHTSA defines a low-speed vehicle (LSV) as “a motor vehicle, (1) [t]hat is 4-wheeled; (2) [w]hose speed attainable in 1.6 km [kilometers] (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and (3) [w]hose GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating] is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).”
Unlike other vehicle categories that must meet a wide array of FMVSSs and other vehicle standards, LSVs are only required to meet a single standard: FMVSS No. 500, “Low-speed vehicles.” Currently, FMVSS No. 500 requires that LSVs be equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes, exterior and/or interior mirrors, a windshield constructed from FMVSS No. 205-compliant glazing, seat belts, a vehicle identification number, and a rear visibility system that complies with S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111 (
NHTSA created the LSV classification and established FMVSS No. 500 in June 1998 in response to safety concerns over the growing use of golf cart-sized, 4-wheeled “Neighborhood Electric Vehicles” (NEVs) on public roads.
NHTSA received Nuro's petition for a temporary exemption on October 23, 2018, seeking an exemption from three of the requirements that apply to LSVs: The exterior and/or interior mirror requirement (FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(6)), the windshield requirement (FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(8)), and the backup camera “Linger time” and “Deactivation” requirements (FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(11); FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4 & S6.2.5). In addition, Nuro requested an exemption from portions of the test procedures in FMVSS No. 111 that relate to the backup camera “Field of view” and “Size” requirements. Nuro submitted its petition under the basis that an exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle (LEV) and that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of that vehicle. As described in Nuro's petition, the vehicle for which Nuro requested an exemption, the “R2X,” would be an occupantless, electric LSV that is designed to be operated almost exclusively by an ADS. According to Nuro, the R2X would not be sold, but rather would be operated by Nuro in partnerships with grocery stores and other merchants to autonomously deliver goods to nearby customers.
Nuro argued in its petition that provisions of FMVSS No. 500 from which it is seeking an exemption require the inclusion of safety features that do not serve a safety purpose on the R2X, due to the fact that the R2X is operated by an ADS and does not have any occupants. Moreover, Nuro argued that including these required features would reduce the safety of the R2X. Nuro's arguments for its three exemption requests are summarized in the table below:
In addition, while
Nuro stated in its petition that granting its exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act because the R2X incorporates various design features that enable the ADS to operate reliably, and minimize safety risks that may occur if the ADS malfunctions or otherwise encounters a driving situation it cannot handle. Nuro also argued that enabling it to field test its ADS would lead to downstream environmental improvements and economic productivity.
It is important to note that the most unusual characteristics of the R2X—its lack of occupants and autonomous operation—do not require an exemption to be included on the R2X, as there is nothing in the FMVSSs that preclude Nuro from manufacturing a fully compliant version of the R2X that includes these two novel design features.
NHTSA published its Notice of Receipt of Nuro's exemption petition in the
In response to the Notice of Receipt, NHTSA received 24 comments from a variety of commenters, including trade associations, individual manufacturers, advocacy groups, and individuals. The trade associations that submitted comments were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the Association for Global Automakers (Global), and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). NHTSA also received comments from the individual vehicle manufacturer Local Motors. The advocacy groups that submitted comments were the American Automobile Association (AAA), the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates), Center for Auto Safety (CAS), DEVCO, and Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE). In addition, NHTSA received comments from Kroger, Inc., the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, the Center for Autonomous Vehicles and Sensor Systems, Edge Case Research, the Mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona, and the Scottsdale, Arizona Chief of Police. In addition, NHTSA received a comment from the petitioner itself. The major points raised by the commenters are briefly summarized below, and are discussed in greater detail in later sections of this document.
The principal comments made by commenters who were generally critical of Nuro's petition were:
• The LEV basis is an inappropriate basis under which to consider Nuro's petition because the purpose of that exemption basis is to encourage the development of low-emission propulsion technologies.
• The petition did not include sufficient information about the ability of the ADS to perform the driving task (especially as compared to a human driver), the R2X's Operational Design Domain (ODD), or the operational details of Nuro's remote operator system.
• The petition did not include documentation demonstrating the efficacy of some of the safety features Nuro describes in the petition, such as pedestrian “crumple zones.”
• The petition does not sufficiently address the issue of cybersecurity.
• If NHTSA were to grant the petition, the agency should impose extensive reporting requirements on Nuro that include providing NHTSA and/or the public with information about ADS performance. These reporting requirements should last for the life of the vehicle.
• Nuro should be required to coordinate extensively with local authorities in the communities in which the R2X will operate.
The principal comments made by commenters who were generally favorable to Nuro's petition were:
• The LEV basis is an appropriate exemption basis under which to consider Nuro's petition because the R2X meets the qualifications for being an LEV, and because one benefit of vehicles like the R2X is lower overall emissions.
• The ability of the ADS to perform the driving task should not be considered as part of NHTSA's safety analysis of Nuro's petition, because the compliant version of the R2X against which NHTSA must compare an exempted R2X would also be equipped with an ADS.
• The three requirements from which Nuro sought an exemption do not serve a safety purpose on a vehicle that is operated exclusively by an ADS.
• If NHTSA were to deny the petition, this would effectively require Nuro to equip the R2X with extraneous equipment (
• If NHTSA imposes terms that include mandatory data reporting, it should not be unreasonably broad, and should be limited to the two-year exemption period.
NHTSA also received several comments that were either general discussions of the role of exemptions in the regulation of ADS vehicles, or previously published newspaper articles or academic papers that discuss automated vehicle policy generally. While the policy considerations and issues discussed in these comments are certainly relevant to NHTSA's and the Department's Automated Vehicle policy generally, they are not directly pertinent to the findings that NHTSA must make regarding Nuro's specific petition, and thus are not extensively discussed in this document. However, we note that the agency shares some of the concerns some of the commenters raised about ADS safety, and has conditioned this exemption grant on terms that the agency believes will appropriately mitigate potential risk and ensure the agency can maintain adequate oversight of deployed R2X vehicles.
Following the publication of the Notice of Receipt, at Nuro's written request, NHTSA met with representatives of Nuro on April 11, 2019, at NHTSA headquarters.
NHTSA has determined that it is appropriate to consider Nuro's petition under both the “Low-Emission Vehicle” (LEV) and “Equivalent overall safety” (EOS) exemption bases, and has decided to evaluate Nuro's petition under both bases.
Nuro submitted its petition for an exemption from FMVSS No. 500 under the LEV exemption basis, which authorizes NHTSA to grant an exemption if doing so “would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle.”
NHTSA received comments on the appropriateness of the LEV exemption basis from AAMVA, Advocates, Global, and SAFE. AAMVA and Advocates both argued that the LEV exemption basis may not be appropriate despite the R2X's LEV status because the specific requirements from which Nuro requested an exemption are unrelated to the R2X's electric propulsion system. According to AAMVA, the NSF basis would be preferable because the design features that are the subject of the exemption relate to the removal of the driver (although AAMVA does not explain why this makes the NSF basis preferable over EOS).
Conversely, Global
First, NHTSA has determined that the LEV basis is appropriate for Nuro's petition. Based upon its interpretation of both the Vehicle Safety Act and part 555, and consistent with prior agency grants of exemption petitions, NHTSA has determined to grant the petition under the LEV basis. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that NHTSA find that the exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act and (1) that the vehicle is an LEV, (2) that an exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of the vehicle, and (3) that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the vehicle. It does not state that NHTSA must find a nexus between the exemption and the LEV status of the exempted vehicle.
We also agree with AAMVA and Advocates that, since innovation related to safety and mobility is the central focus of Nuro's petition, the agency may also consider the petition under the EOS or NSF ground. Nuro, in its comments, expressed openness to being considered under the EOS basis instead of the LEV, though Nuro did not amend its application as part of these comments.
As between the NSF and EOS bases, NHTSA has determined that the EOS basis is more appropriate than the NSF basis here. Although it is possible that an exemption could make easier the development or field testing of a new (
For these reasons, NHTSA has decided to evaluate Nuro's petition under both the LEV and EOS exemption bases.
In order to make the statutorily required safety findings to grant an exemption under either the LEV or EOS basis, NHTSA must first determine whether the level of safety of an exempted vehicle would be lower than that of a compliant vehicle. If, based on this analysis, NHTSA finds that an exemption would not lower overall safety of the vehicle, NHTSA is permitted to grant the petition under both exemption bases. Thus, if NHTSA determines that an exemption would not lower the safety of the vehicle (which would obviate the need under the LEV basis to make the second finding of whether safety is unreasonably lowered), the entire safety analysis under the EOS and LEV bases would be identical. NHTSA's analysis would only diverge under the two bases if NHTSA finds that safety would be lowered, in which case the agency must deny the petition under the EOS basis, and may only grant the petition under the LEV basis upon finding that an exemption would not
Because the mirror, windshield, and backup camera “Linger time” requirements are discrete aspects of vehicle performance, we discuss them individually in separate subsections below. Note that, because NHTSA has deemed moot Nuro's request for exemptions from the backup camera “Deactivation” requirement, it is not included our safety analysis. Rather, the reasons we deemed this request moot are explained in a later section.
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the requirement that LSVs be equipped with exterior and/or interior mirrors would not lower the safety of the R2X, and in fact may incrementally increase the safety of the R2X, because mirrors would not serve a safety-related purpose on an occupantless LSV operated by an ADS, and the presence of protruding exterior mirrors on such a vehicle may increase strike risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(6) requires that LSVs be equipped with an “exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side of the vehicle and either an exterior mirror mounted on the passenger's side of the vehicle or an interior mirror.” Nuro argued in its petition and its public comment that, because the safety purpose of these mirrors is to enable a human driver to observe objects to the rear of the vehicle, the mirror serves no safety function on the R2X. First, according to Nuro, the ADS uses an array of sensors to detect objects behind the vehicle. Moreover, Nuro states that mirrors serve no auxiliary safety purpose for people outside of the vehicle, and their omission reduces the risk of striking pedestrians and lowers the mass of the vehicle.
Commenters who discussed the mirror requirement agreed with Nuro that exterior mirrors did not serve a safety function on the R2X. The Alliance,
NHTSA agrees with Nuro and the commenters that that mirrors do not serve a safety function on a vehicle with no occupants that is operated by an L4 ADS, since the ADS perceives the driving environment using a suite of sensors that do not rely on the mirrors. Further, NHTSA has concluded that the fact that the mirrors protrude from the vehicle means that they could potentially increase the risk of injury to pedestrians or cyclists, however incrementally and thus concurs with Nuro's assertion in the petition about this potential benefit.
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the requirement that LSVs be equipped with a windshield constructed from FMVSS No. 205-compliant glazing materials would not lower the safety of the R2X because a compliant windshield would not serve a safety-related purpose on an occupantless LSV operated by an ADS, due to the fact that a windshield is not necessary to assure (human) driver visibility, nor is it needed to protect occupants in a crash.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(8) requires that LSVs be equipped with “a windshield that conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205).” FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials,” is an equipment standard for glazing materials (
Commenters generally did not dispute Nuro's argument that an FMVSS No. 205-compliant windshield would not serve a safety purpose on a vehicle without occupants. The Alliance
In its comment, Nuro explained further why it believes that not equipping the R2X with an FMVSS No. 205-compliant windshield will increase the safety of the R2X.
NHTSA has concluded that an exemption from the windshield requirement would not lower the level of safety of the R2X because the safety concerns that the windshield addresses—protecting occupants from ejection and intrusion, and ensuring occupants (particularly a human driver) can see the driving environment—are not present in the R2X, due to its lack of occupants and its operation by an ADS that relies on cameras and sensors instead of a human driver.
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from backup camera “Linger time” requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4) would not lower the safety of the R2X because the safety concern underlying the linger time requirement—driver distraction—does not exist for an occupantless LSV operated by an ADS.
FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(11) states that LSVs “shall comply with the rear visibility requirements specified in paragraphs S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111.” One of the requirements that falls under FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.4, limits the duration of the system's “Linger time,” which is the period in which a rearview image continues to be displayed by the backup camera system after the vehicle's transmission has been shifted out of reverse gear. Per S6.2.4, the rearview image produced by the backup camera system “shall not be displayed after the backing event has ended.” NHTSA explained in the final rule establishing the backup camera requirement that the safety justification for the linger time restriction was the possibility that a driver would be distracted by a rearview image.
In its petition, Nuro argued that the “Linger time” requirement does not serve a safety purpose on the R2X because the safety risk it is intended to mitigate against—the possibility that a human driver would be distracted by the rear visibility image when traveling in the forward direction—is not a concern for the R2X, since the R2X uses an ADS that is not susceptible to distraction. Nuro further argues that an exemption from the “Linger time” requirement would, in fact, improve the safety of the R2X, as it would eliminate a condition in which the R2X's rear-facing camera and sensors shut off, which Nuro says has the effect of partially blinding the ADS.
NHTSA agrees with Nuro that distraction is unlikely to be a concern for the R2X's ADS, which is not a human and thus would not be susceptible to cognitive distraction.
NHTSA has determined that an exemption from the provisions in the FMVSS No. 111 “Field of view and image size test procedure” relating to fuel tank loading (S14.1.2.2), driver's seating position (S14.1.2.5), and steering wheel adjustment (S14.1.7); and an exemption from the provisions of the FMVSS No. 111 “Image response time test procedure” relating to the driver's door and activation of the starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)); would not lower the safety of the R2X because the R2X's backup camera would still be required to produce a rearview image that meets the substantive performance requirements for “Field of view” (S6.2.1),”Size” (S6.2.2), and “Response time” (S6.2.3).
While Nuro states in its petition that the R2X meets these substantive requirements—and thus meets the minimum level of performance established by the standard—Nuro requested an exemption based on language in a 2016 Chief Counsel's interpretation letter issued to Google in 2016.
In its discussion of FMVSS test procedures, NHTSA's letter to Google explained: “As self-driving technology moves beyond what was envisioned at the time when standards were issued, NHTSA may not be able to use the same kinds of test procedures for determining compliance.”
NHTSA notes that the 2016 interpretation letter to Google diverged, without explanation, from NHTSA's longstanding position that manufacturers are not required to certify compliance based on NHTSA's FMVSS test procedures.
Nuro notes that the R2X is an electric vehicle and does not have a gas tank that can be fully loaded with fuel—an express requirement of the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures—and, pursuant to the Google interpretation described above, is therefore incapable of being certified as compliant with the standard.
Similarly, because of the R2X's occupantless design and exclusive ADS operation, the vehicle is not equipped with a driver's seat or a display screen, which means that NHTSA is not able to independently verify this compliance using the test procedures in FMVSS No. 111.
As part of its exemption request, Nuro provided suggestions for how NHTSA could modify the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures to accommodate the R2X's unique design:
Given the design differences between the R2X and a typical LSV, NHTSA has determined that Nuro's proposed modifications to the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures are reasonable, since they would condition the R2X in the same way as would the test procedures in the standards if applied to a conventional vehicle. Most commenters did not discuss whether NHTSA should grant Nuro's request for an exemption from the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures, or their views on the adequacy of Nuro's suggested modifications. The only comment on this subject was from AAMVA, which stated that it was “skeptical” of what is meant by treating the remote operator seat as a driver's seating position. We think that Nuro's suggestion to use the remote operator as a stand-in for the driver, for purposes of compliance certification, is reasonable. The purpose of the FMVSS No. 111 “Field-of-view,” “Size,” and “Response time” requirements are to ensure that the image displayed communicates information about the area behind the vehicle to the driver in a format that the driver is able to understand from the start of the backing event. If the rearview image meets the “Field of view,” “Size,” and “Response time” criteria when viewed by a remote operator who is located a similar distance from the rearview image screen as would be a human driver in a conventional vehicle, NHTSA believes this would be sufficient to demonstrate that Nuro exercised reasonable care in certifying the R2X because it indicates that the ADS is receiving the same information that a human driver would receive from the backup camera system in a conventional vehicle, and that this information is being transmitted at the start of the backing event. Similarly, we believe that Nuro's suggestion that it perform test procedures with a fully charged battery in lieu of a fully-loaded gas tank, for purposes of compliance certification, is reasonable.
Advocates claimed that the act of applying a vehicle's brakes to prevent a back over crash is an integral part of the safety purpose of the backup camera, and that NHTSA should therefore incorporate into its analysis whether the R2X would appropriately brake in response to an object in the backup camera zone. We do not agree with Advocates that FMVSS No. 111 extends to how the vehicle must react in response to the presence of an object behind the vehicle. Although Congress enacted the K.T. Safety Act (the statute that mandated NHTSA to create the backup camera requirement) to reduce back over crashes, FMVSS No. 111 requires that the driver be provided with information that would
Based on the contents of Nuro's public petition and the comments received in response to the Notice of Receipt, NHTSA has made the findings required to grant Nuro's petition for an exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera “Linger time” requirements under both the Low-Emission Vehicle basis and the Equivalent Overall Safety basis.
A vehicle is considered a low-emission vehicle for the purposes of § 30113 of the Vehicle Safety Act if it emits air pollutants significantly below the standards for new vehicles applicable to the vehicle set under § 202 of the Clean Air Act. Since the R2X is an electric vehicle and would not emit any such pollutants, it is a low-emission vehicle under § 30113. This issue was not contested in the public comments. Further, as discussed above, there is no need for the agency to find a nexus between the fact that the vehicle is an LEV and the reason the vehicle is non-compliant.
Given that an exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera “Linger time” requirements would not lower the level of safety of the R2X, NHTSA finds that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the R2X as compared to that of a compliant R2X. In addition, NHTSA finds that, because an exemption from the FMVSS No. 111 test procedure provisions relating to fuel tank loading (S14.1.2.2), driver's seating position (S14.1.2.5), steering wheel adjustment (S14.1.7), and the opening of the driver's door and activation of the starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)) would not affect whether the R2X's backup camera system meets the substantive requirements for “Field of view” (S6.2.1), “Size” (S6.2.2), and “Response time” (S6.2.3), an R2X exempted from these test procedure provisions would not lower the safety of the vehicle. Because NHTSA finds that safety would not be lowered, NHTSA does not reach the question of whether safety would be unreasonably lowered.
An exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera “Linger time” requirements would make easier the development or field evaluation of the R2X because it will permit Nuro to deploy the R2X without equipping the vehicle with extraneous safety features that, as noted earlier, NHTSA has found to not serve a safety function on an occupantless low-speed ADS vehicle.
Nuro argues in its petition that compliance with these requirements potentially imposes costs on Nuro and make it more difficult to field test the R2X because compliance “increases pedestrian strike risk, adds mass, and worsens the impact of collisions.” NHTSA agrees that, because compliance would require the R2X to be equipped with additional equipment, compliance with the standard would increase the cost of performing field evaluations of the R2X due to higher manufacturing costs and design restrictions. NHTSA also agrees that increased weight would make field evaluation of the vehicle harder by limiting the utility of the R2X as a delivery vehicle, because extra equipment may increase the curb weight of the vehicle, which could decrease the amount of cargo it can carry. (LSVs are required to have a GVWR of 3,000 pounds or below, regardless of the curb weight of the vehicle.)
While the exemption from the backup camera linger time requirement would not impact the manufacturing cost or weight of the vehicle, NHTSA finds that granting an exemption from that requirement would also make easier the field evaluation of the R2X because it would allow the R2X's ADS to operate continuously with full sensor input at all times, which would aid with Nuro's evaluation of the ADS's performance.
Because an exemption from the mirror, windshield, and backup camera “Linger time” requirements would not lower the level of safety of the R2X, NHTSA finds that an R2X exempted from these requirements would have a level of safety at least equal to that of a compliant version of their R2X. In addition, NHTSA finds that because an exemption from the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures relating to fuel tank loading (S14.1.2.2), driver's seating position (S14.1.2.5), steering wheel adjustment (S14.1.7), and the opening of the driver's door and activation of the starting system (S14.2(a)-(c)) would affect whether the R2X's rearview image meets the substantive “Field of view” (S6.2.1), “Size” (S6.2.2), and “Response time” (S6.2.3) requirements, an R2X exempted from these test procedure provisions would provide a level of safety equivalent to a vehicle tested in accordance with the FMVSS No. 111 test procedures.
Compliance with FMVSS No. 500 would prevent Nuro from commercially deploying the R2X because it requires the R2X to be equipped with the three additional features that are the subject of this exemption (exterior and/or interior mirrors, a windshield
We note that, while the statutory language for the EOS states that NHTSA must find that compliance with the FMVSS would prevent Nuro from “selling” the R2X, this language does not limit the application of the statutory basis to only vehicles that will be offered for sale (which Nuro states the R2X will not). Rather, to grant an exemption under the EOS basis, NHTSA must find that compliance with the standard would prevent Nuro from selling the R2X
As discussed above, the Vehicle Safety Act and its implementing regulations provide the Secretary and, by delegation, NHTSA with broad authority and discretion in determining whether granting the petition is consistent with the public interest and Vehicle Safety Act. Here, NHTSA finds that granting Nuro's petition is consistent with the public interest and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 because an exemption would enable a limited-risk deployment
More specifically, allowing for the introduction of the R2X as it has been designed by Nuro to optimize its performance as an occupant-less vehicle could further the development of new and innovative vehicle automation technologies, which may in turn lead to future benefits for vehicle safety, the environment, and the economy. While the extent of the anticipated benefits of ADS vehicles like the R2X are uncertain, commenters Local Motors and SAFE suggested that these vehicles could provide a variety of benefits, including increased safety (because ADS vehicles may reduce the number of crashes caused by human error), decreased emissions (because ADS vehicles could perform the driving task more efficiently and, in the case of the R2X, efficiently combine trips), and socioeconomic benefits (because ADS vehicles could provide expanded goods delivery services to poor and/or underserved communities).
While NHTSA cannot fully predict the extent to which these benefits will materialize in the future and, more specifically, the effect that granting this petition would have on those benefits, the agency understands that development of the ADS technology necessary to make these potential benefits possible requires the technology be used on vehicles that are designed from the ground-up to be automated and in real-world (non-simulated) environments, both to validate the safety of the current ADS technologies and to expose those technologies to new situations in which “machine learning” capabilities can be used to improve performance.
Finally, granting this exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the Vehicle Safety Act because it would encourage the development of new safety and automated technologies, like ADS, with an eye toward future regulatory changes. To this end, NHTSA believes that both the public interest and the goals of the Vehicle Safety Act would be best served if NHTSA were able to maintain a dialogue with Nuro about its experience operating the R2X, which may help inform the agency's future policy decisions towards ADS technologies. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to condition the grant of an exemption on Nuro providing the agency with specified periodic and incident-based reporting of information about the R2X's ADS, notwithstanding that the driving capability of the ADS is not relevant to the requisite safety findings.
NHTSA has deemed moot Nuro's request for an exemption from the backup camera “Deactivation” requirement (FMVSS No. 111, S6.2.5) because the requirement does not mandate that the backup camera deactivate when the vehicle shifts out of reverse, as Nuro assumed in its petition. Accordingly, an exemption from the “Deactivation requirement” is not necessary for Nuro to design the R2X to operate with the backup camera activated at all times, which was Nuro's stated purpose of requesting an exemption.
The deactivation requirement specifies the circumstances in which the backup camera image may be deactivated,
Since the deactivation requirement in S6.2.5 permits, but does not require, deactivation of the rearview image when the vehicles is taken out of reverse, Nuro's request for exemption from the requirement is moot.
Several commenters raised the issue of whether, and the extent to which, the driving ability of the R2X's ADS was relevant to the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant an exemption under § 30113, under any basis. Advocacy groups, including AAMVA,
According to CAS, the driving ability of the R2X's ADS is relevant because the FMVSS often have “an implicit human operator bias.” Accordingly, CAS argues that manufacturers of ADS vehicles must be required to demonstrate that the manufactures “have successfully replicated in their automatic systems the human sensory capability, responses, and judgement implicit in the specific FMVSS for which an exemption is sought.” Using the mirror requirement as an example, CAS argues that, for Nuro to be exempted from the LSV mirror requirement, its petition must demonstrate that the R2X's ADS will respond as a human using mirrors would in a potential crash scenario. However, CAS does not cite a legal basis for reading into the FMVSS a requirement that the ADS must react in a certain way in these driving scenarios. While other comments from advocacy groups were not as thorough as CAS in their discussion of the relevance of the ADS, they all roundly criticized Nuro's petition for a perceived lack of information about the ADS and other related subjects (such as the ODD and remote operator system) they claim are relevant to the safety findings NHTSA must make.
On the other side, SAFE, Local Motors, and the Alliance, argued in their comments that the driving capability of the R2X's ADS is not relevant to the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant an exemption. According to SAFE, the R2X's ADS is not relevant to NHTSA's safety findings because the exemption statute requires NHTSA to determine how the safety level of the non-compliant R2X would differ from that of a compliant vehicle, which in this case, would be a compliant occupantless, low-speed ADS vehicle.
NHTSA agrees with SAFE and Local Motors that the ADS does not factor into the comparative safety findings NHTSA must make to grant an exemption under either the EOS or LEV bases in this instance. As we briefly explained at the start of the “Safety Analysis” section, neither the statute nor regulations call upon NHTSA to assess the absolute level of safety of the exempted vehicle in question and find whether the vehicle's safety exceeds some minimum threshold that exists in the abstract. Instead, the agency is tasked with making a judgment about relative safety,
While we agree with the Alliance that the driving performance of the ADS is not germane to the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant Nuro's petition, we do not agree with the Alliance that the VSSA process is the appropriate framework NHTSA should use to exercise oversight of ADS vehicles that are produced subject to an exemption. First, as stated in NHTSA's ADS 2.0 guidance, and reemphasized in the Department's AV 3.0 and other statements, VSSAs are completely voluntary and the agency has no mechanism with which to compel their submission. VSSAs are intended to be documents by which ADS developers convey to the public information about how safety is factored into the development of the ADS in several specific critical areas and, thus, are not intended to be tools of regulatory oversight. Further, the agency is not, in this notice, foreclosing the possibility that, in considering whether to grant an ADS-related exemption petition for a vehicle that is requesting exemption
It is important to note that, while the driving capability of the R2X's ADS was not a factor in NHTSA's findings concerning whether the agency should grant Nuro's petition, as described above, nothing in this decision precludes NHTSA from seeking information about the ADS as part of a defect investigation, just as the agency would be able to seek information about the ADS in an investigation of a FMVSS compliant ADS-equipped vehicle. Neither this decision nor the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits NHTSA from mitigating ADS-related risks in determining the number of vehicles to exempt or the terms that apply to the exemption. Accordingly, NHTSA has conditioned this exemption grant on terms that the agency believes will mitigate risk and ensure the agency can maintain adequate oversight of deployed R2X vehicles. The agency has included several terms that require Nuro to report both general and incident-related information to NHTSA, including certain data about the operation of the R2X and its ADS. As described above, NHTSA believes granting this petition is in the public interest in part because this data will assist the agency both with its oversight of the R2X, and with developing regulatory changes to facilitate the safe introduction of fully compliant ADS vehicles.
Several commenters also raised the issue of whether, and to what extent, NHTSA should require Nuro to report data about the operation of the R2X to the agency. While most commenters agreed that some required post-grant data reporting requirement would be appropriate, the commenters disagreed on whether this reporting should include information about the operation of the R2X using the ADS.
The commenters in favor of broad reporting requirements that cover information about the operation of the R2X and/or its ADS included advocacy groups like Advocates, CAS, and AAMVA, as well as the manufacturer Local Motors. Advocates argued that NHTSA should use the exemption process to increase the agency's understanding of ADS technologies through “required data sharing,” though it did not provide detail as to what data it believed would be useful for NHTSA to collect, nor what exactly is meant by “sharing.”
Commenters who argued against significant reporting requirements included the Alliance and Nuro itself. The Alliance argued that data reporting on the operation of the R2X and/or its ADS should not be required, both because of what it refers to as the “limited” nature of Nuro's exemption request, and because NHTSA has the VSSA process to obtain this information.
NHTSA has determined that limiting reporting requirements in the way suggested by the Alliance and Nuro would not be appropriate, because it could harm the public interest both by hindering NHTSA's oversight of the R2X and limiting NHTSA's ability to learn from information from Nuro to potentially inform future activities. Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to include terms that would require both crash-related information that is sent to the agency very soon after any crash, and periodic reporting of general information about the operation of the R2X, and that this reporting should extend throughout the useful life of the vehicles produced pursuant to the exemption.
AAMVA argues in its comment that Nuro should be required to apply for an exemption from the requirement that LSVs come equipped with an FMVSS No. 209-compliant seat belt, despite the vehicle's lack of designated seating positions, because AAMVA is concerned that allowing this would set a precedent that manufacturers could simply decide that certain FMVSS requirements do not apply to their vehicles.
Similarly, CAS argues that NHTSA should require that the R2X be equipped with an FMVSS No. 401-compliant trunk release in its cargo compartments as a term of granting the petition.
The question of whether LSVs should be subject to additional performance requirements is outside the scope of this proceeding, and the agency does not have a legal basis to impose additional FMVSS requirements on the R2X, either as a pre-condition of granting an exemption, or as a term for maintaining an exemption grant. However, the agency may consider whether to include a trunk release requirement should we decide in the future to amend the FMVSS to specifically regulate occupantless delivery vehicles, as described in the Notice of Receipt for this petition.
Three commenters—CAS, NSPE, and Patrick Coyle—all raised cybersecurity concerns as well. CAS states that “end-to-end encryption,” which Nuro states the R2X's communications will have, is insufficient to assure cybersecurity alone.
Although the agency has no reason to believe that the cybersecurity risk between the R2X and a hypothetical compliant version of the R2X are any different, given the critical importance of cybersecurity, we have decided it would be in the public interest to include terms requiring Nuro to report any cybersecurity incidents and safety-critical cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and cease operation of all R2X vehicles if a cybersecurity incident that has an effect on safety occurs until the incident has been remedied.
Both AAMVA and AAA argue in their comments that community engagement would be important to ensuring the safe operation of the exempted vehicles and to gaining consumer acceptance. AAMVA stated that NHTSA should carefully consider how state and local authorities would be affected by the presence of exempted vehicles, and suggested that the acceptability of features like remote operation as a risk mitigation strategy should be up to State and local authorities.
Although the question of whether Nuro adequately engaged with the local communities in which it is deploying the R2X is not a factor in the safety findings NHTSA must make to grant Nuro's petition, NHTSA agrees that community outreach and compliance with local regulation is important for both the safe operation of the R2X within the community (
The Vehicle Safety Act provides that NHTSA may grant an exemption under the LEV and EOS bases for the production of a maximum of 2,500 vehicles during any 12-month period.
The Vehicle Safety Act grants the Secretary, as delegated to NHTSA significant discretion to condition the grant of an exemption “on terms [NHTSA] considers appropriate.” 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1) (delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95). Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA's grant of an exemption is subject to the terms set out in the Appendix following the preamble. Although, as we have noted, the performance of the R2X's ADS need not be addressed for this exemption, the Vehicle Safety Act does not limit the agency's authority solely to terms and conditions directly relevant to its specific determination. This is particularly true in instances, such as here, where the agency has considered the potential benefits of automation in its public interest finding, and where the party seeking the exemption is using a novel form of technology.
The exemption Nuro is receiving today is the first exemption NHTSA has granted under section 30113 to permit the deployment of an ADS vehicle that will be used for commercial purposes. As such, NHTSA appreciates that there will likely be heightened public interest about the vehicles allowed under this exemption petition, as evidenced by the public comments, and, the agency has decided to include provisions concerning the performance of the ADS in the terms for this exemption. NHTSA notes that violation of these terms may lead NHTSA to determine that the exemption is no longer in the public interest, which is a ground for the agency to terminate the exemption under 49 CFR 555.8(d). NHTSA may also take other appropriate enforcement action.
The terms NHTSA has chosen are designed to enhance the public interest and include post-crash reporting, periodic reporting, particular terms concerning cybersecurity, and certain general requirements. The post-crash reporting requirements would provide NHTSA with information necessary to understand the cause of the crash (including any role the ADS may have played), so the agency can take appropriate remedial action—up to and including requiring a recall, or even terminating the exemption and include the type of information the agency may request as a matter of course in any safety defect investigation involving an ADS-equipped vehicle. The periodic reporting requirements are intended to provide NHTSA with information about the operation of the R2X on public roads to facilitate improved safety oversight. NHTSA has also included restrictions on Nuro to ensure that the company is in a position to learn of and quickly resolve cybersecurity incidents related to safety. The general requirements are intended to ensure that Nuro removes from operation any vehicle determined not to be safe, Nuro comply with all relevant State and local laws, retain ownership of the vehicles, and provide a hotline for safety concerns.
We note that the terms we have included in this notice are similar to terms NHTSA has previously imposed on the importation of noncompliant ADS vehicles under 49 CFR part 591, though, consistent with the differing requirements of part 591, Nuro's exemption will allow for commercial deployment, rather than simply testing and demonstration. Finally, though not included in the terms below, Nuro must also comply, as a matter of law, with the requirements for a label that must be affixed to its exempted vehicles under part 555.9.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv), the agency is granting Nuro NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 20-01 from paragraphs S5(b)(6) and S5(b)(8) of FMVSS No. 500; and paragraphs S6.2.4, S14.1.2.2, S14.1.2.5, S14.1.7, and S14.2(a)-(c) of FMVSS No. 111; provided that Nuro complies with the terms and conditions described in the Appendix to this document. The exemption shall be effective from February 11, 2020 to February 10, 2022.
As soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after the R2X is involved in any crash in which either (1) the R2X is in motion, or (2) the R2X is struck by another motor vehicle, Nuro must inform NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) that the crash took place.
As soon as practicable, but no later than 7 calendar days after Nuro informs OVSC of a crash, Nuro must report to NHTSA the data elements specified in Table I.
The data elements specified in Table I must be reported in accordance with the range, accuracy, and resolution specified in Table II.
In addition, Nuro must provide NHTSA's OVSC with the following information about the status of the ADS and/or remote operator before and during the crash event:
• If the ADS was in control of the vehicle during the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the crash, including a detailed read-out and interpretation of all sensors in operation during that time period, the ADS's object detection and classification output, and the vehicle actions taken (
• If a remote operator took over control of the vehicle prior to the event, a detailed timeline of the 30 seconds leading up to the remote operator taking over control, including a detailed read-out and interpretation of all ADS sensors in operation during that time period, the ADS's object detection and classification output, and the vehicle actions taken (
• If a remote operator was in control of the R2X at any point during or up to 30 seconds before the event, Nuro must provide a detailed timeline of any actions the remote operator took that affected the crash event, as well as any technical problems that could have contributed to the crash (signal latency, poor field of view, etc.).
Finally, Nuro must provide NHTSA with any additional information about the event that NHTSA deems pertinent for determining either crash or injury causation, including additional information related to the ADS or remote operator system.
Beginning 90 days after the date of the exemption grant, and at an interval of every 90 days thereafter, Nuro must submit to NHTSA's OVSC a report detailing the operation of each R2X vehicle in operation during that time period. This report may provide this information either in aggregate or on a per-vehicle basis, but it must include the following:
• A calculation of the total miles the vehicle has traveled using the ADS during the report period, and heat maps of the geofenced area in which the vehicle operates to illustrate travel density. Nuro must provide the same information for miles traveled using a remote operator.
• Detailed descriptions of any material changes made to the R2X's Operational Design Domain (ODD) or ADS software during the reporting period.
• Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the R2X has violated any local or state traffic law, whether operating using the ADS or under remote operation.
• Detailed descriptions of any incidents in which the R2X has experienced a sustained
• Detailed descriptions of all instances in which a public safety official, including law enforcement, has attempted to interact with an R2X, such as to pull it over, or has contacted Nuro regarding an attempted interaction with the R2X.
• Detailed descriptions of any “minimal risk condition fallback”
In addition, Nuro must make necessary staff available to meet with NHTSA staff quarterly to discuss the status of its deployment program.
• Nuro must have a documented cybersecurity incident response plan that includes its risk mitigation strategies and the incident notification requirements listed below.
• Nuro must cease operations of all R2X vehicles immediately upon becoming aware of any cybersecurity incident
• No later than 24 hours after being made aware of a cybersecurity incident, Nuro must inform NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) of the incident. Nuro must also respond to any additional requests for information from NHTSA on the cybersecurity incident.
• Prior to resuming its operation of R2X vehicles following the discovery of a cybersecurity incident, Nuro must inform NHTSA of the steps it has taken to patch the vulnerability and mitigate the risks associated with the incident, and receive NHTSA approval to resume operation.
• Nuro must be capable of issuing a “stop order” that causes all deployed R2X vehicles to, as quickly as possible, cease operations in a safe manner, in the event that NHTSA or Nuro determines that the exempted vehicles present an unreasonable or unforeseen risk to safety.
• Nuro must coordinate any planned deployment of the R2X or change to the ADS/ODD with state and local authorities with jurisdiction over the operation of the vehicle as required by the laws or regulations of that jurisdiction.
• The R2X must comply with all state and local laws and requirements at all times while in operation. Each vehicle must be duly permitted, if applicable, and authorized to operate within all properties and upon all roadways traversed.
• Nuro must maintain ownership and operational control over the R2Xs that are built pursuant to this exemption for the life of the vehicles.
• Nuro must create and maintain a hotline or other method of communication for the public and Nuro employees to directly communicate feedback or potential safety concerns about the R2X to the company.
49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2020.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2020.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of DOT requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to file traffic and capacity data pursuant to 14 CFR 241.19 and Part 217, respectively. These reports are used to measure air transportation activity to, from, and within the United States.
Written comments should be submitted by April 13, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
You may access comments received for this notice at
Jennifer Rodes, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-420, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-8513, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
The Federal Aviation Administration uses enplanement data for U.S. airports to distribute the annual Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement funds to eligible primary airports,
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts that are used in developing its budget and staffing plans, facility and equipment funding levels, and environmental impact and policy studies. The FAA monitors changes in the number of air carrier operations as a way to allocate inspection resources and in making decisions as to increased safety surveillance. Similarly, airport activity statistics are used by the FAA to develop airport profiles and establish priorities for airport inspections.
While the Justice Department has the primary responsibility over air carrier acquisitions and mergers, the Department reviews the transfer of international routes involved to determine if they would substantially reduce competition, or determine if the transaction would be inconsistent with the public interest. In making these determinations, the proposed transaction's effect on competition in the markets served by the affected air carriers is analyzed. This analysis includes, among other things, a consideration of the volume of traffic and available capacity, the flight segments and origins-destinations involved, and the existence of entry barriers, such as limited airport slots or gate capacity. Also included is a review of the volume of traffic handled by each air carrier at specific airports and in specific markets which would be affected by the proposed acquisition or merger. The Justice Department uses T-100 data in carrying out its responsibilities relating to airline competition and consolidation.
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts. These forecast as used by the FAA, airport managers, the airlines and others in the air travel industry as planning and budgeting tools.
The mix of aircraft type are used in determining the practical annual capacity (PANCAP) at airports as prescribed in the FAA Advisory Circular
The Department apprizes Congress, the Administration and others of the effect major changes or innovations are having on the air transportation industry. For this purpose, summary traffic and capacity data as well as the detailed segment and market data are essential. These data must be timely and inclusive to be relevant for analyzing emerging issues and must be based upon uniform and reliable data submissions that are consistent with the Department's regulatory requirements.
The Department is responsible for establishing international and intra-Alaska mail rates. International mail rates are set based on scheduled operations in four geographic areas: Trans-border, Latin America, operations over the Atlantic Ocean and operations over the Pacific Ocean. Separate rates are set for mainline and bush Alaskan operations. The rates are updated every six months to reflect changes in unit costs in each rate-making entity. Traffic and capacity data are used in conjunction with cost data to develop the required unit cost data.
The Department reassesses service levels at small domestic communities to assure that capacity levels are adequate to accommodate current demand.
The FAA is charged with administering a series of grants that are
The Department reviews all of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) agreements that relate to fares, rates, and rules for international air transportation to ensure that the agreements meet the public interest criteria. Current and historic summary traffic and capacity data, such as revenue ton-miles and available ton-miles, by aircraft type, type of service, and length of haul are needed to conduct these analyses: To (1) develop the volume elements for passenger/cargo cost allocations, (2) evaluate fluctuations in volume of scheduled and charter services, (3) assess the competitive impact of different operations such as charter versus scheduled, (4) calculate load factors by aircraft type, and (5) monitor traffic in specific markets.
Foreign air carriers are required to submit applications for authority to operate to the United States. In reviewing these applications the Department must find that the requested authority is encompassed in a bilateral agreement, other intergovernmental understanding, or that granting the application is in the public interest. In the latter cases, T-100 data are used in assessing the level of benefits that carriers of the applicant's homeland presently are receiving from their U.S. operations. These benefits are compared and balanced against the benefits U.S. carriers receive from their operations to the applicant's homeland.
The Department determines whether U.S. air carriers are and continue to be fit, willing and able to conduct air service operations without undue risk to passengers and shippers. The Department monitors a carrier's load factor, operational, and enplanement data to compare with other carriers with similar operating characteristics. Carriers that expand operations at a high rate are monitored more closely for safety reasons.
Pursuant to an international agreement, the United States is obligated to report certain air carrier data to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The traffic data supplied to ICAO are extracted from the U.S. air carriers' Schedule T-100 submissions.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of renewal of the Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The charter for the Art Advisory Panel has been renewed for a two-year period beginning January 30, 2020.
Maricarmen R. Cuello, C:AP:SEPR:AAS, 51 SW 1st Avenue, Miami, FL 33130, Telephone No. (305) 982-5364 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), that the Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a necessary committee that is in the public interest, has been renewed for an additional two years beginning on January 30, 2020.
The Panel helps the Internal Revenue Service review and evaluate the acceptability of property appraisals submitted by taxpayers in support of the fair market value claimed on works of art involved in Federal Income, Estate or Gift taxes in accordance with sections 170, 2031, and 2512 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
For the Panel to perform this function, Panel records and discussions must include tax return information. Therefore, the Panel meetings will be closed to the public since all portions of the meetings will concern matters that are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6) and (7) of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. This determination, which is in accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is necessary to protect the confidentiality of tax returns and return information as required by section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996, as amended. This listing contains the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a) or 877A) with respect to whom the Secretary received information during the quarter ending December 31, 2019. For purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship.