International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042. Amendment No. 1 makes the following changes: Adds a new basket type (Type 4) to allow for the loading of intact, damaged, or failed fuel; adds another new basket type (Type 5) with low conductivity poison basket plates and low emissivity coated steel basket plates; accepts fuel assemblies with a minimum two-year cooling time, in selected locations within the basket; adds the NUHOMS® MATRIX design as an alternative to the EOS horizontal storage module design for the storage of spent fuel; and makes additional revisions to the certificate of compliance and the technical specifications for consistency and clarity. These changes are discussed in more detail in the “Discussion of Changes” section of this rule.
This direct final rule is effective June 17, 2020, unless any significant adverse comment is received by May 4, 2020. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such a comment, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Section I, “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments,” in the
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-6825; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0224 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-2019-0224 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
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.
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 and does not include other aspects of the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on June 17, 2020. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by May 4, 2020, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
On February 15, 2018, as supplemented on June 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, February 19, 2019, March 21, 2019, June 19, 2019, July 16, 2019, July 17, 2019, August 29, 2019, and October 1, 2019, TN Americas LLC submitted a request to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 for the NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System. Amendment No. 1 makes the following five changes:
(1) Adds a new basket type (Type 4) to allow for the loading of intact, damaged, or failed fuel. The new Type 4 basket with staggered alignment of the steel, aluminum, and poison basket plates is for the EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister. An option (Type 4L) is also added for the Type 4 basket, which has steel basket plates with a low emissivity coating and poison basket plates with low conductivity. The Type 4 basket has the ability to be stored in either the EOS horizontal storage module (EOS-HSM) or the new NUHOMS® MATRIX (HSM-MX) design. This change allows for the loading of damaged or failed fuel. The initial Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 does not allow for the loading of damaged or failed fuel. Six new heat load zone configurations for the EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister are added for the new Type 4 basket.
(2) Adds another new basket type (Type 5) with low conductivity poison basket plates and low emissivity coated steel basket plates. The new Type 5 basket for the EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister is comparable in geometry to existing Types 1, 2 and 3 baskets. The Type 5 basket has the ability to be stored in either the EOS-HSM or the new HSM-MX design. Four of the six new heat load zone configurations added for the Type 4 basket are also added for the Type 5 basket.
(3) Accepts fuel assemblies with a minimum two-year cooling time, in selected locations within the basket. This change is applicable to the EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister.
(4) Adds the HSM-MX design as an alternative to the EOS-HSM design for the storage of spent fuel. The new HSM-MX design is an alternative for either an EOS-37PTH dry shielded canister or an EOS-89BTH dry shielded canister. The HSM-MX is a reinforced concrete monolithic modular structure, which is similar to the EOS-HSM reinforced concrete modular structure except that the HSM-MX is a staggered, two-tiered modular structure.
(5) Makes additional revisions to the certificate of compliance and the technical specifications for consistency and clarity. These revisions are described in the application package.
As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design
The amended TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC adds an amendment to the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042.
This direct final rule amends the certificate of compliance for the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 1 makes the following changes: (1) adds a new basket type (Type 4) to allow for the loading of intact, damaged, or failed fuel; (2) adds another new basket type (Type 5) with low conductivity poison basket plates and low emissivity coated steel basket plates; (3) accepts fuel assemblies with a minimum two-year cooling time, in selected locations within the basket; (4) adds the HSM-MX design as an alternative to the EOS-HSM design for the storage of spent fuel; and (5) makes additional revisions to the certificate of compliance and the technical specifications for consistency and clarity.
On July 18, 1990, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in an environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for Amendment No. 1 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
The TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fires, explosions, and other incidents.
The design of the cask would still prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask.
Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 1 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in environmental assessment supporting
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 1 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 1 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.
Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 1,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and TN Americas LLC. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it: (1) Notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On March 24, 2017, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.
On February 15, 2018, as supplemented on June 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, February 19, 2019, March 21, 2019, June 19, 2019, July 16, 2019, July 17, 2019, August 29, 2019, and October 1, 2019, TN Americas LLC submitted a request to amend the NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 1 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 1 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden on the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 for the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 1 previously described, as set forth in the revised certificate of compliance and technical specifications.
Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 for the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System was initiated by TN Americas LLC and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 1 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 1. These changes do not affect existing users of the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, and the initial Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 continues to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 1, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.
For these reasons, Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042
This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of excessively high flight deck or cabin temperatures. This AD requires revising certificate limitations and operating procedures of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM), to provide the flightcrew with procedures for hot flight deck or cabin temperatures to follow under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 8, 2020.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA is issuing this AD to address excessively high flight deck or cabin temperatures, which may inhibit safe operation of the airplane by the flightcrew and contribute to loss of continued safe flight and landing, or may cause physiological distress to passengers and cabin crew.
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), expressed support for the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE or STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
The FAA agrees with the commenter that neither STC ST01518SE nor STC ST01920SE affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01518SE or STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The AD has not been changed in this regard.
Boeing requested to remove “100%” from the non-normal checklist step for Oxygen Masks and Regulators. The commenter noted that the 100% oxygen specified in the operating procedures is not correct for this particular situation on the airplane. According to Boeing, the flightcrew should be using the normal diluter demand mask regulator position, which is described in the non-normal checklist introduction in the Quick Reference Handbook part of the Flight Crew Operations Manual.
The FAA agrees with Boeing's assessment and request. The “100%” indication has been removed from the non-normal checklist step for Oxygen Masks and Regulators in figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
American Airlines and United Airlines requested to remove the proposed requirement to revise the existing AFM certificate limitation chapter with a new certificate limitation. American Airlines also requested that if the requirement is not removed, figure 3 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD be revised to specify the “Quick Reference Handbook,” rather than the “Operating Procedures chapter of this manual.” The commenters asserted that the Cabin Temperature Hot procedures currently exist in other reference material, and that operators will continue to follow those procedures. United Airlines further asserted that no precedent exists for adding a certificate limitation directing the accomplishment of an emergency or non-normal checklist.
The FAA does not agree to this request because the revision of the certificate limitation chapter makes the Cabin Temperature Hot procedures mandatory. The revised certificate limitation chapter also provides awareness to operators and flight standards that the actions are related to an unsafe condition and cannot be modified. As to the additional request to specify the “Quick Reference Handbook,” that publication cannot be specified because it is not controlled nor approved by the FAA. This requirement has not been changed in this AD.
Lufthansa Technik (Lufthansa) asked whether a preventive technical solution, rather than the proposed reactive one, would be provided and mandated for the unsafe condition. The commenter said a technical solution such as a modification would prevent operators from getting into the situation that creates the unsafe condition.
The FAA agrees that a preventive technical solution to the unsafe condition would be a better option. Although no technical solution has yet been provided or proposed by Boeing, the corrective action required by this AD provides an adequate level of safety. Should we receive a technical solution from Boeing, the FAA may consider further rulemaking. The AD has not been changed with regard to this request.
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 866 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 May 8, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
(2) Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of excessively high flight deck or cabin temperatures. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which may inhibit safe operation of the airplane by the flightcrew and contribute to loss of continued safe flight and landing, or may cause physiological distress to passengers and cabin crew.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Revise the “Certificate Limitations” chapter of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1), figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1), or figure 3 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, as applicable. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the existing AFM. When information identical to that in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1), figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1), or figure 3 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has been included in the “Certificate Limitations” chapter of the general revisions of the existing AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the existing AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the existing AFM.
(2) Revise the “Operating Procedures” chapter of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 4 to paragraph (g)(2), figure 5 to paragraph (g)(2), figure 6 to paragraph (g)(2), or figure 7 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the existing AFM. When information identical to that in figure 4 to paragraph (g)(2), figure 5 to paragraph (g)(2), figure 6 to paragraph (g)(2), or figure 7 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD has been included in the “Operating Procedures” chapter of the general revisions of the existing AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the existing AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the existing AFM.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Jet Route J-37 in the vicinity of Atlanta, GA, by removing the route segment between the Montgomery, AL, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Lynchburg, VA, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aids. The route segment was recently removed from the jet route effective January 30, 2020, and then inadvertently added back to the jet route the following chart cycle, effective March 26, 2020. Subsequent to the publication of the rule that added the route segment back to J-37, the FAA identified the error and is taking this action to correct it by removing the route segment as it was in January 2020 in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project.
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 21, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure in the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
In 2018, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Subsequent to the Docket No. FAA-2018-0817 NPRM publishing in the
Then, subsequent to the Docket No. FAA-2019-0638 final rule publishing in the
As a result, J-37 was amended by a rule (Docket No. FAA-2019-0638) published in the
The FAA is taking this action now to amend the Part 71 description of J-37 by removing the route segment between the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC and Lynchburg, VA, VOR/DME as it was in January 2020 in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project.
Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 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 Jet Route listed in this rule will be subsequently published in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Jet Route J-37 to remove the route segment between the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC and the Lynchburg, VA, VOR/DME. This action corrects the inadvertent inclusion of the route segment published in the Docket No. FAA-2018-0817 final rule, after the route segment was removed in the Docket No. FAA-2019-0638 final rule. Because the error described above requires prompt resolution, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The Jet Route modification accomplished by this action is outlined below.
The radials listed in the route description below are stated in True degrees.
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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying Jet Route J-37 near Atlanta, GA, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Harvey, LA; Semmes, AL; to Montgomery, AL. From Lynchburg, VA; Gordonsville, VA; Brooke, VA; INT Brooke 067° and Coyle, NJ, 226° radials; to Coyle. From Kennedy, NY; Kingston, NY; Albany, NY; to Massena, NY.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E surface area, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and creates Class E airspace as an extension to the Class E surface area at Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV. After establishment of a new area navigation (RNAV) procedure and review of the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to amend the existing airspace and establish new controlled airspace for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also removes a reference to the Battle Mountain VORTAC from the legal description for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet.
Effective 0901 UTC, July 16, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2245.
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 will amend the existing Class E airspace and establish new Class E airspace as an extension to the Class E surface area at Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004 and 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.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV. The Class E surface area will be adjusted to that area within 4.2 miles of the airport. The surface area that extends 1 mile both sides of the 218° bearing from the 4.2 mile radius to 7.4 miles southwest of the airport will be eliminated.
A Class E extension to the surface area will be established within 1.3 miles each side of the 228° bearing, which will provide the required airspace to protect aircraft descending through 1000 feet AGL, while using the VOR approach to runway 4.
The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL will be modified by establishing airspace 2 miles on each side of the 48° bearing from the airport to 11 miles northeast, to contain a new RNAV approach to runway 22. To the west, the airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL is expanded from the current 4.2 mile radius to 7 miles from the airport, between the 265° bearing clockwise to the 32° bearing, to protect departures until they reach 1200 feet AGL. This action also modifies the lateral boundaries of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL to the southwest from 25 miles of the Battle Mountain VORTAC to within a 16.5 mile radius of the airport from the 204° bearing clockwise to the 266° bearing. This will protect the VOR Approach to runway 4, as aircraft descend through 1500 feet.
This action eliminates the Battle Mountain VORTAC as a reference point in the legal description, as it is no longer required.
This airspace supports IFR operations at Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004 and 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.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles each side of the 228° bearing from the Battle Mountain Airport extending from the 4.2 mile radius to 7 miles southwest of Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain NV.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 16.5-mile radius of the Battle Mountain Airport beginning at the point where the 205° bearing intersects the 16.5-mile radius thence clockwise to the point where the 266° bearing intersects the 16.5-mile radius thence northeast along the 266° bearing to within 7 miles of the airport, thence clockwise along the 7-mile radius to the point where the 65° bearing intersects the 7-mile radius thence to the point where the 77° bearing intersects the 4.2-mile radius thence clockwise to the point where the 158° bearing intersects the 4.2 mile radius, thence to the point of beginning; and that airspace within 2 miles each side of the 49° bearing extending from the 4.2 mile radius to 10.5 miles from the airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Correcting amendment.
On January 15, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
This document is effective on April 3, 2020.
Stanley Tong, Rules Office (Air 3-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4122 or by email at
On January 15, 2020 (85 FR 2313), the EPA published a final rule entitled “Air Plan Approval; California; Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District; Reasonably Available Control Technology”. This rule approved a revision to the California State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act consisting of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District's demonstration that its rules satisfied applicable requirements regarding reasonably available control technology. Due to a typographical error, the EPA's final rule published on January 15, 2020, inadvertently listed the wrong document number for a document entitled “Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,” which could make it difficult for members of the public to locate the document. The correct document number and title are: EPA-453/B-16-001 Oil and Natural Gas Industry. This action corrects the erroneous document number in Table 1 of 40 CFR 52.222(a)(9)(iv).
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because the underlying rule for which this correcting amendment has been prepared was already subject to a 30-day comment period, and this action is merely correcting a minor typographical error in the rule text. Further, this action is consistent with the purpose and rationale of the final rule, which is corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's analyses or overall actions, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and comment are unnecessary.
The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects a typographical error in a previous rulemaking. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not an E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(9) * * *
(iv) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule; adjustment of annual catch limits.
This action transfers unused quota of Georges Bank and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder from the Atlantic scallop fishery to the Northeast multispecies fishery for the remainder of the 2019 fishing year. This quota transfer is authorized when the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocations of yellowtail flounder. The quota transfer is intended to provide additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels to help achieve the optimum yield for these stocks while ensuring sufficient amounts of yellowtail flounder remain available for the scallop fishery.
Effective April 2, 2020, through April 30, 2020.
Maria Fenton, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9196.
NMFS is required to estimate the total amount of yellowtail flounder catch from the scallop fishery by January 15 each year. If the scallop fishery is expected to catch less than 90 percent of its Georges Bank (GB) or Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder sub-annual catch limit (ACL), the Regional Administrator has the authority to reduce the scallop fishery sub-ACL for these stocks to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish fishery sub-ACL by the same amount. This adjustment is intended to help achieve optimum yield for these stocks, while not threatening an overage of the ACLs for the stocks by the groundfish and scallop fisheries.
Based on the most current available catch data, we project that the scallop fishery will have unused quota in the 2019 fishing year. Using the highest
Because the scallop fishery is expected to catch less than 90 percent of its allocation of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this rule reduces the scallop sub-ACL for both stocks to the upper limit projected to be caught, and increases the groundfish sub-ACLs for these stocks by the same amount, effective April 2, 2020, through April 30, 2020. Using the upper limit of expected yellowtail flounder catch by the scallop fishery minimizes the risk of constraining scallop fishing or an ACL overage by the scallop fishery while still providing additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels. To date, the groundfish fishery's utilization of both yellowtail flounder stocks is very low, so the risk of the fishing year 2019 ACL for either stock being exceeded is minimal.
Table 1 summarizes the revisions to the 2019 fishing year sub-ACLs (84 FR 34799; July 19, 2019), and Table 2 shows the revised allocations for the groundfish fishery as allocated between the sectors and common pool based on final sector membership for fishing year 2019.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast multispecies fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delay in effectiveness period, respectively. This rule relieves groundfish fishermen from more restrictive ACLs for yellowtail stocks and is intended to help the fishery achieve optimum yield. The earlier this rule is in place, the more time the groundfish fishermen will benefit from the increased fishing opportunities this rule provides. Delaying the effective date would reduce or eliminate the expected benefit to the groundfish fishery and undermines the purpose of the rule to help the fishery achieve optimum yield.
The authority to transfer available yellowtail catch from the scallop fishery to the groundfish fishery was designed to allow timely implementation before the end of the Northeast multispecies fishing year on April 30. Given that scallop fishery bycatch data only recently became available, providing additional time for prior public notice and comment or a 30-day cooling off period before transferring quota for these yellowtail flounder would likely prevent this rule from being in place before the end of the fishing year. Such a delay would eliminate any potential benefit to the groundfish fishermen from receiving the additional allocation that is intended to offset the current negative economic effects of severe decreases in ACLs of several important groundfish stocks.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1042. Amendment No. 1 makes the following changes: Adds a new basket type (Type 4) to allow for the loading of intact, damaged, or failed fuel; adds another new basket type (Type 5) with low conductivity poison basket plates and low emissivity coated steel basket plates; accepts fuel assemblies with a minimum two-year cooling time, in selected locations within the basket; adds the NUHOMS® MATRIX design as an alternative to the EOS horizontal storage module design for the storage of spent fuel; and makes additional revisions to the certificate of compliance and the technical specifications for consistency and clarity.
Submit comments by May 4, 2020. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Section I, “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-6825; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0224 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-2019-0224 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.
Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.
For a detailed discussion of the proposed rule changes and associated analyses, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.” This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a direct final rule on March 24, 2017, that approved the TN Americas LLC NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1042.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998. The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,
Submit comments by June 17, 2020.
Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements of the proposed mandatory standard for crib bumpers/liners should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2020-0010, may be submitted electronically or in writing:
Timothy P. Smith, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 987-2557; email:
The CPSC proposes to issue a standard for crib bumpers/liners under section 104 of the CPSIA, amend the consumer registration rule to include crib bumpers/liners, and add crib bumpers/liners to the NOR list in 16 CFR part 1112.
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” The statute also specifies 12 categories of products that fall within the definition. Crib bumpers are not listed among the products in section 104(f); however, on October 19, 2016, the Commission voted to amend the agency's fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017) Operating Plan, directing staff
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, CPSC staff consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), largely through the ASTM process. ASTM subcommittee members represent producers, users, consumers, government, and academia.
This NPR incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, ASTM F1917-12,
The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the CPSA apply to the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for crib bumpers/liners, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the crib bumpers/liners standard, this NPR also proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 16 CFR part 1240, the CFR section where the crib bumpers standard will be codified, if the standard becomes final.
Traditionally, crib bumpers are infant bedding accessories that attach to the interior perimeter of a crib and function as a barrier between the infant and the sides of the crib. However, the design of these products can vary. The most common type of crib bumper consists of one or more rectangular fabric panels, constructed of cotton or polyester, with filling material for padding and with fasteners to attach to a crib. The fasteners are often ties that are secured to the crib corner posts, crib slats or spindles, or both. However, other fastening methods exist. These products commonly are marketed as preventing injury to infants from impacts against the sides of a crib and preventing limb entrapments between crib slats. Bumpers also are used to decorate the infant's sleep environment and might be promoted as making a crib more comfortable.
Less common designs of crib bumpers include “vertical” bumpers or liners, which essentially are a series of small bumpers that individually enshroud each vertical crib slat or spindle. These products generally claim to offer benefits that are comparable to traditional bumpers while allowing airflow through the sides of a crib. Vertical bumpers may also be marketed with a longer recommended useful life span than traditional bumpers for children with special needs. More recent crib bumper variants are braided bumpers, which consist of two or more fabric sleeves, containing filling material, and that are braided together. Other bumper variants exist that look similar to traditional bumpers but are marketed with claims of being “breathable.” Mesh crib liners are similar in their marketing claims that the products are breathable, but these products tend to be thinner than traditional bumpers, with minimal padding, if any, because they are not intended to prevent impact injuries.
All of these products, like traditional crib bumpers, line the interior sides of a crib and functionally limit or prevent access to the crib sides, so, in principle, all of these products might present similar hazards and benefits to infants. Thus, this proposed rule includes all of these products within its scope. Throughout this
CPSC has identified 113 fatal incidents associated with crib bumpers (
CPSC has reports of 113 fatalities associated with bumpers, which were reported to have occurred between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2019. To CPSC's knowledge, all bumpers involved in these incidents were traditional bumpers, and all but eight involved the bumper inside a crib.
CPSC staff classified 30 of the 113 crib bumper-related fatalities as “incidental.” In three of these cases, the cause of death was known to have been exclusively medical in nature, and therefore unrelated to the bumper. In 27 of these 30 cases, although a bumper was present, there was no evidence of bumper contact with the infant.
Of the remaining 83 reported fatalities, 75 (90 percent) involved infants younger than 12 months and 51 (61 percent) involved infants 4 months old or younger. Only three of the 83
CPSC has reports of 113 bumper-related nonfatal incidents and concerns that were related to crib bumpers and were reported to CPSC from January 1, 2008, through March 31, 2019. Of these 113 nonfatal reports, 60 resulted in injury, 50 did not result in injury, and the disposition of 3 is unknown. Fifteen (13 percent) of the 113 nonfatal incidents and concerns reportedly involved a breathable bumper or mesh liner. Thirty-five cases did not report the child's age. Of the remaining 78 nonfatal incidents and concerns, 47 (60 percent) involved infants younger than 12 months.
CPSC staff reviewed recalls involving crib bumpers that occurred from July 9, 1990 through April 17, 2019. Staff identified five consumer-level recalls during that period to mitigate against risks of entanglement, entrapment, suffocation, and choking from loose threads (
Generally, the cause of death in the fatal incidents was reported as asphyxia, suffocation, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). A number of reports indicated that in addition to a crib bumper being present, the sleeping environment contained multiple additional items, such as pillows, blankets, and stuffed dolls. In many of these incidents, it is unclear what role, if any, the crib bumper played in the death of the child. CPSC staff, through group consensus, categorized the fatalities into hazard scenarios based on the best available account information about the position of the child when found and the cause of death ruled by the medical examiner.
As mentioned previously, 30 of the 113 reported fatalities were incidental. Table 1 shows the distribution of the remaining 83 non-incidental reported fatalities by hazard scenarios.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Table 2 summarizes the hazard patterns for the bumper-related nonfatal incidents. In cases where multiple hazards were mentioned, the hazard
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
CPSC is aware of one international standard that contains performance requirements for crib bumpers/liners: BS EN 16780:2018,
EN 16780:2018 requires that the design of the product prevent the crib bumper/liner from falling into the crib, but the design requirement does not have a test method. The standard does not have a requirement for the firmness of crib bumpers/liners. Additionally, although there are specific requirements (prohibitions) for plastic surfaces that could affect breathability, the rationale for that requirement assumes the air flow characteristics of the underlying woven fabric and filling materials are
Some state and local jurisdictions have banned the sale of crib bumpers.
•
•
•
•
The states of Missouri, New York, and Vermont are considering similar bans. In addition, in June 2019, a bill to ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of crib bumpers in the United States, the “Safe Cribs Act of 2019” (H.R. 3170 and S. 1816), was introduced in Congress. The bill, as introduced, defined the term “crib bumper” broadly to include not only traditional padded crib bumpers, but also mesh crib liners and vertical bumpers, or crib slat covers. However, on July 10, 2019, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, amended the definition of “crib bumper” in H.R. 3170 to exclude mesh liners.
ASTM F1917,
ASTM F1917-12 includes the following key provisions: Scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, and labeling requirements. Tab C of the staff's briefing package provides details about the standard. We summarize key provisions below.
The scope section of ASTM F1917-12 provides that the standard applies to “infant bedding and related accessories.” Section 3.1.4 of ASTM F1917-12 defines the term “infant bedding and related accessories” to include the following items intended for use in a nursery: Fitted sheets, blankets, dust ruffles, covers and drapes for canopies, pillows, mattress covers, diaper stackers, fabric wall, bumper guards, headboard bumper guards, and comforters. This proposed rule would apply only to crib bumpers. ASTM F1917-12 does not define “crib bumper.”
ASTM F1917-12 contains general requirements for the bumper's attachment means (
Section 6 of ASTM F1917-12 includes performance requirements and test methods for unsupported vinyls, maximum bumper thickness, and bumper pad tie strength. ASTM F1917-12 defines unsupported vinyl as vinyl that is not integrated to a backing material. The standard requires that unsupported vinyl that is accessible to an infant be 0.012-in (0.3mm) thickness or greater. The maximum bumper thickness requirement in ASTM F1917-12 uses a bumper thickness test fixture to limit the maximum thickness of crib bumpers to about 2 inches. The bumper thickness test applies only to crib bumpers manufactured of fabric and filled with a fibrous material. The bumper pad tie strength requirement in AST MF1917-12 only applies to ties, and no other means of attachment.
Section 8 of ASTM F1917-12 contains warning and instructional requirements for infant bedding and related accessories, and includes warnings that must appear on certain products covered by the standard.
CPSC assessed the adequacy of ASTM F1917-12 on the basis of the incident data and hazard patterns, and on CPSC's review of the current voluntary standard for issues requiring clarification. A more stringent standard than the current ASTM standard is necessary to further reduce the risk of injury associated with crib bumpers. Accordingly, the proposed rule includes substantial changes and additions to the existing voluntary standard requirements.
ASTM F1917-12 includes several performance and labeling requirements for crib bumpers. However, the
Defining the products that are subject to the rule using consistent terms will further reduce the risk of injury associated with crib bumpers by providing clarity to manufacturers and testing laboratories about which products are subject to the requirements of the proposed rule. The ASTM Infant Bedding subcommittee intends to ballot this definition as part of its revisions to the F1917 standard.
Pillows, and other soft, pillow-like objects can pose a suffocation hazard to infants by conforming to the face and blocking the nose and mouth. ASTM F1917-12 addresses the potential suffocation hazard posed by crib bumpers by limiting the maximum thickness of crib bumpers to about 2 inches, thereby eliminating soft, pillow-like crib bumpers from the marketplace. The ASTM standard specifies a bumper thickness test fixture to assess the bumper's thickness, by limiting the maximum thickness of crib bumpers to about 2 inches, thereby eliminating soft, pillow-like crib bumpers from the marketplace.
CPSC staff's testing of crib bumper samples also identified some bumpers that passed through the bumper test fixture, but at such an extremely slow rate that staff found it difficult to determine whether the bumper passed or failed the test. Thus, the Commission is proposing to include a minimum rate at which the bumper must pass through the fixture to more clearly delineate a pass from a fail. Specifically, the Commission proposes a rate of no less than 0.5 inches per second. Because the surface finish of the slot in the bumper thickness test fixture can affect how quickly a bumper can slide through it and can introduce variation among test laboratories and fixtures, the Commission is also proposing a minimum finish requirement for the test fixture. Specifically, the Commission proposes a surface finish of 1.6 Ra (roughness average), which is a common “smooth” specification and is practical to achieve. Both of these additional requirements—the recommended rate and the recommended surface finish—should further reduce the risk of suffocation by improving a test laboratory's ability to identify crib bumpers that would fail the thickness test.
2.
The Commission is proposing a firmness requirement and test method that is based on an Australian/New Zealand standard, AS/NZS 8811.1:2013,
The test's failure criteria are intended to identify soft surfaces that pose a three-fold increase in the risk of SIDS. CPSC staff tested crib bumper samples to the ASTM F1917-12 thickness requirement and to the proposed firmness requirement. Staff found that many bumpers that passed the thickness requirement would fail the firmness requirement. Although staff tested a limited number of samples, all bumper samples up to 0.8 inches thickness passed the firmness test, while all bumper samples 1.2 inches or greater failed the test; bumpers 1 inch thick had mixed results. Nevertheless, it is possible that some bumpers greater than 1 inch thick could be firm enough to pass the test, and some bumpers less than 1 inch could be soft enough to fail. One of the samples that failed the firmness test yet passed the F1917 maximum thickness test measured 2.5 inches thick, which is a half-inch thicker than the 2-inch slot that is used to test thickness. Its very pliability, or softness, allowed it to pass the thickness test.
CPSC staff has been working with the ASTM Infant Bedding Subcommittee task group on crib bumper firmness. CPSC staff and members of the task group agree that the proposed firmness requirement and test method would address a worst-case scenario in which the crib bumper separates from the crib
The Commission also concludes that its proposed firmness requirement could improve the safety of crib bumpers by offering some protection against other smothering-type suffocation deaths where the victim's face is forcefully pressed against a bumper to fully or partially occlude external airway openings. Scenarios involving infant wedging or entrapment against a bumper, in general, and infant entrapment between the bumper and another object in the crib in particular, are especially common in the reported fatalities. Some of these incidents involve the face being pressed against the bumper, and a firmness requirement would reduce the risk of injury associated with this scenario, provided the applied pressure was not sufficient to compress and close nostril openings.
The ASTM Infant Bedding subcommittee is preparing a ballot that includes the proposed firmness requirement.
ASTM F1917-12 requires crib bumpers to be “capable of being secured at or near all corners and at the midpoints of the long sides of the crib,” and specifies that bumpers intended for circular cribs must be capable of being secured at intervals not exceeding 26 inches (section 5.4). CPSC has the following concerns with this provision:
• How “near” the corners a bumper would need to be to pass the requirement is not clear.
• The intervals specified—from 26 inches for a circular crib to 28 inches corner to corner for the short end of a crib—are large enough to easily allow a bumper to sag or to pull away from the crib side. CPSC is aware of reported fatalities involving bumpers that were sagging, and consumers have reported concerns about poor fit between bumpers and the crib in which they were installed.
• Crib bumpers can meet the requirement when they are not secured or flush at both the top and bottom edges of the bumper. CPSC is aware of reported fatalities and nonfatal incidents in which the victim was entrapped or able to slip beneath the bottom edge of the bumper, and there have been nonfatal incidents involving entrapment behind the bumper (
The Commission is proposing a new performance requirement that would replace the existing F1917 attachment requirements. The proposed requirement would not allow a small head probe to pass between an installed crib bumper and the interior crib side, at any location around the perimeter of the bumper most likely to fail. The small head probe is the same one used in ASTM F963,
Some nonfatal incidents and reported consumer concerns involved parts of the crib bumper (such as the ties, threads, or stitched-on decorative patterns) wrapped around the neck, limb or digit of the child. In addition to entanglement concerns, some incidents involved a child's ingestion of, or choking on, part of the crib bumper, such as a decorative stitched-on pattern or the bumper's filling material. The attachments means separating from the bumper could also pose a suffocation hazard, because this could allow the bumper to fall or sag into the crib.
ASTM F1917-12 includes a strength requirement for crib bumper ties. The ties must withstand a certain amount of force without detaching from the bumper. This requirement addresses the nonfatal incidents and reported consumer concerns involving crib bumper ties separating from bumpers. However, the standard does not define “ties,” but rather, “attachment means.” Ties are merely one form of attachment means. Thus, the Commission is proposing to revise the strength requirement for bumper ties to apply to all attachment means, rather than just to ties. The ASTM Infant Bedding subcommittee currently is considering an identical change to the F1917 standard.
In addition, the Commission is proposing to include strength requirements for decorative components and bumper seams so that they too must withstand a certain amount of force without detaching from the bumper. Because decorative components may be subjected to similar stressors as attachment means, the Commission proposes similar strength requirements for both. The proposed seam strength requirement includes a criterion that, after testing, there shall not be an opening that permits insertion of a 0.22-inch diameter rod. This diameter is based on the finger entrapment probe that is employed in many children's product tests.
ASTM F1917-12 specifies certain dimensional limits (
ASTM F1917-12 includes marking and labeling requirements—primarily warning requirements—for crib bumpers. However, the Commission concludes that these requirements do not adequately address the risk of injury and death associated with crib bumpers. The current warning content, format, and placement requirements are deficient. Additional requirements, including requirements for warning permanence and instructional literature, would further reduce the risk of injury associated with crib bumpers.
The current F1917 warning provides incomplete and insufficient information about steps that consumers can take to reduce the risk of suffocation, and lacks key details about when and why crib bumpers should be removed from the crib. For example, CPSC is aware of reported fatalities involving entrapments between the bumper and another object in the crib, use of the bumper outside a crib (
In addition, the specified labeling and warning-format requirements are not consistent with the recommendations of the ASTM Ad Hoc Language task group. ASTM juvenile products standards have begun adopting these “Ad Hoc” recommendations since 2016 to increase the consistency of on-product warning design among juvenile products, and to address numerous warning format issues related to capturing consumer attention, improving readability, and increasing hazard perception and avoidance behavior.
On the basis of the issues identified above, the Commission proposes to replace the ASTM F1917-12 warning requirements to produce the following warning, in terms of content and general format:
Because crib bumper ties or other attachment means up to 7 inches long do not pose a strangulation hazard, the Commission proposes requiring the warning statement about entanglement and strangulation only for those bumpers with attachment means exceeding 7 inches in length.
ASTM F1917-12 requires the warnings for crib bumpers to be “conspicuous,” but does not define this term. Numerous ASTM juvenile product standards require warnings to be “conspicuous,” and they define this term in a way that enables one to assess conformance, typically by stating when the warning must be visible. Thus, to clarify the required placement of the warning on the product, the proposed rule includes a definition of “conspicuous” that is consistent with the definition used in many other ASTM juvenile product standards.
ASTM F1917-12 requires the warnings for crib bumpers to be “permanent”; however, the standard neither defines “permanent” nor specifies how one would assess conformance to this requirement. Thus, the proposed rule includes requirements for warning permanence that are consistent with similar requirements in other ASTM juvenile products standards. The Commission proposes to require that warnings that are attached to the fabric with seams must remain in contact around the entire perimeter of the warning. This requirement is intended to avoid so called “free-hanging” labels, which can be removed easily.
The proposed rule would require permanent markings on the crib bumper that indicate which portions of the bumper are intended for the long and short sides of the crib, except for those crib bumpers intended for circular cribs. This proposed requirement would reduce the likelihood of consumers
ASTM F1917-12 does not include requirements for instructional literature to accompany crib bumpers. Numerous ASTM juvenile product standards require manufacturers to provide instructions with the product. Given the importance of proper bumper installation, the Commission concludes that instructional literature regarding installation is essential to adequately address the risk of injury and death associated with bumpers. In addition, the ASTM Ad Hoc Language task group has published recommended requirements for instructional literature and for the formatting of warnings in instructional literature. Thus, the proposed rule includes requirements for instructional literature, largely based on the Ad Hoc Language recommended requirements.
In the FY 2017 Operating Plan, the Commission stated that in developing a proposed standard, CPSC staff shall, at a minimum:
• “Develop a performance requirement and test method to show that a crib bumper is firm enough not to conform to the face of an infant, based on known anthropometric parameters;”
• “develop a performance requirement and test method based on known infant inhalation and exhalation requirements and anthropometric parameters to demonstrate that a crib bumper matches or exceeds the airflow characteristics of mesh or mesh-like materials, taking into account the safety of infants with compromised breathing;” and
• “compose warnings and instructions on the product that explain all of the types of cribs on which the product can and cannot be installed, clear advice about how to install the product and at what age of the child to stop using the product.”
CPSC staff performed work to develop an anthropometry-based probe. However, the rigidity of the probe's cone-shaped protrusion does not necessarily represent the highly flexible cartilage in young infants' noses, and therefore, might not account for the potential of the nose to compress and close the nostrils when pressure is applied. In addition, in performing preliminary testing of crib bumper samples using the anthropometry-based probe, staff was unable to establish a clear pass-fall criterion. As a result, staff is uncertain whether the probe would accurately measure or relate to the risk of suffocation. Consequently, staff's recommended firmness is not based on anthropometric parameters. Thus, the Commission is proposing adding a firmness requirement to ASTM's requirements, but the proposed requirement is not based on anthropometric parameters.
The current ASTM voluntary standard for crib bumpers does not include an airflow-related performance requirement. CPSC staff developed a test method for assessing the airflow of crib bumpers that is based on British standard BS 4578:1970,
However, on January 22, 2020, the Commission held an all-day public hearing regarding the draft NPR and the risks associated with crib bumpers. At the hearing, the Commission heard testimony that millions of mesh crib liners have been sold over almost two decades without known associated fatalities. Moreover, CPSC staff has identified at least four infant deaths where the victim's face was reported to be in contact with a bumper, and determined that the death likely could have been prevented had the bumper been replaced with a mesh liner or vertical bumper. Given the testimony submitted at the January 2020 hearing about the lack of fatalities associated with mesh crib liners and the fact that airflow tests can differentiate mesh from traditional padded bumpers, the Commission is proposing an airflow performance requirement and test method based on
CPSC staff addressed the Commission's request related to warnings and instructions by recommending the following revisions to ASTM F1917-12 for the proposed rule in the staff briefing package:
• New warning statements about only using crib bumpers in unbroken, full-size cribs, and not using bumpers in toddler beds or bassinets;
• More explicit descriptions of how the bumper should fit when properly installed; and
• More details about when and why consumers should remove crib bumpers from a crib.
As discussed in Section VII.E of this preamble, the proposed rule includes these modifications to ASTM F1917-12.
The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F1917-12,
• Add a “crib bumper/liner” definition.
• Revise the crib bumper thickness requirement to apply to all crib bumpers and liners, and revise the test method by adding a minimum rate at which the bumper must pass through the test fixture and a surface finish requirement of 1.6 Ra for the text fixture.
• Add a crib bumper firmness requirement and test method.
• Add a crib bumper airflow requirement and test method.
• Replace the existing requirement for crib bumpers to be capable of being secured at certain locations with a new crib bumper attachment requirement and test method.
• Revise the strength requirement for crib bumper ties to apply to all attachment means, and add new strength requirements and test methods for decorative components and seams.
• Revise the crib bumper warning content, format, and placement requirements; add warning permanence requirements and test methods; and add a requirement for additional crib bumper markings.
• Add crib bumper instructional literature requirements.
At the hearing in January 2020, the Commission heard testimony that vertical bumpers, or slat covers, have been sold since 2008 without fatalities and have been used by consumers caring for children with special needs. Furthermore, vertical bumpers have been exempted from some state regulations addressing crib bumpers. Consequently, the Commission also seeks comment on reports of any incidents or injuries associated with vertical bumpers; the recommended user population, market size and expected, useful lifespan of vertical bumpers; what design characteristics of vertical bumpers are critical for safety, such as shape, thickness, fill materials, and attachment means; whether there are any requirements in this proposal from which vertical bumpers should be exempt and why; and whether any test methods need to be modified for testing vertical bumpers.
The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body.
The Commission published a final rule,
All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the crib bumper/liner standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the crib bumper/liner standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by the Commission to add crib bumpers/liners to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for crib bumpers/liners would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1240,
The statutory definition of “durable infant or toddler product” in section 104(f) applies to all of section 104 of the CPSIA. In addition to requiring the Commission to issue safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, section 104 of the CPSIA also directs the Commission to issue a rule requiring that manufacturers of durable infant or toddler products establish a program for consumer registration of those products. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(d).
Section 104(f) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years”; and lists examples of 12 such product categories. The examples do not include crib bumpers.
(f) DEFINITION OF DURABLE INFANT OR TODDLER PRODUCT. As used in this section, the term “durable infant or toddler product”—
(1) means a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years; and
(2) includes—
(A) full-size cribs and non-full-size cribs;
(B) toddler beds;
(C) high chairs, booster chairs, and hook-on-chairs;
(D) bath seats;
(E) gates and other enclosures for confining a child;
(F) play yards;
(G) stationary activity centers;
(H) infant carriers;
(I) strollers;
(J) walkers;
(K) swings; and
(L) bassinets and cradles.
In 2009, the Commission issued a rule implementing the consumer registration requirement. 16 CFR part 1130. As the CPSIA directs, the consumer registration rule requires each manufacturer of a durable infant or toddler product to: Provide a postage-paid consumer registration form with each product; keep records of consumers who register their products with the manufacturer; and permanently place the manufacturer's name and certain other identifying information on the product. When the Commission issued the consumer registration rule, the Commission identified six additional products as “durable infant or toddler products”:
• Children's folding chairs;
• changing tables;
• infant bouncers;
• infant bathtubs;
• bed rails; and
• infant slings.
16 CFR 1130.2. The Commission stated that the specified statutory categories were not exclusive, but that the Commission should explicitly identify the product categories that are covered. The preamble to the 2009 final consumer registration rule states: “Because the statute has a broad definition of a durable infant or toddler product but also includes 12 specific product categories, additional items can and should be included in the definition, but should also be specifically listed in the rule.” 74 FR 68668, 68669 (Dec. 29, 2009).
On October 19, 2016, the Commission voted to consider crib bumpers to be durable infant or toddler products and directed staff to develop a notice of proposed regulation for crib bumpers
The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F1917-12, with modifications to the standard, discussed above. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. For a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, the preamble of the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section VI of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F1917-12 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F1917-12 is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, at:
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM F1917-12, with modifications. To allow time for bumper manufacturers to bring their products into compliance after a final rule is issued, the Commission proposes that the rule would take effect 6 months after publication of the final rule in the
Under Section 603 of the RFA, if a notice of proposed rulemaking is required, agencies must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make it available to the public for comment when the general notice of proposed rulemaking is published, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify significant alternatives that could accomplish the statutory objective while minimizing any significant economic impact. Specifically, the IRFA must contain:
• A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
• a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
• a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
• a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or records; and
• an identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
Crib bumpers range in price from $12 to $500, and also are sold in bedding sets, which can range in price from $80 to $1,200. Manufacturers typically produce only a few models with differences in color, art design, cover material, and filling material being the primary identifying factors. Those products at the higher end of the price range typically are decorated with detailed paint or woven art.
The objective of this proposed rule is to reduce the risk of injury and death associated with crib bumpers. CPSC staff identified 113 fatalities from 1990 to March 2019 and 113 nonfatal incidents from 2008 to 2019 associated with crib bumpers.
The legal basis of the proposed rule is Section 104 of the CPSIA, which requires the CPSC to examine and assess the effectiveness of any voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, and promulgate consumer product safety standards that are substantially the same as the voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the products.
Based on information from the 2013 CPSC Durable Nursery Products Exposure Survey of U.S. households with children under 6 years old:
• An estimated 9.2 million cribs were in use in households with young children in 2013. This represented about 73 percent of the estimated 12.6 million total cribs owned by households (
• Among the 9.2 million cribs in use, an estimated 5.3 million were equipped with bumpers. This represents about 55 percent of the 9.9 million total bumpers owned by households (
In addition to the products in use in households with young children, as estimated from the survey, cribs and bumpers are probably in use in some households without young children (
Manufacturers of crib bumpers are typically categorized under the NAICS category 314120 (Curtain and Linen Mills) but may also fall under code 314999 (All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills). Curtain and linen mills are considered small if they have fewer than 750 employees; miscellaneous textile product mills are considered small if they have fewer than 500 employees.
Aside from small handcrafters selling products on electronic commerce websites, staff identified 46 manufacturers, distributors and importers. A total of 33 of these 46 firms meet the SBA criteria for small businesses.
A large number of producers supply crib bumpers to the U.S. market via electronic commerce websites such as Etsy. CPSC staff has identified 174 of these firms of which 86 are importers.
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference ASTM F1917-12 with modifications that CPSC believes may further reduce the risk of injury. The proposed rule would also make some changes to the definitions and terminology used in the standard to better clarify the requirements. If promulgated by the Commission, the proposed rule would, among other things:
• Establish a crib bumper firmness test that is partly adopted from the Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS 8811.1) for testing infant products. The test involves using a test fixture to measure firmness of the crib bumper at multiple points along its length.
• Establish maximum lengths for the attachments means and decorative components on bumper pads;
• Establish that the requirements for the length of attachment means and decorative components shall apply both before and after testing;
• Prohibit the use of monofilament thread;
• Establish a minimum thickness for accessible, unsupported vinyl material;
• Establish a test for limiting the maximum thickness of all crib bumpers;
• Establish a crib bumper airflow requirement and test method;
• Establish minimum strength requirements for attachment means and decorative components;
• Establish a strength requirement for bumper seams;
• Require crib bumpers to have labels identifying the manufacturer, distributor, or seller;
• Establish requirements for appropriate warning labels on crib bumpers;
• Establish requirements for the permanence of the warning labels;
• Require instructional literature to be provided with crib bumpers detailing the proper installation methods and the hazards associated with the crib bumpers;
• Establish a test to ensure the bumper remains securely attached to the crib side. The test involves inserting a probe between the crib bumper and the crib slat.
In addition to the requirements outlined above, the proposed rule would modify or clarify some of the terms and definitions used in ASTM F1917-12. For example, the proposed rule would consistently refer to “crib bumpers/liners” and not “bumper pads,” “bumper guards,” and similar terms that are sometimes used in ASTM F1917- 2. The proposed rule would also clarify the definitions of terms such as “crib bumper/liner,” and “conspicuous.”
If the proposal is finalized, manufacturers and importers of crib bumpers would be responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the rule. If their crib bumpers do not comply with the requirements, the manufacturers or importers will need to either modify the products or cease their manufacture or importation. Additionally, as required by section 14 of the CPSIA and its implementing regulations, manufacturers and importers of crib bumpers would be required to certify that their crib bumpers comply with the requirements of the proposed rule based on the results of third party testing by an accredited conformity assessment body.
In 2018, CPSC collected a sample of crib bumpers to test them for compliance with the proposed rule. Although not a probability sample, CPSC tried to collect a wide variety of crib bumpers that included most types of crib bumpers that are available in the market place, including crib bumpers from the very small manufacturers or hand crafters. Although most of these crib bumpers would comply with many of the provisions of the proposed rule, the testing found that most models (7 out of 11 models tested) would not pass the proposed firmness test. Additionally, many models would need to modify their warning labels' content, placement, and formatting to comply with the proposed rule. An air flow requirement that differentiates mesh liners from padded crib bumpers could effectively result in removing most padded crib bumpers from the market. The total size of the impact is dependent on the padded crib bumper product(s) share of revenue or consumer preferences. Staff identified one firm whose sole product is a crib bumper but it is unclear if this product would meet an air flow requirement due to its design. Some manufacturers of padded crib bumpers may be able to remove the padding or change the design of their products to meet the requirement.
Modifying most types of crib bumper designs to conform to the firmness requirement could be as simple as removing some of the filling material used in the bumper pad or using additional stitching to compact the loose fill material. The cost of making such modifications should not be significant. However, the braided type of crib bumper would likely fail the firmness requirement because the results depended upon where on the product it was tested. It is unclear if braided bumpers could be modified to meet this requirement. Moreover, the braided crib bumpers CPSC examined did not have any means by which they could be attached to the crib, which is also a requirement of the proposed rule.
Generally, the costs associated with providing instructional materials are low on a per unit basis. Many firms already provide instructions with their products, but they may have to change the content or formatting of the instructions to comply. Likewise, the cost of warning labels are generally low, especially if some warning labels are already present and the product itself does not have to be modified to accommodate new labels.
The proposed rule would require all manufacturers and importers of crib bumpers to meet third party testing requirements under section 14 of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.
As noted, for a typical manufacturer or importer with two crib bumper models, the cost of third party testing will be at least $1,500 to $2,500 to test and certify both models and this cost will be incurred at least once every other year. Generally, we consider impacts that exceed one percent of revenue to be potentially significant. As discussed above there are a substantial number of very small firms that either hand craft or import crib bumpers that are often sold through websites, such as Etsy.com, and more than three quarters of these very small firms are estimated to have annual revenues of less than $25,000. Even if these firms needed to test only one sample of each crib bumper to obtain the “high degree assurance” that the product would meet all the requirements of the rule, the cost of the third party testing would be at least 5 percent of one year's revenue and possibly more if their revenue was much less than $25,000. This impact would be significant. Many of these firms could be expected to stop supplying crib bumpers to the U.S. market because they are not able to increase their prices to cover the testing costs.
The cost of the third party testing associated with the proposed rule could also be significant for small firms that are not among the very small firms discussed above. CPSC identified 13 small manufacturers and one importer of crib bumpers that have annual revenues between $25,000 and $250,000. If the third party testing costs are between $1,500 and 2,500, the cost could exceed one percent of the annual revenue of several of these firms as well and could be considered significant.
Because a majority of crib bumper firms supply padded crib bumpers, the air flow requirement could have an impact on a substantial number of small firms if they are unable to modify their products.
CPSC has not identified any other federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body that has been accredited by CPSC. These third party conformity assessment bodies test products for compliance with applicable children's product safety rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet the NOR for third party conformity testing. CPSC has codified NORs in 16 CFR part 1112. The Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to establish an NOR for testing laboratories to test for compliance with the proposed crib bumper standard. This section assesses the impact a proposed amendment would have on small laboratories.
CPSC conducted a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when it adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). The FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories CPSC expects to provide such services are laboratories that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.
For the same reasons, including the NOR for crib bumpers in part 1112 would not have a significant impact on small laboratories. Moreover, CPSC expects that only a small number of laboratories would request accreditation to test crib bumpers, based on the number of laboratories that have applied for CPSC accreditation to test other juvenile products. Most laboratories would already have accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards; accordingly, the only cost would be to add the crib bumper standard to their accreditation. Test laboratories have indicated that this cost is extremely low when they are already accredited for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the NOR for the crib bumper standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's regulations address whether the agency must prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
Our estimate is based on the following:
There are 220 known entities supplying crib bumpers/liners to the U.S. market. All 220 firms are assumed to use labels already on both their products and their packaging, but the firms might need to make some modifications to their existing labels. The estimated time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each entity supplies an average of two different models of crib bumper/liner; therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model × 220 entities × 2 models per entity = 440 hours. We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $34.61 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” March 2019, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries, series id CMU201G000200000D:
Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for crib bumpers/liners would impose a burden to industry of 9,240 hours, at an estimated cost of $319,796.40 annually.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments regarding information collection by May 4, 2020, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a standard or regulation that prescribes requirements for the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging, or labeling of such product dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Regulations or laws lacking performance or design requirements enacted by a state or a political subdivision of a state are not subject to this section. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for crib bumpers, to amend part 1112 to add crib bumpers to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR, and to amend part 1130 to identify crib bumpers as a durable infant or toddler product subject to CPSC consumer registration requirements. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of this proposal. In addition to requests for specific comments elsewhere in this NPR, the Commission requests comments on the proposed effective date, and the costs of compliance with, and testing to, the proposed crib bumper safety standard. Furthermore, the Commission invites comments on the following:
1. Is the 2 inch maximum thickness requirement and the related test method sufficient?
2. With regard to the firmness requirements and related test methods: Potential facial conformity test devices and methods, such as mechanical test surrogates; recommendations for a more anthropomorphic test method; the repeatability of the proposed firmness test; the validity of the proposed firmness requirements and related test methods.
3. Is an airflow performance requirement based on the airflow characteristics of typical mesh bumpers protective enough to eliminate the risks of suffocation against a crib bumper?
4. What further modifications to the British air flow test method (BS 4568:1970) would enhance the repeatability and validity of the airflow test requirement for crib bumpers?
5. Is there an alternative test method, such as
6. If the Commission adopts an airflow performance requirement, what effect will this have on the need for the proposed thickness and firmness tests and will the proposed warnings and instructions need to be modified?
7. Is there evidence that demonstrates that climb-out rates are higher when crib bumpers or mesh liners are installed in a crib, and should the Commission require the new warnings about removal of the product and climbing out?
8. Does having an airflow performance requirement for crib bumpers adversely affect public education about safe sleep best practices?
9. Is there any research into air permeability, breathability, infants' oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, rebreathing, anatomical features, airway openings, respiratory rates and volumes, anthropometry of facial features such as nasal deformation against crib bumpers, effects of exhaled moisture and saliva on the air permeability of fabric and mesh bumpers, patterns of gas dispersal within a crib, or other related topics that the Commission should consider?
10. Are there reports of incidents or injuries associated with vertical bumpers? What is the recommended user population, market size and expected, useful lifespan of vertical bumpers? What design characteristics of vertical bumpers are critical for safety, such as shape, thickness, fill materials, and attachment means? Are there any requirements in this proposal from which vertical bumpers should be exempt and why? Are there any test methods that need to be modified for testing vertical bumpers?
11. A central purpose of the Consumer Product Safety Act is “to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and to minimize conflicting State and local regulations.”
12. Should the Commission consider an effective date of 12 months for any regulation promulgated under this rulemaking?
13. Should CPSC consider any other alternatives to reduce the impact on small entities?
14. On October 19, 2016, the Commission voted to initiate rulemaking under section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to address the risk of injury or death associated with the use of crib bumpers. Do crib bumpers and liners meet the definition of “durable product”? What are the anticipated legal challenges to pursuing rulemaking under this authority?
15. Many outside groups have advocated for an outright ban of crib bumpers and liners. Does CPSC have jurisdiction under Section 104 to ban this product category? If not, may CPSC promulgate a rule declaring such products a banned hazardous product under Section 8 of the CPSIA, 15 U.S.C. 2057?
During the comment period, the ASTM F1917-12
Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR Chapter II as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
(b) * * *
(50) 16 CFR part 1240, Safety Standard for Crib Bumpers/Liners.
15 U.S.C. 2056a, 2065(b).
(a) * * *
(18) Crib bumpers/liners.
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for crib bumpers/liners.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each crib bumper/liner must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F1917-12,
(b) Comply with ASTM F1917-12 with the following additions or exclusions:
(1) Instead of complying with section 3.1.1 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 3.1.1
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Instead of complying with section 3.1.4 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 3.1.4
(ii) Reserved
(3) In addition to complying with section 3.1.6 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 3.1.7
(ii) 3.1.8
(iii) 3.1.8.1
(4) Instead of complying with section 5.1 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 5.1 Attachment means on crib bumpers/liners shall not exceed 9.0 in. (230 mm) both before and after 7.4.1 testing when measured in accordance with 7.1.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Instead of complying with section 5.2 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 5.2 Decorative components as defined in 3.1.2 shall not exceed 7 in. (180 mm) when measured in accordance with 7.1. If any decorative components can tangle to form a loop, then the perimeter of the loop shall not exceed 14 in. (360 mm) when tested in accordance with 7.1. These requirements shall apply both before and after 7.4.3 testing.
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) Instead of complying with section 5.4 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 5.4
(ii) 5.4.1 Warning statements applied directly onto the surface of the product by hot stamping, heat transfer, printing, wood burning, and so forth shall be permanent when tested in accordance with 7.6.
(iii) 5.4.2 Non-paper labels shall not liberate small parts when tested in accordance with 7.6.
(iv) 5.4.3 Crib bumper/liner warning labels that are attached to the fabric with seams shall remain in contact with the fabric around the entire perimeter of the label, when the product is in all manufacturer-recommended use positions, when tested in accordance with 7.5.3.
(7) Instead of complying with section 6.2 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 6.2
(ii) Note: Test fixture shall be fabricated from aluminum and have a smooth finish. The test fixture slot and fillet finish shall be 1.6 Ra.
(8) Instead of complying with section 6.3 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(i) 6.3
(ii) 6.3.1
(iii) 6.3.2
(iv) 6.3.3
(v) 6.4
(vi) 6.5
(vii) 6.6
(9) Instead of complying with section 7.3 of ASTM F1917-12, including Note 1, comply with the following:
(i) 7.3
If the attachment means or other localized means provided to secure the bumper to the crib interfere with the bumper sliding through the bumper thickness test fixture, ease the ties or other attachment means through the fixture and then continue the test.
(10) Instead of complying with section 7.4 of ASTM F1917-12, including Note 2, comply with the following:
(i) 7.4
(ii) 7.4.1
(iii) 7.4.1.1 Attachment means that share a common attachment point shall be tested together, as if one attachment means.
There is no single clamp or method of attachment specified for the crib bumper/liner attachment means strength test. Any suitable means may be used to apply the force specified in 7.4.1.
(iv) 7.4.2
(v) 7.4.3
(vi) 7.5
(vii) 7.5.1. A paper label (excluding labels attached by a seam) shall be considered permanent if, during an attempt to remove it without the aid of tools or solvents, it cannot be removed, it tears into pieces upon removal, or such action damages the surface to which it is attached.
(viii) 7.5.2. A non-paper label (excluding labels attached by a seam) shall be considered permanent if, during an attempt to remove it without the aid of tools or solvents, it cannot be removed or such action damages the surface to which it is attached.
(ix) 7.5.3. A warning label attached by a seam shall be considered permanent if it does not detach when subjected to a 15 lbf (67 N) pull force applied in any direction most likely to cause failure using a 0.75 in. (19 mm) diameter clamp surface. Gradually apply the force over 5 s and maintain for an additional 10 s.
(xi) 7.6.
(xii) 7.6.1. Apply the tape test defined in Test Methods D3359, Test Method B—Cross-Cut Tape Test of Test Methods, eliminating parallel cuts.
(xiii) 7.6.2. Perform this test once in each different location where warnings are applied.
(xiv) 7.6.3. The warning statements will be considered permanent if the printing in the area tested is still legible and attached after being subjected to this test.
(xv) 7.6.4. A non-paper label, during an attempt to remove it without the aid of tools or solvents, shall not fit entirely within the small parts cylinder defined in 16 CFR part 1501 if it can be removed.
(xvi) 7.7.
(xvii) 7.7.1. Test Equipment—The Firmness Test Fixture of Figure 2 shall be constructed with the following components:
(xviii) 7.7.1.1. A Bottom Disk with a diameter of 203 mm (7.99 in.), thickness of 15 mm (0.59 in.) with a bottom radius of 1 mm (0.039 in.).
(xix) 7.7.1.2. A Feeler Arm of high speed steel comprising a flat bar, 12 mm (0.47 in.) wide, 0.51 mm to 0.76 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in.) thick, with square-cut ends that is positioned over a radial axis of the Bottom Disk and attached to the Bottom Disk such that the Feeler Arm overhangs the edge of the Bottom Disk by 40 mm (1.57 in.).
(xx) 7.7.1.3. A Level Indicator attached to the Bottom Disk near the Feeler Arm, without touching, and such that it indicates level with minimum accuracy of.11.7 mm/m (0.14 in./ft) parallel to the feeler arm and does not overhang the edge of the Bottom Disk in a way that interferes with testing.
(xxi) 7.7.1.4. A Vertical Column with Handle and Collar attached to the center of the Bottom Disk.
(xxii) 7.7.1.5. Total mass of the Apparatus shall be 5.2 kg (11.5 lb) including all components and fasteners.
(xxiii) 7.7.1.6. Mass of the Bottom Disk shall be not less than 70% of the total mass.
(xxiv) 7.7.1.7. Vertical height of assembled apparatus shall not exceed 203.2 mm (8 in.) and the height of the collar shall not exceed 50.8 mm (2 in.) to minimize the bias to the Bottom Disk.
(xxv) 7.7.2. Test Procedure
(xxvi) 7.7.2.1. Preconditioning of Sample—The crib bumper/liner shall be tested in its pre-washed state and also after three wash/dry cycles performed according to the manufacturer's care instructions. The crib bumper/liner shall be conditioned for 48 hours prior to testing in an environment of 23 +/−2 Celsius (73.4 +/−3.6 Fahrenheit) and a relative humidity of 50 +/−5%. The crib bumper/liner shall be fully assembled and dry prior to testing.
(xxvii) 7.7.2.2. Shake the crib bumper/liner to aerate and distribute any filling materials evenly. Allow the crib bumper/liner to settle for 5 minutes.
(xxviii) 7.7.2.3. Place the side to test face up on a horizontal, flat, rigid surface for testing. The crib bumper/liner may be secured to the horizontal surface using the attachment means in a manner that approximates securing the crib bumper/liner to crib rails.
(xxix) 7.7.2.4. Test each placement marked in 7.7 by lowering the firmness test fixture with the bottom disk horizontal until the fixture is supported by the crib bumper/liner. Gently adjust the orientation of the base manually if needed until it is horizontal while resting. Record any contact with the feeler gauge at each placement as a failure of the firmness requirement. Repeat steps 7.7.2.2 and 7.7.2.3 if any placement is within 457 mm (18 in.) of a prior placement, or if 5 minutes have elapsed since completing 7.7.2.2.
(xxx) 7.7.2.5. Repeat firmness testing 7.7.2.1 to 7.7.2.4 until all remaining located placements have been tested or a failure has been recorded.
(xxxi) 7.7.2.6. Repeat firmness testing on the other side of the bumper/liner. Testing the other side is not required for crib bumpers/liners that cannot be reasonably installed on the other side.
(xxxii) 7.8
(xxxiii) 7.8.1.
(xxxiv) 7.8.1.1. Head Probe—The head probe specified in ASTM F963 (see Fig. 3) shall be used for entrapment tests.
(xxxv) 7.8.1.2. Test Platforms—Testing shall be conducted on all test platforms in this section. All test platforms shall have four vertical sides, be rectangular in plan, and have an internal length of 52-
(xxxvi) 7.8.1.2.1. Test Platform A—This test platform is composed of two long panels with 16 round spindles each and two short panels with eight round spindles each.
(xxxvii) 7.8.1.2.2. Test Platform B—This test platform is composed of one long panel with 16 round spindles, one solid long panel, and two short panels with eight round spindles each.
(xxxviii) 7.8.1.2.3. Test Platform C—This test platform is composed of two long panels with 16 round spindles each and two solid short panels.
(xxxix) 7.8.1.2.4. Test Platform D—This test platform is composed of two long panels with 14 rectangular spindles each and two short panels with seven rectangular spindles each.
(xl) 7.8.1.2.5. Test Platform E—This test platform is composed of one long panel with 14 rectangular spindles, one solid long panel, and two short panels with seven rectangular spindles each.
(xli) 7.8.1.2.6. Test Platform F—This test platform is composed of two long panels with 14 rectangular spindles each and two solid short panels.
(xlii) 7.9 Crib Bumper/Liner Airflow Test—Airflow testing of each crib bumper/liner shall be performed in accordance with the air permeability test method specified in the British Standard BS 4578:1970,
(xliii) 7.9.1 The test shall be performed on a plane rigid perforated support that will minimally interfere with air flow.
(xliv) 7.9.2 The flow rate shall be adjusted to 2 L/min.
(11) Instead of complying with section 8 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(ii) 8.1. Each product and its retail package shall be marked or labeled clearly and legibly to indicate the following:
(iii) 8.1.1. The name, place of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code), and telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller.
(iv) 8.1.2. A code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture.
(v) 8.2. The marking and labeling on the product shall be permanent.
(vi) 8.3. Any upholstery labeling required by law shall not be used to meet the requirements of this section.
(vii) 8.4. Crib bumpers/liners shall be marked or labeled clearly and legibly, in the English language at a minimum, to identify which segments of the bumper/liner are intended for the short and long sides of the crib, unless the bumper/liner is intended for a circular crib or is less than 28 inches in length, not including attachment means.
(viii) 8.5.
(ix) 8.5.1. The warnings shall be easy to read and understand and be in the English language at a minimum.
(x) 8.5.2. Any marking or labeling provided in addition to those required by this section shall not contradict or confuse the meaning of the required information, or be otherwise misleading to the consumer.
(xi) 8.5.3. The warning statements shall be conspicuous and permanent.
(xii) 8.5.4. The warnings shall conform to ANSI Z535.4-2011, American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels, sections 6.1-6.4, 7.2-7.6.3, and 8.1, with the following changes.
(xiii) 8.5.4.1. In sections 6.2.2, 7.3, 7.5, and 8.1.2 of ANSI Z535.4-2011, replace “should” with “shall.”
(xiv) 8.5.4.2. In section 7.6.3 of ANSI Z535.4-2011, replace “should (when feasible)” with “shall.”
(xv) 8.5.4.3. Strike the word “safety” in ANSI Z535.4-2011 when used immediately before a color (for example, replace “safety white” with “white”).
For reference, ANSI Z535.1 provides a system for specifying safety colors.
(xvi) 8.5.5. The Safety Alert Symbol and the signal word “WARNING” shall be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm) high. The remainder of the text shall be in characters whose uppercase shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high.
For improved warning readability, typefaces with large height-to-width ratios, which are commonly identified as “condensed,” “compressed,” “narrow,” or similar should be avoided.
(xvii) 8.5.6.
(xviii) 8.5.6.1. The text shall be left aligned, ragged right for all but one-line text messages, which can be left aligned or centered.
Left aligned means that the text is aligned along the left margin, and, in the case of multiple columns of text, along the left side of each individual column. Please see Fig. 6 for examples of left aligned text.
(xix) 8.5.6.2. The text in each column should be arranged in list or outline format, with precautionary (hazard avoidance) statements preceded by bullet points. Multiple precautionary statements shall be separated by bullet points if paragraph formatting is used.
(xx) 8.5.7. An example in the format described in this section is shown in Fig. 7.
(xxi) 8.6.
“To reduce the risk of SUFFOCATION:
• Keep tight against side of crib. Do not use if product is loose or sags down toward sleeping surface.
• Never put pillows or anything else in crib that could trap baby against this product.
• Only use in a crib without broken parts or missing slats. This product will not fix a broken crib or prevent baby from falling out. Never use in a toddler bed or bassinet.
To help prevent ENTANGLEMENT or STRANGULATION, position ties to outside of crib and secure tightly. [Exception: If product does not include an attachment means greater than 7 inches in length, this statement may be omitted.]
Remove this product when baby can pull to a stand using crib side (starting about 6 months). Older babies can use product to climb out of crib.”
Address means that verbiage other than what is shown can be used as long as the meaning is the same or information that is product-specific is presented.
(12) Instead of complying with section 9 of ASTM F1917-12, comply with the following:
(ii) 9.1. Instructions shall be provided with the product and shall be easy to read and understand, and shall be in the English language at a minimum. These instructions shall include information on assembly, installation, maintenance, cleaning, and use, where applicable.
(iii) 9.2. The instructions shall include all warnings specified in 8.6, where applicable.
(iv) 9.3. The warnings in the instructions shall meet the requirements specified in 8.5.4, 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, except that sections 6.4 and 7.2-7.6.3 of ANSI Z535.4 need not be applied. However, the signal word and safety alert symbol shall contrast with the background of the signal word panel, and the warnings shall contrast with the background of the instructional literature.
For example, the signal word, safety alert symbol, and the warnings may be black letters on a white background, white letters on a black background, navy blue letters on an off-white background, or some other high-contrast combination.
For additional guidance on the design of warnings for instructional literature, please refer to ANSI Z535.6, American National Standard: Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral Materials.
(v) 9.4. Any instructions provided in addition to those required by this section shall not contradict or confuse the meaning of the required information, or be otherwise misleading to the consumer.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to revise our rules to provide additional opportunities for unlicensed white space devices operating in the broadcast television bands (TV Bands) to deliver wireless broadband services in rural areas and applications associated with the Internet of Things (IOT). Therefore, the Commission offers several proposals to spur continued growth of the white space device ecosystem, especially for providing affordable broadband service to rural and underserved communities that can help close the digital divide.
Comments are due on or before May 4, 2020; reply comments are due on or before June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 20-36, by any of the following methods:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-7506,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 20-36, FCC 20-17, adopted on February 28, 2020, and released on March 2, 2020. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1.
2. In 2008, the Commission first authorized unlicensed white space device operations, both fixed and personal/portable, in portions of the VHF and UHF broadcast television bands (TV bands) that were not being used by TV broadcasters and associated services. In 2010, 2012, and 2015, the Commission took steps to promote additional opportunities for unlicensed white space devices to use spectrum in the TV bands. To prevent harmful interference to broadcast television reception and other protected users, white space devices obtain a list of available channels and operating power levels that may be used at their particular location from databases administered by private entities approved by the Commission. Fixed white space devices must incorporate a geo-location capability and a means to access a database. Portable white space devices can either acquire a list of available channels via another device (Mode I), or themselves include geo-location and database access capabilities (Mode II).
3. In the 2015
4. In an effort to promote more flexibility for white space device operators in rural areas, the Commission permitted fixed white space devices, which under then-existing rules were limited to no more than 4 watts EIRP, to operate at higher power levels of up to 10 watts EIRP in “less congested” areas, which are defined as those areas where at least half the television channels are unused for broadcast services and available for white space use. In that order, the Commission retained the existing requirement that fixed devices operate on antennas that are no more than 30 meters above
5. On May 3, 2019, Microsoft Corporation filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission provide additional flexibility for white space device operations in the TV bands. Specifically, Microsoft requests that the Commission: (1) Permit fixed devices in “less congested” areas to operate at higher radiated power, up to 16 watts EIRP, to support expansion of broadband in rural America, (2) permit fixed devices to operate with higher HAAT, up to 500 meters, to improve rural coverage, (3) examine the possibility of authorizing higher-power operations on first-adjacent channels to TV operations, with appropriate safeguards to prevent harmful interference, (4) permit higher power mobile operations within geo-fenced areas, and (5) adjust the rules to support narrowband IoT white space devices.
6. The Commission sought comment on the petition, and 21 parties filed comments and 16 parties filed reply comments. These commenters include several proponents of white space device operations generally supporting Microsoft's proposals, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), commenters concerned about protecting Wireless Medical Telemetry Service operations on Channel 37, and commenters concerned about the potential effect of Microsoft's proposals on wireless microphone users that also operate on TV broadcast spectrum not being used by other authorized services.
7.
8.
9.
10. In its petition, Microsoft requests that the Commission increase the radiated limit to permit fixed device operation with a maximum of 16 watts EIRP in “less congested” areas. Advocates of white space device operations support this request. NAB, commenting on behalf of potentially affected broadcasters, indicates that it does not oppose this proposal provided appropriate separation distances are established to protect broadcasters. Similarly, Sennheiser does not oppose revision provided the separation distances are revised to protect microphone operations. Commenters supporting Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) operations on Channel 37 oppose any revision that would change the existing power limits for white space device operations either on Channel 37 or on adjacent Channels 36 and 38.
11. The Commission proposes to permit fixed devices to operate in the TV bands, up to Channel 35, with a maximum 16 watts EIRP (12 dBW) in “less congested” areas. This change will permit fixed devices used in less congested, including rural, areas to reach users at greater distances, thus enabling improved broadband coverage at less cost in these hard-to-reach areas. Higher power will also enable signals to better penetrate foliage, buildings, and other obstacles, thus providing improved coverage at locations where there is not a direct line-of-sight to the transmitter.
12. Specifically, the Commission proposes to maintain the one-watt transmitter conducted power limit for fixed devices and require that the higher power be achieved by using higher gain antennas,
13. The Commission seeks comment on our proposal for permitting higher power operations in the TV bands (Channels 2-35). Should we allow the maximum radiated power level to increase from 10 watts EIRP to 16 watts EIRP in less congested areas? Would a different maximum from that proposed be more appropriate to enable service to rural areas? Should we allow even higher power levels under certain circumstances, and if so, what power levels and under what circumstances? How does the proposed antenna gain requirement affect the ability to serve rural areas? Should that requirement be relaxed or tightened? What are the trade-offs, both technically and economically, regarding the potential for causing interference versus the ability to serve more areas?
14.
15. The Commission now revisits the issue based on a more complete record. Microsoft argues that a higher HAAT limit subject to certain coordination conditions would reduce the likelihood of harmful interference. NAB expresses support for such a change provided that the Commission adopts a special coordination requirement for all fixed white space device operations above 250 meters HAAT and also adjusts the separation distances to protect broadcasters. Sennheiser does not oppose this revision provided the separation distances are revised to protect microphone operations. WMTS interests do not oppose an HAAT limit provided it does not apply on Channel 37 or adjacent Channels 36 and 38.
16. The Commission proposes to increase the maximum permissible antenna HAAT for fixed white space devices operating on channels 2-35 from 250 meters to 500 meters and seek comment on appropriate procedures that may be necessary to ensure that broadcaster operations and other entities in the TV bands are protected. As commenters note, increasing permissible antenna HAAT will improve broadband coverage in rural areas by enabling signals to reach greater distances and will enable fixed white space devices to operate at locations where they are not currently permitted due to the 250-meter HAAT limit, such as existing towers located at higher elevations. We also note that Microsoft, NAB and wireless interests agree that 500 meters is an appropriate maximum HAAT for fixed white space devices. In addition, operation from a higher antenna site can help increase coverage by permitting devices to operate above the tree line to avoid signal losses through leaves and to avoid clutter such as buildings. To protect Wireless Medical Telemetry Service and radio astronomy operations on Channel 37, the Commission do not propose to revise our rules to permit operation with a higher HAAT in Channel 36 or higher.
17. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. What are the benefits of a higher HAAT limit in terms of improved rural coverage and increased transmitter site availability in high elevation areas? Will the increased fixed white space device transmission range associated with higher HAATs limit opportunities for spectrum sharing with other white space devices? Would an upper HAAT limit other than 500 meters be more appropriate? Should white space device operations at HAATs greater than 250 meters be limited to less congested areas?
18. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, as suggested by Microsoft, it should require a coordination procedure between white space devices and broadcast licensees when white space devices operate with HAATs exceeding 250 meters. Microsoft's proposed coordination procedures comprise several steps including notifying a white space administrators, notifying broadcast licensees, operating on a test basis on a 30 days trial authorization, as well as a process to submit claims of harmful interference, investigate such claims, and upon satisfactorily addressing any such claims, permit authorization on a permanent basis. While the Commission recognizes that this proposed procedure is designed to address NAB's concerns that white space devices operating at higher power and antenna heights could cause harmful interference to TV service, the Commission are concerned about the procedure's complexity and whether such procedures are even warranted given the existing obligations of unlicensed devices to protect authorized radio services.
19. The Commission believes that a simpler alternative to Microsoft's suggested coordination procedure could be used to achieve the same results. Specifically, an alternative procedure could require a party wishing to operate a fixed white space device at HAATs greater than 250 meters to notify potentially affected protected entities of their intended operation at least 48 hours in advance. The notification would include the prospective white space device operator's contact information, geographic coordinates of the antenna, antenna height above ground and average terrain, EIRP and channel(s) of operation. While entities would be expected to acknowledge receipt of the notification, if a response is not received within 48 hours, the party installing the fixed white space device would be permitted to commence operation. Operators of fixed white space devices with HAATs greater than 250 meters would be required to provide information upon request to a potentially affected protected entity on the white space devices' operational hours to help licensees determine whether a white space device was causing harmful interference. For notification purposes, the Commission would define a potentially affected station consistent with Microsoft's proposal—
20. The Commission seeks comment on this procedure. As a threshold, is such a procedure even necessary? If so, would the proposed procedure strike the proper balance between ensuring interference protection for protected entities and providing white space device operators with the ability to deploy devices with high HAATs in a timely manner? Are there other alternatives that would satisfy the same requirements? Should protected entities be defined as described above or is there a better definition? What method of
21. Under any coordination and/or notification procedure, previously coordinated devices would require new coordination/notification if a fixed white space device is moved more than 100 meters, or when an increase is made to the EIRP or HAAT that increases the minimum required separation distance from the contours of co-channel or adjacent channel TV stations. These proposed requirements are for the purpose of determining when a white space device operator must notify potentially affected stations of changes in the operating parameters of a device with an HAAT above 250 meters; the Commission are not proposing to alter the current requirement that a fixed white space device must notify the database of changes in location of greater than 50 meters or in the antenna height above ground. The fixed white space device would need to obtain a new list of available channels when moved more than 100 meters. The Commission recognizes that Microsoft proposed to base new coordination requirements on a 50 meter distance (consistent with existing rules), but because Microsoft's proposed distances in the tables of required separations from TV station contours are rounded to the nearest 0.1 kilometer (100 meters), the Commissions see no reason to require a new coordination for changes less than this amount. The Commission also notes that the HAAT levels in the proposed table of separation distances is defined in 50-meter steps for HAAT's above 250 meters. Thus, there would be no need to require new coordination/notification for small HAAT increases within a 50-meter step. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
22. The Commission is not proposing that white space devices operate during a specific test or trial period as suggested by Microsoft. White space devices, like all other unlicensed devices, must not cause harmful interference to authorized services and must cease interference if harmful interference occurs. Additionally, licensees can bring claims of harmful interference to the Commission or the party operating unlicensed devices at any time, so the Commission do not believe that a 30-day trial period is necessary. The Commission seeks comment on this view.
23.
24. In light of our proposal to increase the maximum antenna HAAT to 500 meters in this
25. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether they should make any changes to the antenna height above ground limit. Does the current antenna above ground limit restrict flexibility to design and deploy white space networks? Should the Commission increase the antenna height above ground limit, and if so, by how much? Should the Commission remove the height above ground level limit completely and rely only on HAAT? Given that the separation distances are based only on HAAT and not the antenna height above ground, what effect, if any, would such a change have on the potential of causing harmful interference to a protected service? If the Commission modifies or remove the antenna height above ground limit, should the modified rules apply across the entire U.S. or only in certain areas (
26.
27. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Do the proposed separation distances for the higher power and antenna HAAT levels provide adequate protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV service? Are any other changes necessary to protect TV service in light of the proposed power and HAAT levels?
28.
29. The Commission proposes changes to the keyhole shaped exclusion zone that is specified to protect the receive sites of TV
30. The Commission also proposes changes to the protection criteria for the private land mobile radio services and commercial mobile radio services (PLMRS/CMRS). These services operate on TV channels 14-20 in 11 major markets and in some additional areas under rule waivers. PLMRS/CMRS operations are protected from interference from white space devices through a circular exclusion zone extending from the center of each market, or from specific geographic coordinates for operations under a waiver. These exclusion zones are based on the Commission's methodology described in the
31. With regard to licensed wireless microphones, the Commission proposes to increase the minimum required separation distance from fixed white space devices operating at power levels greater than 10 watts from one kilometer to 1.3 kilometers. This proposed change is intended to provide the same protection level to licensed wireless microphones as the current rules. The Commission calculated this increased distance using the conservative assumption of free space propagation. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Is it necessary to increase the minimum required separation distance from licensed wireless microphones, and is our proposed distance appropriate?
32. The Commission seeks comment on whether any changes are necessary to the definition of “less congested” area given the revised rules that the Commission are proposing in this NPRM. Is the current definition appropriate,
33.
34. In its petition, Microsoft requests that the Commission permit the use of fixed devices on mobile platforms, such as school buses or agricultural equipment, within “geo-fenced” areas,
35. The Commission proposes to allow white space devices to operate on TV Channels 2-35 on mobile platforms within geo-fenced areas at higher power levels than the rules currently permit for portable devices, and proposes to limit such operations to “less congested” areas to limit their potential for causing harmful interference. Microsoft suggests that the Commission permits fixed devices to operate on mobile platforms. However, because fixed stations, by definition, are stations that communicate between fixed points (
36. The Commission proposes to permit a higher power Mode II white space device installed on a movable platform to load channel availability information for multiple locations in the vicinity of its current location and to use that information to define a geo-fenced area within which it can operate on the same available channels at all locations. Consistent with the requirements for Mode II personal/portable devices, The Commission proposes to require that the white space device's location be checked at least once every 60 seconds while in operation, except while in sleep mode,
37. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Should the Commission allow Mode II portable devices to operate at higher power in “less congested” areas, and how would such operations benefit persons in those areas? Should the Commission instead permit devices operating under the fixed device rules to operate on mobile platforms as suggested by Microsoft and others? What effect would either approach have on the equipment approval process for white space devices? For example, could portable Mode II devices be approved at the higher power level for general usage because the database would limit the amount of power that they could use for operations in any specific area? What antenna requirements should apply to higher power mobile devices? The Commission notes that under the current rules, fixed devices may use detachable antennas with high gain, whereas portable devices must use permanently attached antennas, which can have the effect of limiting antenna size and gain. Should the Commission allow higher power mobile devices to use detachable, higher gain antennas as we permit for fixed devices? Can technologies such as electronically steerable beams allow mobile devices to operate with higher gain, and therefore more highly directional, antennas? If the Commission permits use of detachable antennas for higher power mobile white space devices, should the Commission create a new class of white space devices, such as mobile white space devices, to distinguish such devices from personal/portable white space devices? Are there other rules that need to be modified or limitations that should be imposed for such use?
38. The Commission also seeks comment on other requirements for higher power mobile white space devices. Are the proposed operational limitations sufficient to protect other users of the TV bands, including television, cable headends, translator receive sites and wireless microphone users? Do the Commission need to place limitations on the size of the area over which a higher power mobile device could operate? Is four watts an appropriate maximum power to permit for such operations or should a different maximum power level be permitted (
39.
40. The Commission proposes to modify the white space rules to facilitate the deployment of narrowband IoT devices. TV band frequencies are better able to penetrate foliage and other obstacles than higher frequencies, thus providing improved transmission range for IoT devices. Specifically, we propose to define a “narrowband white space device” as a type of fixed or personal/portable white space device operating in a bandwidth of no greater than 100 kHz. We also propose that narrowband white space devices be client devices that communicate with a fixed or Mode II master device that contacts the white space database to obtain a list of available channels and operating powers at its location.
41. The Commission proposes to permit narrowband white space devices to operate with a conducted PSD of up to 12.6 dBm/100 kHz, which is the same level permitted for fixed devices that operate with the maximum permissible one-watt conducted power in a six megahertz channel, and to require narrowband devices to comply with the same maximum antenna gain requirements as fixed devices. The Commission further proposes to require narrowband white space devices to comply with an emission limit of −42.8 dBm into adjacent channels,
42. The Commission proposes to require narrowband devices to use a channel plan that limits total transmitted power in a six-megahertz channel to no higher than the existing limits for a four-watt EIRP broadband white space device. Specifically, we propose to require narrowband white space devices to operate at least 250 kilohertz from the edge of a six-megahertz TV channel, unless the adjacent channel is also vacant, and to permit narrowband white space devices to operate only on channels centered at integral multiples of 100 kHz between the 250 kHz guard bands. The net effect of these proposed requirements is that narrowband devices could operate within 55 possible 100-kilohertz channels in the center 5.5 megahertz of each six-megahertz channel. Even in the event that all 55 narrowband channels within a six-megahertz channel were occupied simultaneously by devices operating at maximum power, the maximum conducted and radiated power within that six-megahertz channel would be no greater than for a fixed device operating with one-watt conducted power and four watts EIRP.
43. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Is the proposed definition of narrowband white space device appropriate for the intended IoT applications? Should narrowband personal/portable devices be subject to lower emission limits than those proposed since the proposed limits are based on four-watt EIRP fixed devices? Is it necessary for the Commission to require a listen-before-talk spectrum access mechanism to prevent harmful interference to protected services in the TV bands? If the Commission were to require such a mechanism, what parameters would it need to specify,
44.
45. The Commission seeks comment on the ideas suggested by Microsoft and others to develop a record on this issue. Could more sophisticated computer models, such as Longley-Rice, be used to permit higher power unlicensed operations on adjacent channels? If so, how? Are they sufficiently precise to identify areas where the desired TV signal strength is sufficiently high that interference from adjacent channel white space devices is unlikely? What specific technical parameters would need to be considered or specified in such calculations,
46.
47.
48.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS:
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Communications equipment and Reporting recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 15 as follows:
Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
(c) Narrowband white space devices may only operate on frequencies below 608 MHz.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2)
(B) Fixed devices in the 600 MHz service bands above 620 MHz: Up to 4 W (36 dBm) EIRP, and up to 10 W (40 dBm) EIRP in less congested areas. Fixed devices that operate in any portion of the 614-620 MHz band may operate with up to 4 W (36 dBm) EIRP.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For operation at EIRP levels of 36 dBm (4,000 mW) or less, fixed white space devices may operate at EIRP levels between the values shown in the table in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section provided that the conducted power and the conducted power spectral density (PSD) limits are linearly interpolated between the values shown and the adjacent channel emission limit of the higher value shown in the table is met. Operation at EIRP levels above 36 dBm (4000 mW) but not greater than 40 dBm (10,000 mW) shall follow the requirements for 40 dBm (10,000 mW). Operation at EIRP levels above 40 dBm (10,000 mW) shall follow the requirements for 42 dBm (16,000 mW). (iii) The conducted power spectral density from a fixed white space device shall not be greater than the values shown in the table in this paragraph (b)(1)(iii) when measured in any 100 kHz band during any time interval of continuous transmission.
(4)
(i) Narrowband white space devices shall operate on channel sizes that are no more than 100 kHz. The edge of a narrowband channel shall be offset from the upper and lower edge of the 6 MHz channel in which it operates by at least 250 kHz, except in the case where bonded 6 MHz channels share a common band edge. Narrowband channels of operation shall be at integral multiples of 100 kHz beginning at a 250 kHz offset from a 6 MHz channel's edge, or with no offset at the common band edge of two bonded 6 MHz channels.
(ii) The conducted power limit is 12.6 dBm in a 100 kHz segment. The EIRP limit is 18.6 dBm in a 100 kHz segment. The conducted power spectral density limit is 12.6 dBm in any 100 kHz band during any time interval of continuous transmission.
(iii) Conducted adjacent channel emissions shall be limited to −42.8 dBm in 100 kHz in a first adjacent 6 MHz channel, starting at the edge of the 6 MHz channel within which the narrowband device is operating. This limit shall not apply between the edge of the narrowband channel and the edge of the 6 MHz channel that contains it.
(iv) If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, the maximum conducted power output shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(v) Total channel occupancy shall be limited to 10 seconds per hour.
(c) * * *
(2) The conducted power, PSD and adjacent channel limits for fixed white space devices operating at greater than 36 dBm (4000 milliwatts) EIRP shown in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based on a maximum transmitting antenna gain of 12 dBi. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 12 dBi are used, the maximum conducted output power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 12 dBi.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(A) The installing party must contact a white space database and identify all TV broadcast station contours that would be potentially affected by operation at the planned HAAT and EIRP. A potentially affected TV station is one where the protected service contour would be within the applicable separation distance if the white space device was operating at a HAAT of 50 meters above the planned height at the proposed power level.
(B) The installing party must notify each of these licensees and provide the geographic coordinates of the white space device, relevant technical parameters of the proposed deployment, and contact information.
(C) No earlier than 48 hours after this notification, the installing party may commence operations.
(D) Upon request, the installing party must provide each potentially affected licensee with information on the time periods of operations.
(E) If the installing party seeks to modify its operations by increasing its power level, by moving more than 100 meters horizontally from its location, or by making an increase in the HAAT or EIRP of the white space device that results in an increase in the minimum required separation distances from co-channel or adjacent channel TV station contours, it must conduct a new coordination.
(c) * * *
(3) A Mode II device installed on a movable platform in less congested areas may load channel availability information for multiple locations in the vicinity of its current location. It may use that information to define a geographic area within which it can operate on the same available channels at all locations. A device may not use channel availability information for multiple locations if/when it moves within 1.6 km of the boundary of the area where the channel availability data is valid, or outside that boundary. The location must be checked at least once every 60 seconds while the white space device is in operation except while in sleep mode,
The additions and revisions read as follows:
The separation distances in this section apply to fixed and personal/portable white space devices with a location accuracy of ±50 meters. These distances must be increased by the amount that the location uncertainty of a white space device exceeds ±50 meters. Narrowband white space devices shall comply with the separation distances applicable to a fixed white space device operating with 30 dBm conducted power and 36 dBm EIRP across a 6 MHz channel.
(a) * * *
(2)
(i) If a device operates between two defined power levels, it must comply with the separation distances for the higher power level.
(ii) White space devices operating at 40 mW EIRP or less are not required to meet the adjacent channel separation distances.
(iii) Fixed white space devices operating at 100 mW EIRP or less per 6 megahertz across multiple contiguous TV channels with at least 3-megahertz separation between the frequency band occupied by the white space device and adjacent TV channels are not required to meet the adjacent channel separation distances.
(iv) Fixed white space devices may only operate above 4 W EIRP in less congested areas as defined in § 15.703.
(v) The following are the tables of minimum required separation distances outside the contours of co-channel and adjacent channel stations that white space devices must meet.
(3)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) White space devices operating with more than 4 watts EIRP and up to 10 watts EIRP may not operate within 10.2 kilometers from the receive site for co-channel operation and 2.5 kilometers from the receive site for adjacent channel operation.
(iii) White space devices operating with more than 10 watts EIRP may not operate within 16.6 kilometers from the receive site for co-channel operation and 3.5 kilometers from the receive site for adjacent channel operation.
(iv) For purposes of this section, a TV station being received may include a full power TV station, TV translator station or low power TV/Class A TV station.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) White space devices operating with more than 4 watts EIRP and up to 10 watts EIRP may not operate within 10.2 km from the receive site for co-channel operation and 2.5 km from the receive site for adjacent channel operation.
(iii) White space devices operating with more than 10 watts EIRP may not operate within 16.6 kilometers from the receive site for co-channel operation and 3.5 kilometers from the receive site for adjacent channel operation.
(d)
(2) White space devices may not operate at distances less than those specified in the table below from PLMRS/CMRS operations authorized by waiver outside of the metropolitan areas listed in § 90.303(a) of this chapter.
(f)
(1) Fixed white space devices with 10 watts EIRP or less: 1 kilometer
(2) Fixed white space devices with greater than 10 watts EIRP: 1.3 kilometers
(3) Personal/portable white space devices: 400 meters
(i) * * *
(1) Fixed white space devices may only operate above 4 W EIRP in less congested areas as defined in § 15.703.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice.
The Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the Secretary) is providing notice of an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2020 sugar tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) of 317,515 metric tons raw value (MTRV) for raw cane sugar, and 181,437 MTRV for refined sugar.
This notice is applicable on April 3, 2020.
Multilateral Affairs Division, Trade Policy and Geographic Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1070, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1070.
Souleymane Diaby, (202) 720-2916,
On June 27, 2019, the Secretary established the FY 2020 TRQ for raw cane sugar at 1,117,195 MTRV, the minimum to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Agreements. Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and Section 359k of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, the Secretary has authority to modify the raw and refined sugar WTO TRQs. The Secretary gives notice today of an increase in the quantity of raw cane sugar eligible to enter at the lower rate of duty during FY 2020 by 317,515 MTRV. The conversion factor is 1 metric ton raw value equals 1.10231125 short tons raw value. With this increase, the overall FY 2020 raw sugar TRQ is now 1,434,710 MTRV. Raw cane sugar under this quota must be accompanied by a certificate for quota eligibility and may be entered until September 30, 2020. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will allocate this increase among supplying countries and customs areas.
On June 27, 2019, USDA established the FY 2020 refined sugar TRQ at an aggregate quantity of 192,000 MTRV, of which 20,344 MTRV was reserved for refined sugar other than specialty sugar. On July 15, 2019, USTR allocated this refined sugar TRQ as follows: 10,300 MTRV to Canada; 2,954 MTRV to Mexico; 7,090 MTRV to be administered on a first-come, first-served basis; and 171,656 MTRV for specialty sugar. Today, the Secretary announces an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2020 refined sugar TRQ of 181,437 MTRV, to a total of 373,437 MTRV. USTR will allocate this refined sugar TRQ increase. Only refined sugar with a sucrose content, by weight in the dry state, corresponding to a reading of 99.5 degrees polarity or more will be permitted.
These actions are being taken after a determination that additional supplies of raw cane and refined sugar are required in the U.S. market. USDA will closely monitor stocks, consumption, imports and all sugar market and program variables on an ongoing basis and may make further program adjustments during FY 2020 if needed.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) invites comment on the proposed extension of its existing information collection titled, “Online Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Complaint Form.” (OMB Control No. 3014-0012). The information collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2020, and we propose to continue using the instrument for an additional three years.
Submit comments by June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal
•
•
•
Mario Damiani, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Phone: 202-272-0050 (voice); 202-272-0064 (TTY). Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
To comply with this requirement, the Access Board is publishing this 60-day notice for the proposed renewal of this information collection. OMB's approval of the current version of the Access Board's Online Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Complaint Form is set expire in August 2020. See 81 FR 85,926 (Nov. 29, 2016) (30-day notice);
By this notice, the Access Board is proposing to continue using essentially the same Online ABA Complaint Form for another three years. We propose to make formatting-type changes only that will update the “look and feel” of the online form; we do not anticipate making any material, substantive revisions.
In sum, the Online ABA Complaint Form seeks information needed by the Access Board to investigate complaints and, if desired, contact the complainant. Mandatory fields are: Name and location (by city and state) of the building/facility at issue and description of accessibility barrier(s). Optional fields include the building/facility address and the complainant's name; and contact information. (Where provided, a complainant's identity and other personal information may not be disclosed outside the agency without his or her written permission.) Individuals may also upload electronic attachments (
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 Rhode Island State Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call, on Monday, April 13, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (EDT). The purpose of the meeting is to continue planning on its licensing project.
Monday, April 13, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (EDT).
Evelyn Bohor, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 2576278 and conference call ID: 1-800-458-4121. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may 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 telephone number herein.
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 number: 2576278 and conference call ID: 1-800-458-4121.
Members of the public are invited to 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 Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Jiangsu Tiangong Tools Company LTD (TG Tools) did not make a
Applicable April 3, 2020.
Hannah Falvey or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4889 or (202) 482-2312, respectively.
On May 29, 2019, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from China in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), with respect to TG Tools as the sole mandatory respondent in this review.
On November 12, 2019, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce determined that it was not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the 245 days and extended the preliminary results by 117 days.
The merchandise subject to this order is certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). For a full description of the scope,
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum and as expounded upon in the
Because the non-
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due seven days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until May 19, 2020, unless extended.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCES. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
If Commerce proceeds to a final rescission of this administrative review, the assessment rate to which TG Tools' shipments are subject will not be affected by this review. If Commerce does not proceed to a final rescission of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment rates based on the final results of this review.
If Commerce proceeds to a final rescission of this administrative review, TG Tools' cash deposit rate will continue to be the China-wide rate of 68.27. If Commerce issues final results for this administrative review, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Reliance Industries Limited (Reliance), a producer/exporter of fine denier polyester staple fiber (PSF) from the Republic of India (India) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) November 6, 2017 through December 31, 2018. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 3, 2020.
Thomas Martin or Dakota Potts, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-3586, respectively.
On June 13, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on PSF from India with respect to Reliance.
The merchandise covered by this order is fine denier PSF, not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
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 Reliance 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) preliminarily determines that exporters/producers of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, that were
Applicable April 3, 2020.
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
On March 7, 1986, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting 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, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
On June 7, 20, and 25, 2019, Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.Ş. (collectively, Tosçelik),
Additionally, on June 28, 2019, the Borusan Companies
On June 7 and June 11, 2019, respectively, Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S., and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively, the Yucel Companies) and Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan) timely filed no shipments certifications.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limited 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. We also note that section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “{t}he individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by using the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the Borusan Companies. For the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, we preliminarily determine that the following net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For the 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, 2018 through December 31, 2018, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for each of the companies listed 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 administrative review, except, where the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
We will 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.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be 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 will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Research Steering Committee (RSC) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 28, 2020, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 12 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's website:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this RSC meeting is to discuss initial re-development of the research set-aside (RSA) program. The RSC will also discuss workshop logistics, a range of topics/options for the workshop, next steps and collaboration with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and other business. The Committee's recommendations will be presented at a subsequent Council Meeting with the goal of hosting an RSA workshop in September 2020.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Southern Resident Killer Whale Workgroup (Workgroup) will host a webinar, which is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 28, 2020, from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m., Pacific Standard Time. The webinar time is an estimate; the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is completed.
A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by using this link:
Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 10, 8; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, Android
Ms. Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2410.
The purpose of the webinar will be to draft the executive summary for the final risk assessment document, and discuss and consider potential recommendations for salmon management measures. The Workgroup may also discuss and prepare for future Workgroup meetings and future meetings with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory bodies. Members of the Salmon Advisory Subpanel will also be in attendance.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, (503) 820-2412, at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
In notice document 2020-05807 beginning on page 16194 in the issue of Friday, March 20, 2020, make the following correction:
On page 16214, the graphic should appear as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 66 South Atlantic Tilefish Data Scoping Webinar.
The SEDAR 66 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Tilefish will consist of a data scoping webinar, an in-person workshop and a series assessment webinars.
The SEDAR 66 Tilefish Data Scoping Webinar has been scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., EDT.
Kathleen Howington, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR)
The items of discussion at the SEDAR 66 Tilefish Data Scoping Webinar are as follows:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) via webinar. See
The SSC meeting will take place from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 28, 2020; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, 2020; and 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Thursday, April 30, 2020.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The meeting is open to the public via webinar as it occurs. Webinar registration is required. Information regarding webinar registration will be posted to the Council's website at:
The following agenda items will be addressed by the SSC during the meeting:
1. Approve Terms of Reference, schedules, and request participants for the Red Snapper, Black Sea Bass, and Spanish Mackerel assessments;
2. Discuss the new weight estimation procedure from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), review the new landings time series for all unassessed species due to this change in weight estimation methodology, consider updating the previous ABC recommendations based on these newly updated landings data, consider the use of the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) method and/or revising the time series for Dolphin and Wahoo used for ABC calculations;
3. Review the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 38 King Mackerel stock assessment update, apply Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule and provide fishing level recommendations, and discuss uncertainties;
4. Review the SEDAR 59 Greater Amberjack stock assessment, apply ABC Control Rule and provide fishing level recommendations, and discuss uncertainties;
5. Review the SEDAR 60 Red Porgy assessment, apply ABC Control Rule and provide fishing level recommendations, and discuss uncertainties;
6. Updates on the Council Workplan and discussion of other business as needed.
The SSC will provide guidance to staff and recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate.
Multiple opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during SSC meetings. Open comment periods will be provided at the start of the meeting and near the conclusion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize individuals to provide comment. Additional opportunities for comment on specific agenda items will be provided, as each item is discussed, between initial presentations and SSC discussion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes a product and services from the Procurement List that were be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
On 2/28/2020, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Comment request.
On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) published a notice announcing a public hearing and request for written comments and oral presentations concerning the Commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The CPSC has postponed, until further notice, the public hearing. However, the Commission is extending the comment period for written comments until May 1, 2020.
Submit comments by 5 p.m. EDT on May 1, 2020.
Written comments should be captioned, “Agenda and Priorities FY 2021 and/or 2022,” and sent by electronic mail (email) to:
Alberta E. Mills, Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:
Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2053(j)) requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws the Commission administers, and to the extent feasible, select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that before establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments.
On March 5, 2020, the CPSC published notice of public hearing in the
Defense Human Resources Activity, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is modifying a System of Records titled, “National Security Education Program—Information Technology (NSEP-IT) System,” DHRA 09. The modifications will update the System of Records Notice (SORN) to meet OMB Circular No. A-108 requirements, and specifically add new system components (National Security Education Program (NSEP) Network (NSEPnet), Student Certification System, and NSEP Grants Database), and expand the categories of records collected as required by a recent statutory change. The SORN enables the NSEP to provide the public with educational resources and provides the NSEP the ability to collect information necessary to select qualified candidates for scholarships and fellowships.
This System of Records modification is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before May 4, 2020. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20311-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
The following SORN sections have been updated: System Location, System Manager(s), Authority for Maintenance of the System, Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, Categories of Records in the System, Record Source Categories, Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purpose of Such Uses, Policies and Practices for Storage of Records, Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records, Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records, Administrative, Physical, and Technical Safeguards, Record Access Procedures, and Notification Procedures.
The OSD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on January 14, 2020, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).
National Security Education Program—Information Technology (NSEP-IT) System, DHRA 09.
Unclassified.
Amazon Web Services (AWS), US West, Astoria, OR 97103.
Institute of International Education, 1400 K Street NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20005-2403.
Program Manager, Defense Language and National Security Education Office, National Security Education Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08G08, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500,
50 U.S.C. 1901, David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991; 32 CFR 32.51, DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance; DoD Instruction 1025.02, NSEP and NSEP Service Agreement; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
The NSEP-IT system is a comprehensive data collection system for tracking student progress within institutional academic programs, and recording federal service requirements. The system consists of three components: NSEPnet, the Student Certification System (SCS), and the NSEP Grants Database. Information is maintained in the SCS by the NSEP institutional academic programs for coding and tracking participating students in DoD funded educational programs. NSEPnet maintains records of all NSEP award recipients to track recipient progress towards fulfilling their service requirement. NSEP Grants Database data is used to produce performance reporting metrics on institutions of higher education receiving NSEP institutional grant funding. Also, these records are used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, and evaluating program effectiveness.
Individuals applying for and receiving David L. Boren Scholarships, English for Heritage Language Speakers (EHLS) Scholarships, David L. Boren Fellowships, and Flagship Fellowships; Individual students participating in university programs with NSEP-funded grants for implementing “The Language Flagship” or “Project Global Officer” language training programs.
Individual Scholarship/Fellowship recipients' title, full name, current address, permanent address, Social Security Number (SSN), current telephone number, permanent telephone number, email address, date of birth, country or state of birth, citizenship status, education, region, country, and, prior military service, gender, race/ethnicity, position title, security clearance held for position, award type, date of award completion, graduation date, length of service requirement, date of availability for work, information on veterans preference, Federal employment history, preferences with regard to being contacted by intelligence agencies. For two of the NSEP institutional grant programs, The Language Flagship and Project Global Officer and the Student Certification System (SCS) collect the following participant information: full name, current address, permanent address, current telephone number, permanent telephone number, email address, date of birth, citizenship status, prior military service, gender, and race/ethnicity.
Individuals, and academic institutions.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To institutions of higher education who receive grant funding via The Language Flagship and Project Global Officer (Project GO) who use this for the monitoring and tracking of their own students participating in these programs.
b. To the Institute for International Education for monitoring the performance of The Language Flagship and Project GO institutional programs and student performance in these programs, as well as reviewing and validating NSEP awardee information and repayments.
c. To the American Councils for International Education for the input of student proficiency scores for students assessed using their assessments.
d. To The Boren Forum, the non-profit NSEP alumni organization, to confirm the name, award year, and type of award of NSEP award recipients.
e. To consumer reporting agencies pursuant to guidance under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (14 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). Disclosure aids in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal Government. Disclosure is limited to name, address, and taxpayer identification number/SSN; the amount, status, and history of the claim; and the agency or program under which the claim arose.
f. To the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) for individuals not compliant with the Service Agreement and who fail to pay back awards. Their name, address, and taxpayer identification number/SSN including the amount, status, and history of the claim are sent to the Treasury for collection.
g. To authorized federal hiring officials for the purpose of recruiting of NSEP award recipients into federal service, and assisting NSEP award recipients in fulfilling their Congressionally-mandated service requirement.
h. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this System of Records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure that apply to DoD officers and employees.
i. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
j. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
k. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the
l. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
m. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
n. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or confirms a breach of the System of Records; (2) the DoD determines as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
o. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines information from this System of Records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Electronic storage media.
Records are retrieved by last name, first name, institution, and language.
Unsuccessful NSEP student award applications—Destroy after 5 years.
Successful institutional grant reports—Destroy after 10 years.
Records of language acquisition progress among students; successful NSEP student award applications; and records of service requirement fulfillment among NSEP student award recipients—Destroy after 30 years.
Physical/digital access to records is restricted to those requiring the data in the performance of their official duties. Physical entry to data servers is restricted by locks, guards, and administrative procedures. The NSEP-IT system maintains all data storage at an off-site facility, which meets all DoD and National Institute Standard of Technology requirements for data security. The facility requires identification badges for access. Additionally, access to system data requires a Common Access Card and a personal identification number. In addition, system entry requires that program passwords be changed every 180 days.
The following technical controls restrict access to those requiring the data in the performance of their official duties: Intrusion detection system; encryption; external Certificate Authority certificate; firewall; and, DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificates. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is encrypted when transmitted electronically. Administrative controls restrict access to those requiring the data in the performance of their official duties or for reporting purposes: Periodic security audits; regular monitoring of users' security practices; methods to ensure only authorized personnel may access PII; encryption of backups containing sensitive data. Additionally, contract officers must follow all appropriate Privacy Act clauses. Also, contractor personnel must sign nondisclosure documents certifying their adherence to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Signed written requests should contain full name, SSN, current address and telephone number of the individual, and the name and number of this SORN. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
The DoD rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 310, or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to NSEP-IT, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08G08, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500. Signed written requests should contain full name, SSN, current address and telephone number of the individual, and the name and number of this SORN. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
79 FR 19585, April 09, 2014.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (TSL), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.374A. This notice relates to
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: May 4, 2020.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 2, 2020.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 3, 2020.
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
Patricia Searles, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3C122, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 205-3869. 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.
The FY 2020 TSL competition is designed to support entities in implementing, improving, or expanding their HCMS, which by definition must include a PBCS, or implementing, improving, or expanding only a PBCS and establishes an absolute priority consistent with this purpose. TSL is also intended to primarily serve educators in High-Need Schools who raise student academic achievement and close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students, although the program may also fund services for educators serving in high-need subject areas (though not necessarily in High-Need Schools), as determined by the LEA or the State.
In 2017, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico submitted ESEA Consolidated State Plans that describe their efforts to ensure equitable access to excellent educators. These State plans describe how the State would ensure that low-income and minority children in Title I, Part A schools are not taught by inexperienced, ineffective, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than other children. In addition, many States and LEAs have worked to create and improve their comprehensive HCMS, and LEAs have invested in high-quality educator evaluation and support systems in order to improve recruitment efforts, provide educators with meaningful feedback and targeted professional development, and use information on educator performance to inform key school- and district-level decisions. While an increasing number of LEAs are well equipped to make human capital decisions that both support educators and improve student outcomes, additional work is needed to ensure that these educator evaluation and support systems are fair, reliable, and credible; conducive to enhancing educator growth and advancement; likely to support improved student outcomes; and seamlessly integrated into school- and district-level human capital processes. Thus, through the two absolute priorities listed in this notice, the Department seeks to ensure that this competition supports States and LEAs in their efforts to implement goals and objectives in State plans as well as lessons learned from close to two decades of investment and research in HCMS and PBCS.
In addition to the absolute priority reinforcing the need to serve educators primarily in High-Need Schools and areas, this notice includes a competitive preference priority for projects that would be carried out in areas that overlap with a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ). Public Law (Pub. L.) 115-97, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, authorized the designation of QOZs to promote economic development and job creation in distressed communities through preferential tax treatment for investors. A list of QOZs is available at
In order to support different LEAs in developing and implementing comprehensive HCMS designed to ensure all students have equitable access to high-quality instruction, this notice also contains a competitive preference priority for new potential grantees. Under ESEA section 2212(b)(3), an LEA may only receive a TSL grant twice. In furtherance of this goal to limit the number of TSL grants an LEA may receive, the competitive preference priority encourages new potential grantees to apply for a TSL grant by awarding additional points for those applicants who either have never received a TSL or Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant, or who have not had an active TSL or TIF grant in the past five years.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, eligible applicants must propose a project to develop, implement, improve, or expand, in collaboration with teachers, principals, other School Leaders, and members of the public, a PBCS or HCMS.
Under section 2212(c)(4) of the ESEA, applicants must describe how the eligible entity will develop and implement a fair, rigorous, valid, reliable, and objective process to evaluate educator performance under the system that is based in part on measures of student academic achievement, including the baseline performance against which evaluations of improved performance will be made. In responding to this priority, applicants are encouraged to describe how their project to develop, implement, improve, or expand a PBCS or HCMS will address this application requirement. In addition, applicants that propose to use grant funds, under ESEA section 2212(e)(2)(A), to develop or improve an evaluation and support system as part of an HCMS, in responding to this priority, should describe how such system (i) reflects clear and fair measures of educator performance, based in part on demonstrated improvement in student academic achievement; and (ii) provides educators with ongoing, differentiated, targeted, and personalized support and feedback for improvement, including professional development opportunities designed to increase effectiveness.
Under this priority, eligible applicants must concentrate the activities proposed to be assisted under the grant on teachers, principals, or other School Leaders serving in High-Need Schools.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the area in which the applicant proposes to provide services overlaps with a Qualified Opportunity Zone, as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). An applicant must—
(i) Provide the census tract number of the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s) in which it proposes to provide services; and
(ii) Describe how the applicant will provide services in the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s).
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one of the following:
(i) The applicant has never received a grant, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds (0 or 5 points); or
(ii) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in the five years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program. (0 or 2 points)
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.
For purposes of this priority, “the program” includes both TIF and TSL programs because they are substantially the same.
Each eligible applicant desiring a grant under this program must submit an application that contains—
(i) A description of the PBCS or HCMS that the eligible entity proposes to develop, implement, improve, or expand through the grant;
(ii) A description of the most significant gaps or insufficiencies in student access to effective educators in High-Need Schools, including gaps or inequities in how effective educators are distributed across the LEA, as identified using factors such as data on school resources, staffing patterns, school environment, educator support systems, and other school-level factors;
(iii) A description and evidence of the support and commitment from educators, which may include charter School Leaders, in the school (including organizations representing educators), the community, and the LEA to the activities proposed under the grant;
(iv) A description of how the eligible entity will develop and implement a fair, rigorous, valid, reliable, and objective process to evaluate educator performance, under the system that is based in part on measures of student academic achievement, including the baseline performance against which evaluations of improved performance will be made;
(v) A description of the LEAs or schools to be served under the grant, including student academic achievement, demographic, and socioeconomic information;
(vi) A description of the effectiveness of educators in the LEA and the schools to be served under the grant and the extent to which the system will increase the effectiveness of educators in such schools;
(vii) A description of how the eligible entity will use grant funds under this subpart in each year of the grant, including a timeline for implementation of such activities;
(viii) A description of how the eligible entity will continue the activities assisted under the grant after the grant period ends;
(ix) A description of the State, local, or other public or private funds that will be used to supplement the grant, including funds under Title II, part A of the ESEA, and sustain the activities
(x) A description of the rationale for the project; how the proposed activities are Evidence-Based; and, if applicable, the prior experience of the eligible entity in developing and implementing such activities; and
(xi) A description of how grant activities will be evaluated, monitored, and publicly reported.
(i) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and
(ii) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.
For purposes of this competition, the term “High-Need School” is interpreted to mean a school with 50 percent or more of its enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use consistent with ESEA section 1113(a)(5) (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)).
(i) By which an LEA makes and implements human capital decisions, such as decisions on preparation, recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion; and
(ii) That includes a performance-based compensation system.
(i) That differentiates levels of compensation based in part on measurable increases in student academic achievement; and
(ii) Which may include—
(A) Differentiated levels of compensation, which may include bonus pay, on the basis of the employment responsibilities and success of effective teachers, principals, or other School Leaders in hard-to-staff schools or high-need subject areas; and
(B) Recognition of the skills and knowledge of teachers, principals, or other School Leaders as demonstrated through—
(I) Successful fulfillment of additional responsibilities or job functions, such as teacher leadership roles; and
(II) Evidence of professional achievement and mastery of content knowledge and superior teaching and leadership skills.
(i) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, LEA, or other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school; and
(ii) Responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary school building.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department estimates a wide range of awards, given the potentially large differences in the scope of funded projects, including the size and number of participating LEAs.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) An LEA, including a charter school that is an LEA, or a consortium of LEAs;
(b) A State educational agency (SEA) or other State agency designated by the Chief Executive of a State to participate;
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education; or
(d) A partnership
(i) One or more agencies described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c); and
(ii) At least one nonprofit organization as defined in 2 CFR 200.70 or at least one for-profit entity.
The Secretary considers all schools funded by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Education to be LEAs.
Applicants that are nonprofit organizations, under 34 CFR 75.51, may demonstrate their nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a.
Under section 2212(f) of the ESEA, each grant recipient must provide from non-Federal sources an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant (which may be provided in cash or in kind), to carry out the activities supported by the grant. Applicants and grantees should budget relative to each annual award of TSL grant funds. Applicants are strongly encouraged to take this requirement into account when requesting Federal funds and limit their requests appropriately. Applicants should verify that their budgets reflect both the requested Federal award amount and the matching contribution with appropriate cost allocations. The Secretary does not, as a matter of policy, anticipate waiving these requirements, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project.
b.
3.
4.
During the third year of the project period for grants awarded under this competition, if the Department exercises the option to offer an opportunity for renewals, the Department will provide grantees with information on the renewal process. This additional funding is intended not only to support continuation of approved project activities, but also to encourage scaling, replication, and sustainability efforts and strategies. In deciding whether to award a two-year renewal award, we intend to review performance data submitted in regularly required reporting, as well as potentially request narrative information to be assessed using selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Calibri, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
6.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining evidence of the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or build on similar or related efforts to improve Relevant Outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.
(iv) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project Demonstrates a Rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress towards achieving intended outcomes.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(d)
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand serves that address the needs of the target population.
(iii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model, and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (
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 (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
In addition, under 34 CFR 75.591, all TSL grantees must cooperate in any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department.
5.
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
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.371C. 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
Cindy Savage, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E243, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 453-5998. 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.
First, we give competitive preference to applications from new potential grantees to diversify the applicant pool and even the playing field for applicants with varying levels of experience. For the purpose of this priority, we give preference to grantees that have not had an active grant in the past five years under the CLSD program, or the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program (SRCL), as the CLSD program was called prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (
Second, we give competitive preference to applications that would
Third, we give competitive preference to applications that propose projects designed to focus on improving student outcomes that provide increased value to students and taxpayers. Within this competitive preference priority, we are particularly interested in applications that propose to leverage resources to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency in developing literacy programs and activities. Leveraging resources is the process of identifying the benefits from an investment or project using available resources to recognize additional resources. The process may result in a total effect that is greater than the sum of the parts. It involves the removal of barriers that prevent or hinder the flow of goods, services, and funds to meet program goals. State and local plans focused on identifying opportunities to streamline or eliminate redundancies or unnecessary requirements or capitalize on already available Federal, State, and local resources, may ultimately allow subgrantees to focus more closely on approaches that improve outcomes for students and their families.
In addition, section 2222(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), requires that an applicant describe how it will develop a State comprehensive literacy instruction plan, and applicants are encouraged to align these plans with their State plans under ESEA. An important component of a comprehensive literacy plan includes innovative strategies to improve access to high-quality preschool through grade 12 opportunities that take place outside of the traditional public school setting. In developing these plans, applicants may provide parents and students a choice of opportunities that may include, for example, online literacy programs, industry-focused literacy programs, expanded library hours, community partnerships, and other literacy programs or projects that allow parents and students to access literacy software and information at any time and any place.
Consistent with section 2222(e) of the ESEA, the Secretary gives priority to SEAs that will use the grant funds for evidence-based activities and includes a selection criterion under Quality of Project Design that awards points to applicants to the extent that SEAs propose to use CLSD funds for evidence-based activities. Applicants should use CLSD funds for activities supported by the highest evidence available, and in cases where there may not be significant evidence-based literacy strategies or interventions available, for example in early childhood education, we encourage applicants to demonstrate a rationale (
These priorities are:
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in the five years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program.
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the area in which the applicant proposes to provide services overlaps with a QOZ as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). An applicant must—
(a) Provide the census tract number of the QOZ(s) in which it proposes to provide services; and
(b) Describe how the applicant will provide services in the QOZ(s).
Projects that are designed to address one or both of the following priority areas:
(a) Implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(b) Supporting innovative strategies or research that have the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department stakeholders.
Within this competitive preference priority, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priority.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to implement strategies that leverage Federal, State, and local resources (
(a)
An SEA must collaborate with the State agency responsible for administering early childhood education programs and the State agency responsible for administering child care programs in the State, in writing and implementing the early childhood education portion of the grant application submitted for the CLSD program.
(b)
An SEA must include a needs assessment that analyzes literacy needs across the State and in high-need schools (as defined in this notice) and LEAs that serve high-need schools, including identifying the most significant gaps in literacy proficiency and inequities in student access to effective teachers of literacy, considering each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA.
(c)
An SEA must include a description of how, in collaboration with its State literacy team, if applicable, it will develop a State comprehensive literacy instruction (as defined in this notice) plan or will revise and update an already existing State comprehensive literacy instruction plan.
(d)
An SEA must include an implementation plan that includes a description of how it will carry out the State activities detailed in section 2222(f) of the ESEA.
(e)
An SEA must include in its application the following assurances:
(1)
(a) An SEA must assure that it will subgrant not less than 95 percent of grant funds to eligible entities (as defined in this notice), based on their needs assessment and a competitive application process, for comprehensive literacy instruction programs according to the funding allocations in Program Requirement (a).
(b) An SEA must assure it will use grant funds described in section 2222(f)(1) for comprehensive literacy instruction programs as follows:
(i) Not less than 15 percent of such grant funds must be used for State and local programs and activities pertaining to children from birth through kindergarten entry.
(ii) Not less than 40 percent of such grant funds must be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among the grades of kindergarten through grade 5.
(iii) Not less than 40 percent of such grant funds must be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among grades 6 through 12.
(2)
An SEA must assure that it will give priority in awarding subgrants to eligible entities that—
(i) Serve children from birth through age 5 who are from families with income levels at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line (as defined in this notice); or
(ii) Are LEAs serving a high number or percentage of high-need schools.
(3)
An SEA must assure that it will provide subgrants to eligible entities serving a diversity of geographic areas, giving priority to entities serving greater numbers or percentages of children from low-income families.
(a)
(1) Grantees must use not less than 95 percent of grant funds to award subgrants to eligible entities, based on their needs assessment and a competitive application process;
(2) Grantees must subgrant funds as follows:
(i) Not less than 15 percent of the funds awarded to subgrantees must be used for State and local programs and activities pertaining to children from birth through kindergarten entry;
(ii) Not less than 40 percent of the funds awarded to subgrantees must be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among the grades of kindergarten through grade 5; and
(iii) Not less than 40 percent of the funds awarded to subgrantees must be used for State and local programs and activities, allocated equitably among grades 6 through 12.
(b)
(1) A grantee may reserve not more than 5 percent of the CLSD funds it receives for activities identified through the needs assessment and comprehensive literacy plan, including, at a minimum, the following activities:
(i) Providing technical assistance, or engaging qualified providers to provide technical assistance, to eligible entities to enable the eligible entities to design and implement literacy programs.
(ii) Coordinating with institutions of higher education in the State to provide recommendations to strengthen and enhance pre-service courses for students preparing to teach children from birth through grade 12 in explicit, systematic, and intensive instruction in evidence-based literacy methods.
(iii) Reviewing and updating, in collaboration with teachers and institutions of higher education, State licensure or certification standards in the area of literacy instruction in early education through grade 12.
(iv) Making publicly available, including on the SEA's website, information on promising instructional practices to improve child literacy achievement.
(v) Administering and monitoring the implementation of subgrants by eligible entities.
(2) After making awards to subgrantees and carrying out the State-level activities described in this notice, an SEA may use any remaining amount to carry out one or more of the following activities:
(i) Developing literacy coach training programs and training literacy coaches.
(ii) Administration and evaluation of CLSD activities.
(3)
A grantee must collaborate with the State agency responsible for administering early childhood education programs, the State agency responsible for administering child care programs, and, if applicable, the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care designated or established pursuant to section 642(b(1)(A)(i) of the Head Start Act, in making and implementing subgrants under the early childhood education portion of the CLSD program, described in section 2222(d)(2)(D)(i).
(c)
(1)
An eligible entity desiring to receive a subgrant under CLSD must submit an application to the SEA, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the SEA may require. Such application must include a description of—
(i) How the CLSD funds will be used to enhance the language and literacy development and school readiness of children, from birth through kindergarten entry, in early childhood education programs, which must include an analysis of data that support the proposed use of CLSD funds;
(ii) How the CLSD funds will be used to prepare and provide ongoing assistance to staff in the programs, including through high-quality professional development (as defined in this notice);
(iii) How the activities assisted with the CLSD funds will be coordinated with comprehensive literacy instruction at the kindergarten through grade 12 levels; and
(iv) How the CLSD funds will be used to evaluate the success of the activities assisted under the subgrant in enhancing the early language and literacy development of children from birth through kindergarten entry.
(2)
In awarding subgrants to eligible entities in support of birth through kindergarten entry, sections 2222(d)(2)(E) and 2223(c) of the ESEA require that an SEA must provide an assurance that it will—
(i) Give priority to an eligible entity that will use CLSD funds to implement evidence-based activities;
(ii) Give priority to an eligible entity that will use CLSD funds to serve children from birth through age 5 who are from families with income levels at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line or is an LEA serving a high number or percentage of high-need schools; and
(iii) Give priority to an eligible entity that will use CLSD funds to serve children from birth through age 5 in a diversity of geographic areas.
(3)
The term of a subgrant must be determined by the grantee and must not exceed five years.
(4)
Each subgrant must be of sufficient size and scope to allow the eligible entity to carry out high-quality early literacy initiatives for children from birth through kindergarten entry.
(5)
An eligible entity that receives a subgrant from the SEA must use the CLSD funds, consistent with the entity's approved application, to—
(i) Carry out high-quality professional development opportunities for early childhood educators, teachers, principals, other school leaders (as defined in this notice), paraprofessionals, specialized instructional support personnel, and instructional leaders;
(ii) Train providers and personnel to develop and administer evidence-based early childhood education literacy initiatives; and
(iii) Coordinate the involvement of families, early childhood education program staff, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel (as appropriate), and teachers in literacy development of children served under CLSD.
(d)
(1)
An eligible entity desiring to receive a subgrant from the SEA under the CLSD program must submit an application to the SEA at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the SEA may require. Such application must include, for each school that the eligible entity identifies as participating in a CLSD program, the following information:
(i) A description of the eligible entity's needs assessment conducted to identify how CLSD funds will be used to inform and improve comprehensive literacy instruction at the school.
(ii) How the school, the LEA, or a provider of high-quality professional development will provide ongoing high-quality professional development to all teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel (as appropriate), and other instructional leaders served by the school.
(iii) How the school will identify children in need of literacy interventions or other support services.
(iv) An explanation of how the school will integrate comprehensive literacy instruction into a well-rounded education (as defined in this notice).
(v) A description of how the school will coordinate comprehensive literacy instruction with early childhood education programs and activities and after-school programs and activities in the area served by the LEA.
(2)
In awarding subgrants to eligible entities the SEA must give priority to an eligible entity that will—
(i) Use grant funds to implement evidence-based activities, which meet the requirements of strong or moderate evidence in the definition of “evidence-based” in this notice; and
(ii) Give priority to an eligible entity that will use CLSD funds to serve children from kindergarten through grade 12 in a diversity of geographic areas.
(3)
The term of a subgrant must be determined by the grantee and must not exceed five years.
(4)
Each subgrant must be of sufficient size and scope to allow the eligible entity to carry out high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction in each grade level for which the CLSD funds are provided.
(5)
An eligible entity that receives a subgrant from the SEA under the CLSD
(i) Developing and implementing a comprehensive literacy instruction plan across content areas for such children that—
(A) Serves the needs of all children, including children with disabilities and English learners, especially children who are reading or writing below grade level;
(B) Provides intensive, supplemental, accelerated, and explicit intervention and support in reading and writing for children whose literacy skills are below grade level; and
(C) Supports activities that are provided primarily during the regular school day but that may be augmented by after-school and out-of-school time instruction.
(ii) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities for teachers, literacy coaches, literacy specialists, English as a second language specialists (as appropriate), principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, school librarians, paraprofessionals, and other program staff.
(iii) Training principals, specialized instructional support personnel, and other LEA personnel to support, develop, administer, and evaluate high-quality kindergarten through grade 5 literacy initiatives.
(iv) Coordinating the involvement of early childhood education program staff, principals, other instructional leaders, teachers, teacher literacy teams, English as a second language specialists (as appropriate), special educators, school personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel (as appropriate) in the literacy development of children served.
(v) Engaging families and encouraging family literacy experiences and practices to support literacy development.
(6)
An eligible entity that receives a subgrant from the SEA under CLSD must use CLSD funds to carry out the following activities pertaining to children in grades 6 through 12:
(i) Developing and implementing a comprehensive literacy instruction plan across content areas for such children that—
(A) Serves the needs of all children, including children with disabilities and English learners, especially children who are reading or writing below grade level;
(B) Provides intensive, supplemental, accelerated, and explicit intervention and support in reading and writing for children whose literacy skills are below grade level; and
(C) Supports activities that are provided primarily during the regular school day but that may be augmented by after-school and out-of-school time instruction.
(ii) Training principals, specialized instructional support personnel, school librarians, and other LEA personnel to support, develop, administer, and evaluate high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction initiatives for grades 6 through 12.
(iii) Assessing the quality of adolescent comprehensive literacy instruction as part of a well-rounded education.
(iv) Providing time for teachers to meet to plan evidence-based adolescent comprehensive literacy instruction to be delivered as part of a well-rounded education.
(v) Coordinating the involvement of principals, other instructional leaders, teachers, teacher literacy teams, English as a second language specialists (as appropriate), paraprofessionals, special educators, specialized instructional support personnel (as appropriate), and school personnel in the literacy development of children served.
(7)
An eligible entity that receives a subgrant from an SEA under CLSD may, in addition to carrying out the activities described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this requirement, use subgrant funds to carry out the following activities pertaining to children in kindergarten through grade 12:
(i) Recruiting, placing, training, and compensating literacy coaches.
(ii) Connecting out-of-school learning opportunities to in-school learning in order to improve children's literacy achievement.
(iii) Training families and caregivers to support the improvement of adolescent literacy.
(iv) Providing for a multi-tier system of supports for literacy services.
(v) Forming a school literacy leadership team to help implement, assess, and identify necessary changes to the literacy initiatives in 1 or more schools to ensure success.
(vi) Providing time for teachers (and other literacy staff, as appropriate, such as school librarians or specialized instructional support personnel) to meet to plan comprehensive literacy instruction.
(e)
Grantees must use CLSD funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for activities authorized under the CLSD program.
(f)
Grantees must cooperate with a national evaluation of the CLSD program (34 CFR 75.591). The evaluation will include high-quality research that applies rigorous and systematic procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to the implementation and effect of the CLSD program. The evaluation will directly coordinate with individual State evaluations of the CLSD program implementation.
(a) Includes developmentally appropriate, contextually explicit, and systematic instruction, and frequent practice, in reading and writing across content areas;
(b) Includes age-appropriate, explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension;
(c) Includes age-appropriate, explicit instruction in writing, including opportunities for children to write with clear purposes, with critical reasoning appropriate to the topic and purpose, and with specific instruction and feedback from instructional staff;
(d) Makes available and uses diverse, high-quality print materials that reflect the reading and development levels, and interests, of children;
(e) Uses differentiated instructional approaches,
including individual and small group instruction and discussion;
(f) Provides opportunities for children to use language with peers and adults in order to develop language skills, including developing vocabulary;
(g) Includes frequent practice of reading and writing strategies;
(h) Uses age-appropriate, valid, and reliable screening assessments,
(i) Uses strategies to enhance children's motivation to read and write and children's engagement in self-directed learning;
(j) Incorporates the principles of universal design for learning;
(k) Depends on teachers' collaboration in planning, instruction, and assessing a child's progress and on continuous professional learning; and
(l) Links literacy instruction to the challenging State academic standards, including the ability to navigate, understand, and write about, complex print and digital subject matter.
(a) One or more LEAs that serve a high percentage of high-need schools and—
(1) Have the highest number or proportion of children who are counted under section 1124(c) of the ESEA, in comparison to other LEAs in the State;
(2) Are among the LEAs in the State with the highest number or percentages of children reading or writing below grade level, based on the most currently available State academic assessment data under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or
(3) Serve a significant number or percentage of schools that are implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted support and improvement activities under section 1111(d) of the ESEA;
(b) One or more early childhood education programs serving low-income or otherwise disadvantaged children, which may include home-based literacy programs for pre-school-aged children, that have a demonstrated record of providing comprehensive literacy instruction for the age group such program proposes to serve; or
(c) An LEA, described in paragraph (a), or consortium of such LEAs, or an early childhood education program, which may include home-based literacy programs for preschool-aged children, acting in partnership with one or more public or private nonprofit organizations or agencies (which may include early childhood education programs) that have a demonstrated record of effectiveness in—
(1) Improving literacy achievement of children, consistent with the purposes of participation under the CLSD program, from birth through grade 12; and
(2) Providing professional development in comprehensive literacy instruction.
(a) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(b) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(c)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and
(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(d) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.
(a) Strong evidence from at least one-well designed and well-implemented experimental study;
(b) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or
(c) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.
(a)(i) An elementary school or middle school in which not less than 50 percent of the enrolled students are children from low-income families; or
(ii) A high school in which not less than 40 percent of the enrolled students are children from low-income families, which may be calculated using comparable data from the schools that feed into the high school.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this definition, the term “low-income family” means a family--
(i) In which the children are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
(ii) Receiving assistance under the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families established under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
(iii) In which the children are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396
(a) Are an integral part of school and LEA strategies for providing educators (including teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals, and, as applicable, early childhood educators) with the knowledge and skills necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded education and to meet the challenging State academic standards; and
(b) Are sustained (not stand-alone, one-day, or short-term workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused, and may include activities that—
(1) Improve and increase teachers'—
(i) Knowledge of the academic subjects the teachers teach;
(ii) Understanding of how students learn; and
(iii) Ability to analyze student work and achievement from multiple sources, including how to adjust instructional strategies, assessments, and materials based on such analysis;
(2) Are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide educational improvement plans;
(3) Allow personalized plans for each educator to address the educator's specific needs identified in observation or other feedback;
(4) Improve classroom management skills;
(5) Support the recruitment, hiring, and training of effective teachers, including teachers who became certified through State and local alternative routes to certification;
(6) Advance teacher understanding of—
(i) Effective instructional strategies that are evidence-based; and
(ii) Strategies for improving student academic achievement or substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;
(7) Are aligned with, and directly related to, academic goals of the school or LEA;
(8) Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, representatives of Indian tribes (as applicable), and administrators of schools to be served under this program;
(9) Are designed to give teachers of English learners, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and appropriate language and academic support services to those children, including the appropriate use of curricula and assessments;
(10) To the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers, principals, and other school and community-based early childhood program leaders in the use of technology (including education about the harms of copyright piracy), so that technology and technology applications are effectively used in the classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and academic subjects in which the teachers teach;
(11) As a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on teacher effectiveness and student academic achievement, with the findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development;
(12) Are designed to give teachers of children with disabilities or children with developmental delays, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and academic support services to those children, including positive behavioral interventions and supports, multi-tier system of supports, and use of accommodations;
(13) Include instruction in the use of data and assessments to inform classroom practice;
(14) Include instruction in ways that teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, and school administrators may work more effectively with parents and families;
(15) Involve the forming of partnerships with institutions of higher education, including, as applicable, Tribal Colleges and Universities as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), to establish school-based teacher, principal, and other school leader training programs that provide prospective teachers, novice teachers, principals, and other school leaders with an opportunity to work under the guidance of experienced teachers, principals, other school leaders, and faculty of such institutions;
(16) Create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting teachers employed by an LEA receiving assistance under part A of title I of the ESEA) to obtain the education necessary for those paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed teachers;
(17) Provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities described in this paragraph that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom; and
(18) Where practicable, provide jointly for school staff and other early childhood education program providers, to address the transition to elementary school, including issues related to school readiness.
(a) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, LEA, or other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school; and
(b) Responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary school building.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
2. a.
b.
3.
The grantee must award subgrants to entities it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee and consistent with sections 2222-2224 of the ESEA.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
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. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger 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 the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, resumes, bibliography, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project will use grant funds for evidence-based activities.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the project services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of project 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. In addition, the Secretary considers:
(1) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services; and
(2) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
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 (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
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 (APR) that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
(1) The percentage of participating four-year-old children who achieve significant gains in oral language skills, as determined by a State-approved measure.
(2) The percentage of participating fifth-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading/language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA.
(3) The percentage of participating eighth-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading/language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA.
(4) The percentage of participating high school students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading/language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA.
(5) The percentage of evidence-based activities implemented by subgrantees that meet the requirements of strong or moderate evidence in the definition of “evidence-based” in this notice.
All grantees will be expected to submit an APR that includes data addressing these performance measures to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project. Performance targets will be established by each grantee and must be made for each year of the five-year performance period.
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
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of receipt of an application for amendment (Application), filed on March 4, 2020, by Lake Charles Exports, LLC (LCE). LCE requests to amend its existing authorizations to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement countries set forth in DOE/FE Order Nos. 3324-A and 4011. Specifically, LCE seeks to amend the commencement of operations deadline in each order. LCE filed the Application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, April 20, 2020.
In each of the above-captioned dockets, DOE/FE has issued an order authorizing LCE to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Lake Charles Terminal, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to any country with which the United States has not entered into 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) for a 20-year term.
• In DOE/FE Order No. 3324-A (FE Docket No. 11-59-LNG), LCE is authorized to export LNG in a volume equivalent to 730 billion cubic per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas.
• In DOE/FE Order No. 4011 (FE Docket No. 16-110-LNG), LCE is authorized to export LNG in a volume equivalent to 121 Bcf/yr of natural gas.
In the Application, LCE seeks to amend the existing commencement of operations deadline in both orders as follows:
• In DOE/FE Order No. 3324-A, to extend the commencement deadline from July 29, 2023, to December 16, 2025; and
• In DOE/FE Order No. 4011, to extend the commencement deadline from June 29, 2024, to December 16, 2025.
In support of this Application, LCE states that, on December 5, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order granting LCE's request for an extension of time until December 16, 2025, to construct the Lake Charles Terminal liquefaction facilities (FERC Extension Order). LCE requests that DOE/FE amend Order Nos. 3324-A and 4011 so that LCE must commence export operations using the planned liquefaction facilities no later than December 16, 2025—to align with the FERC Extension Order. LCE also identifies the actions it has taken to date to proceed with the construction and operation of the Lake Charles Terminal liquefaction facilities. Additional details can be found in the Application, posted on the DOE/FE website at:
In reviewing LCE's Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the study entitled,
Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:
•
•
•
Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues and documents in their comments and protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Interested parties will be provided 15 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention. DOE/FE will disregard comments or protests that do not bear directly on the Application.
Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this Notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the
The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement 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. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of receipt of an application for amendment (Application), filed on March 4, 2020, by Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (Lake Charles LNG Export). Lake Charles LNG Export requests to amend its existing authorizations to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement countries set forth in DOE/FE Order Nos. 3868 and 4010. Specifically, Lake Charles LNG Export seeks to amend the commencement of operations deadline in each order. Lake Charles LNG Export filed the Application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, April 20, 2020.
In each of the above-captioned dockets, DOE/FE has issued an order authorizing Lake Charles LNG Export to export domestically produced LNG by vessel from the Lake Charles Terminal, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to any country with which the United States has not entered into 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) for a 20-year term.
• In DOE/FE Order No. 3868 (FE Docket No. 13-04-LNG), Lake Charles LNG Export is authorized to export LNG in a volume equivalent to 730 billion cubic per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas.
• In DOE/FE Order No. 4010 (FE Docket No. 16-109-LNG), Lake Charles LNG Export is authorized to export LNG in a volume equivalent to 121 Bcf/yr of natural gas.
In the Application, Lake Charles LNG Export seeks to amend the existing commencement of operations deadline in both orders as follows:
• In DOE/FE Order No. 3868, to extend the commencement deadline from July 29, 2023, to December 16, 2025; and
• In DOE/FE Order No. 4010, to extend the commencement deadline from June 29, 2024, to December 16, 2025.
In support of this Application, Lake Charles LNG Export states that, on December 5, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order granting Lake Charles LNG Export's request for an extension of time until December 16, 2025, to construct the Lake Charles Terminal liquefaction facilities (FERC Extension Order). Lake Charles LNG Export requests that DOE/FE amend Order Nos. 3868 and 4010 so that Lake Charles LNG Export must commence export operations using the planned liquefaction facilities no later than December 16, 2025—to align with the FERC Extension Order. Lake Charles LNG Export also identifies the actions it has taken to date to proceed with the construction and operation of the Lake Charles Terminal liquefaction facilities. Additional details can be found in the Application, posted on the DOE/FE website at:
In reviewing Lake Charles LNG Export's Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely
Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:
•
•
•
Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues and documents in their comments and protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Interested parties will be provided 15 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention. DOE/FE will disregard comments or protests that do not bear directly on the Application.
Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement 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. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability and public hearing.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE), announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS Pit Production EIS) (DOE/EIS-0541). NNSA is also announcing a 45-day public comment period and one public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS. NNSA prepared the Draft EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of producing a minimum of 50 war reserve pits per year at SRS and developing the ability to implement a short-term surge capacity to enable NNSA to meet the requirements of producing pits at a rate of not less than 80 war reserve pits per year beginning during 2030 for the nuclear weapons stockpile.
NNSA invites Federal and state agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the public to review and submit comments on the Draft SRS Pit Production EIS through May 18, 2020. NNSA is
In light of recent public health concerns, NNSA will be hosting an internet-based, virtual public hearing in place of an in-person meeting. The date of the hearing will be provided in a future notice posted on the following website:
Written and oral comments will be given equal weight and NNSA will consider all comments received or postmarked by the end of the comment period in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or postmarked after the comment period will be considered to the extent practicable. Written comments on the Draft EIS or requests for information related to the Draft EIS should be sent to Ms. Jennifer Nelson, NEPA Compliance Officer, National Nuclear Security Administration, Savannah River Field Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; or sent by email to
The Draft SRS Pit Production EIS is available on the internet at:
Information related to the online public hearing, including internet and telephone access details, and instructions on how to participate will be available at the following website:
For further information about this Notice, please contact Ms. Jennifer Nelson, NEPA Compliance Officer, National Nuclear Security Administration Savannah River Field Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; email:
National security policies require DOE, through NNSA, to maintain the United States' nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as the nation's core competencies in nuclear weapons. NNSA has the mission to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Plutonium pits are critical components of every nuclear weapon, with nearly all current stockpile pits having been produced from 1978-1989. Today, the United States' capability to produce plutonium pits is limited.
NNSA's pit production mission was emphasized as a national security imperative by the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, issued in February 2018 by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and subsequent congressional statements of the policy of the United States. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review announced that the United States will pursue initiatives to ensure the necessary capability, capacity, and responsiveness of the nuclear weapons infrastructure and the needed skill of the workforce, including providing the enduring capability and capacity to produce no fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review concludes that the United States must have sufficient research, design, development, and production capacity to support the sustainment of its nuclear forces. Additionally, in Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, Congress required NNSA to produce 80 plutonium pits per year beginning during 2030.
To that end, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the NNSA issued a Joint Statement on May 10, 2018, identifying their recommended alternative to meet the pit production requirement based on the completion of an Analysis of Alternatives, an Engineering Assessment, and a Workforce Analysis. To achieve the nation's requirement of producing no fewer than 80 pits per year beginning during 2030, NNSA has proposed to repurpose the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at SRS to produce plutonium pits while also relying upon pit production activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). This two-pronged approach—with a minimum of 50 pits per year produced at SRS and a minimum of 30 pits per year at LANL—is considered the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking. This approach improves the resiliency, flexibility, and redundancy of our Nuclear Security Enterprise by reducing reliance on a single production site.
The SRS Pit Production EIS is an important element of the overall NEPA strategy related to fulfilling national requirements for pit production, which NNSA announced on June 10, 2019 (84 FR 26849). In the Draft EIS, NNSA evaluates the potential impacts to the environment and human health from the following alternatives: (1) Proposed Action to repurpose MFFF into the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) to produce a minimum of 50 pits per year; and (2) No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action to construct and operate the SRPPF to produce a minimum of 50 pits per year includes, but is not limited to: Reconfiguration (including disassembly and removal of equipment and utility commodities) of the MFFF; installation of equipment necessary for activities associated with pit production before disassembly/metal preparation, pit assembly, machining, aqueous processing, foundry operations, material characterization, and analytical chemistry operations for certification); constructing and repurposing other facilities surrounding the SRPPF for support activities (
Following this public comment period, and after consideration of comments received, NNSA will prepare a Final SRS Pit Production EIS. NNSA will announce the availability of the Final EIS in the
Take notice that on March 27, 2020, the Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation submitted an Electric Refund Report in compliance with the Commission's July 31, 2019 letter order; pursuant to audit report finding(s) Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that on March 26, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act,
The Complainant certifies that copies of the amended and restated complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
On March 30, 2020, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL20-35-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2018), instituting an investigation into Energy Harbor LLC's proposed rejection in bankruptcy of certain contracts that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL20-35-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL20-35-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2019), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Kupreanof Microhydro Project, to be located on an unnamed stream in Petersburg Borough, Alaska, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project would occupy 0.651 acre of federal land in the Tongass National Forest, managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact John Matkowski at (202) 502-8576 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0144, by one of the following methods:
Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Christopher Green.
Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products. registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1and 2 of this unit.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II have not requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 180-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.
In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.
For voluntary product cancellations, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of the EPA Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
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).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation of asbestos. EPA is also submitting the same document to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer review and is announcing that there will be two virtual public meetings of the TSCA SACC, with participation by phone and webcast only, and no in-person gathering. The first virtual public meeting will be a preparatory meeting for the SACC to consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the peer review. This will be followed by the peer review virtual public meeting for the SACC to consider and review the draft risk evaluation. The purpose of conducting risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing and those interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to “determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) Integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
The statute requires that the risk evaluation process last no longer than three years, with a possible additional six-month extension. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G). The statute also requires that the EPA allow for no less than a 30-day public comment period on the draft risk evaluation, prior to publishing a final risk evaluation. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(H).
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation of the chemical substance identified in Unit II. EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of the draft risk evaluation, including any preliminary conclusions, findings, and determinations, and the submission of any additional information that might be relevant to the draft risk evaluation, including the science underlying the risk evaluation and the outcome of the systematic review associated with the chemical substance. This 60-day comment period on the draft risk evaluation satisfies TSCA section 6(b)(4)(H), which requires EPA to “provide no less than 30 days public notice and an opportunity for comment on a draft risk evaluation prior to publishing a final risk evaluation” and 40 CFR 702.49(a), which states that “EPA will publish a draft risk evaluation in the
EPA is also submitting the draft risk evaluation and associated supported documents to the TSCA SACC for peer review and announcing the meeting for the peer review panel. All comments submitted to the docket on the draft risk evaluation by the deadline identified in the
1.
2.
The risk evaluation process is the second step in EPA's existing chemical process under TSCA, following prioritization and before risk management. As this chemical is part of the first ten chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation, the chemical substance was not required to go through prioritization (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016) (FRL-9956-47). The purpose of conducting risk evaluations is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate both hazard and exposure, not consider costs or other nonrisk factors, use reasonably available information and approaches in a
The specific risk evaluation process that EPA has established by rule to implement the statutory process is set out in 40 CFR part 702 and summarized on EPA's website at
Although there are several known types of asbestos, the only form of asbestos known to be imported, processed, or distributed for use in the United States at the posting of this draft risk evaluation is chrysotile. Raw chrysotile asbestos currently imported into the U.S. is used exclusively by the chlor-alkali industry. Based on 2019 data, the total amount of raw asbestos imported into the U.S. was 750 metric tons. EPA has also identified the importation of asbestos-containing products; however, the import volumes of those products are not fully known. The asbestos-containing products that EPA has identified as being imported and used are sheet gaskets, brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets.
EPA evaluated the following categories of conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos in this draft risk evaluation: Manufacturing; processing; distribution in commerce; occupational and consumer uses; and disposal. EPA continues to review the recent court decision in
Information about the problem formulation and scope phases of the TSCA risk evaluation for this chemical is available at
The TSCA SACC was established by EPA in 2016 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2
The TSCA SACC is comprised of experts in: Toxicology; human health and environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related sciences (
EPA's background documents, related supporting materials, and draft charge questions to the TSCA SACC are available on the TSCA SACC website and in the docket established for the specific chemical substance. In addition, EPA will provide additional background documents (
After the public meeting, the TSCA SACC will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the EPA. The meeting minutes will be posted on the TSCA SACC website and in the relevant docket.
The focus of the public meetings is to peer review EPA's draft risk evaluation. After the peer review process, EPA will consider peer reviewer comments and recommendations and public comments, in finalizing the risk evaluation. The draft risk evaluation contains: Discussion of chemistry and physical-chemical properties; characterization of conditions of use; environmental fate and transport assessment; human health exposures; environmental hazard assessment; risk characterization; risk determination; and a detailed description of the systematic review process developed by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to search, screen, and evaluate scientific literature for use in the risk evaluation process.
You may participate in the public meetings by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify the corresponding docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB's All-Ages Lead Model (AALM) Panel to discuss its review of the EPA's All-Ages Lead Model (AALM) External Review Draft Version 2.0, comprising the model's software, technical documentation, and user manual (hereafter referred to collectively as AALM 2.0). The AALM 2.0 was developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The public teleconference will be held on April 23, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this notice may contact Iris Goodman, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564-2164 or email at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 2, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection 47 U.S.C. 154, 214, 254 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Commission is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for this revised information collection. On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the
In the CAF Phase II auction, service providers competed to receive support of up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high-cost areas. The information collection requirements reported under this collection are the result of several Commission decisions to implement the reform adopted in the
On January 30, 2018, the Commission adopted a public notice that established the final procedures for the CAF Phase II auction, including the long-form application disclosure and certification requirements for winning bidders seeking to become authorized to receive CAF Phase II auction support.
The Commission proposes to reduce the number of respondents that are subject to this collection now that the CAF Phase II auction winning bidders have been announced.
On February 7, 2020 the Commission released the
To implement the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction (or Auction 904), the Commission adopted new rules for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, including the adoption of a two-stage application process. Like with the CAF Phase II auction, this process includes a pre-auction short-form application to be submitted by parties interested in bidding in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction (FCC Form 183) and a post-auction long-form application that must be submitted by winning bidders (or their designees) seeking to become authorized to receive Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support (FCC Form 683). The Commission is seeking approval for the short-form application (FCC Form 183) in a separate collection under the OMB control number 3060-1252.
This proposed revision seeks approval of the disclosures and certifications adopted by the Commission that must be made by winning bidders seeking to become authorized for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support. The Commission plans to submit at a later date additional revisions or new collections for OMB review to address other reforms adopted in the above-referenced Order.
The Commission therefore proposes to revise this information collection to reflect these requirements to determine the recipients of Connect America Phase II auction and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction support.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), which will be held via conference call and available to the public via live internet feed.
Tuesday, May 5, 2020. The meeting will come to order at 9:30 a.m.
The Meeting will be held via conference call and open to the public on the internet via live feed from the FCC's web page at
Marilyn Jones, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the NANC, at
The NANC meeting is open to the public on the internet via live feed from the FCC's web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 2, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
The following items have been adopted by the Commission and deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Tuesday, March 31, 2020, Open Meeting. The items were previously listed in the Commission's Notice of Tuesday, March 24, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before May 4, 2020.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The purpose of this information collection is to continually streamline and simplify processes for wireless applicants and licensees, who previously used a myriad of forms for various wireless services and types of requests, in order to provide the Commission information that has been collected in separate databases, each for a different group of services. Such processes have resulted in unreliable reporting, duplicate filings for the same licensees/applicants, and higher cost burdens to licensees/applicants. By streamlining the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Commission eliminates the filing of duplicative applications for wireless carriers; increases the accuracy and reliability of licensing information; and enables all wireless applicants and licensees to file all licensing-related applications and other filings electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the application process. The ULS also benefits wireless applicants/licensees by reducing the cost of preparing applications, and speeds up the licensing process in that the Commission can introduce new entrants more quickly into this already competitive industry. Finally, ULS enhances the availability of licensing information to the public, which has access to all publicly available wireless licensing information online, including maps depicting a licensee's geographic service area.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
National Survey of Mortgage Originations—30-day Notice of Submission of Information Collection for Approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as the “National Survey of Mortgage Originations” (NSMO), which has been assigned control number 2590-0012 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on April 30, 2020.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-3047, Email:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
Saty Patrabansh, Manager, National Mortgage Database Program,
The NSMO is a recurring quarterly survey of individuals who have recently obtained a loan secured by a first mortgage on single-family residential property. The survey questionnaire is sent to a representative sample of approximately 6,000 recent mortgage borrowers each calendar quarter and consists of 96 multiple choice and short answer questions designed to obtain information about borrowers' experiences in choosing and in taking out a mortgage. The questionnaire may be completed either on paper (in English only) or electronically online (in either English or Spanish). FHFA is also seeking clearance to pretest future iterations of the survey questionnaire and related materials from time to time through the use of focus groups. A copy of the survey questionnaire sent out in the first quarter of 2020 appears at the end of this notice.
The NSMO is a component of the “National Mortgage Database” (NMDB) Program which is a joint effort of FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The NMDB Program is designed to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act.
As a means of fulfilling those and other statutory requirements, as well as to support policymaking and research regarding the residential mortgage markets, FHFA and CFPB jointly established the NMDB Program in 2012. The Program is designed to provide comprehensive information about the U.S. mortgage market and has three primary components: (1) The NMDB; (2) the NSMO; and (3) the American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers (ASMB).
The NMDB is a de-identified loan-level database of closed-end first-lien residential mortgage loans that is representative of the market as a whole, contains detailed loan-level information on the terms and performance of the mortgages and the characteristics of the associated borrowers and properties, is continually updated, has an historical component dating back to 1998, and provides a sampling frame for surveys to collect additional information. The core data in the NMDB are drawn from a random 1-in-20 sample of all closed-end first-lien mortgage files outstanding at any time between January 1998 and the present in the files of Experian, one of the three national credit repositories. A random 1-in-20 sample of mortgages newly reported to Experian is added each quarter.
The NMDB draws additional information on mortgages in the NMDB datasets from other existing sources, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data that are maintained by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), property valuation models, and data files maintained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by federal agencies. FHFA also obtains data from the ASMB, which solicits information on borrowers' experience with maintaining their existing mortgages, including their experience maintaining mortgages under financial stress, their experience in soliciting financial assistance, their success in accessing federally-sponsored programs designed to assist them, and, where applicable, any challenges they may have had in terminating a mortgage loan.
While the ASMB focuses on borrowers' experience with maintaining existing mortgages, the NSMO solicits information on newly-originated mortgages and the borrowers' experiences with the mortgage origination process. It was developed to complement the NMDB by providing critical and timely information—not available from existing sources—on the range of nontraditional and subprime mortgage products being offered, the methods by which these mortgages are being marketed, and the characteristics of borrowers for these types of loans. In particular, the survey questionnaire is designed to elicit directly from mortgage borrowers information on the characteristics of the borrowers and on their experiences in finding and obtaining a mortgage loan, including: Their mortgage shopping behavior; their mortgage closing experiences; their expectations regarding house price appreciation; and critical financial and other life events affecting their households, such as unemployment, large medical expenses, or divorce. The survey questions do not focus on the terms of the borrowers' mortgage loans because these fields are available in the Experian data. However, the NSMO collects a limited amount of information on each respondent's mortgage to verify that the Experian records and survey responses pertain to the same mortgage.
Each wave of the NSMO is sent to the primary borrowers on about 6,000 mortgage loans, which are drawn from a simple random sample of the 80,000 to 100,000 newly originated mortgage loans that are added to the National Mortgage Database from the Experian files each quarter (at present, this represents an approximately 1-in-15 sample of loans added to the National Mortgage Database and an approximately 1-in-300 sample of all mortgage loan originations). By contract with FHFA, the conduct of the NSMO is administered through Experian, which has subcontracted the survey administration through a competitive process to Westat, a nationally-recognized survey vendor.
FHFA views the NMDB Program as a whole, including the NSMO, as the monthly “survey” that is required by
FHFA is also seeking OMB approval to continue to conduct cognitive pre-testing of the survey materials. The Agency uses information collected through that process to assist in drafting and modifying the survey questions and instructions, as well as the related communications, to read in the way that will be most readily understood by the survey respondents and that will be most likely to elicit usable responses. Such information is also used to help the Agency decide on how best to organize and format the survey questionnaires.
The OMB control number for this information collection is 2590-0012. The current clearance for the information collection expires on April 30, 2020.
FHFA has analyzed the hour burden on members of the public associated with: (1) Conducting the survey (12,000 hours); and (2) pre-testing the survey materials (30 hours) and estimates the total annual hour burden imposed on the public by this information collection to be 12,030 hours. The estimate for each phase of the collection was calculated as follows:
FHFA estimates that the NSMO questionnaire will be sent to 24,000 recipients annually (6,000 recipients per quarterly survey × 4 calendar quarters). Although, based on historical experience, the Agency expects that only 20 to 30 percent of those surveys will be returned, it has assumed that all of the surveys will be returned for purposes of this burden calculation. Based on the reported experience of respondents to prior NSMO questionnaires, FHFA estimates that it will take each respondent 30 minutes to complete the survey, including the gathering of necessary materials to respond to the questions. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 12,000 hours for the survey phase of this collection (24,000 respondents × 30 minutes per respondent-12,000 hours annually).
FHFA estimates that it will pre-test the survey materials with 30 cognitive testing participants annually. The estimated participation time for each participant is one hour, resulting in a total annual burden estimate of 30 hours for the pre-testing phase of the collection (30 participants × 1 hour per participant = 30 hours annually).
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published an initial notice and request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) The accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 20, 2020.
1.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on an extension of an existing information collection titled “ATSDR Communication Activities Survey (ACAS)” which will continue to be used to assess the effectiveness of ATSDR site team members as they engage and inform members of communities in providing effective, clear, and consistent communication and information about protecting communities from environmental hazards.
ATSDR must receive written comments on or before
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2020-0001 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. 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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
ATSDR Communication Activities Survey (ACAS) (OMB Control No. 0923-0055, Exp. 6/30/2020)—Extension—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) serves the public through responsive public health actions to promote healthy and safe environments and to prevent harmful exposures. The agency aims to work effectively with communities in proximity to hazardous waste sites by listening to and understanding their health concerns and seeking their
Community members are key participants in the agency's public health assessment process and should be actively involved in decisions that impact their community. Thus, agency's goals for this extension information collection request (ICR) titled the “ATSDR Communication Activities Survey (ACAS)” (OMB Control No. 0923-0055, expiration date 06/30/2020) are to continue to ascertain the effectiveness of, and to assess the differences and the consistency of, the delivery of ATSDR activities and respondent perceptions across sites and over time. ATSDR will use the ACAS to: (1) Determine how effectively it's site teams engage community members; (2) discover how well ATSDR provides effective, clear, and consistent communication and information on how to promote healthy and safe environments; (3) understand whether the agency's activities are helping the communities address environmental issues; and (4) improve ATSDR's activities to make a greater impact within the communities served. During 2018, ATSDR implemented the ATSDR Community Activities Survey (ACAS) to evaluate its risk communication efforts. One hundred and twenty-five surveys were collected from seven sites (62% paper/38% online).
Over the next three years, recruitment will continue to occur at communities where ATSDR and state or local agencies have implemented site activities to address environmental issues. For each engaged community, the ACAS will be used to assess a set of effectiveness indicators for ATSDR site-specific activities about the respondents' involvement, knowledge, satisfaction, observations, and opinions about ATSDR's community engagement and educational outreach efforts to inform communities. The indicators will measure ATSDR effectiveness in the following respondent areas: (1) Their involvement with the site activities; (2) how they received, and prefer to receive, ATSDR information; (3) their knowledge and understanding of ATSDR site activities and how to reduce hazardous exposures; (4) their observations and opinions of ATSDR's role in community preparedness; (5) their self-evaluation on their risk of exposure to possible environmental hazards; (6) their demographic profile; (7) their environmental concerns; and (8) any additional feedback.
ATSDR is seeking a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act clearance for this extension ICR. ATSDR anticipates that approximately six to seven sites will be engaged for feedback per year (or about 20 sites over the next three years). Each year, ATSDR will recruit approximately 167 individuals per year, aged 18 and older, to participate in the ACAS where ATSDR is holding public community meetings. Therefore, respondents will include approximately 24 to 28 community members and agency stakeholders per meeting (six to seven meetings per year). The community members may include, but are not limited to, the general public, community leaders, faith-based leaders, and business leaders. The agency stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, state and local environmental health department employees, such as environmental health assessors, toxicologists, and departmental officials. The mix of respondents will be approximately 75% community members (n=125 per year) and 25% agency stakeholders (n=42 per year).
Trained ATSDR contractors will have a table set up at the entrance of the community meeting where community meeting attendees will pick up a fact sheet which explains what ATSDR does, and the purpose of ATSDR's site activities and the survey. At the end of ATSDR public community meetings, there will be an announcement to ask interested attendees to take the survey. All interested attendees will sign in and provide their contact information, their preferred mode for taking the survey (in-person, online or over the phone), and whether they are a community member or an agency stakeholder. The ACAS will preferably be self-administered right after the public community meetings. If this is not a convenient time for the respondent, the ACAS may be completed online or by phone. We estimate that approximately 80% of respondents will choose the self-administered ACAS, 15% will choose the online ACAS, and 5% will choose the telephone ACAS.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. There are no changes to the estimated number of respondents, and the total annual time burden requested remains at 49 hours per year.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Developmental Studies to Improve the National Health Care Surveys (OMB Control No. 0920-1030, Exp. 04/30/2020), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on January 23, 2020 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Developmental Studies to Improve the National Health Care Surveys (OMB Control No. 0920-1030, Exp. 04/30/2020)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through the Division of Health Care Statistics (DHCS) within NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.
The DHCS conducts the National Health Care Surveys, a family of nationally representative surveys of encounters and health care providers in inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care settings. This information collection request (ICR) is for the extension of a generic clearance to conduct developmental studies to improve this family of surveys. This three-year clearance period will include studies to evaluate and improve upon existing survey design and operations, as well as to examine the feasibility of, and address challenges that may arise with, future expansions of the National Health Care Surveys.
Specifically, this request covers developmental research with the following aims: (1) To explore ways to refine and improve upon existing survey designs and procedures; and (2) to explore and evaluate proposed survey designs and alternative approaches to data collection. The goal of these research studies is to further enhance DHCS existing and future data collection protocols to increase research capacity and improve health care data quality for the purpose of monitoring public health and well-being at the national, state and local levels, thereby informing the health policy decision-making process. The information collected through this generic ICR will not be used to make generalizable statements about the population of interest or to inform public policy; however, methodological findings may be reported.
This generic ICR would include studies conducted in person, via the telephone or internet, and by postal or electronic mail. Methods covered would include qualitative (
To explore and evaluate proposed survey designs and alternative approaches to collecting data, especially with the nationwide adoption of electronic health records, studies may expand the evaluation of data extraction of electronic health records and submission via continuity of care documentation to small/mid-size/large medical providers and hospital networks, managed care health plans, prison-hospitals, and other inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings that are currently either in-scope or out-of-scope of the National Health Care Surveys. Research on feasibility, data quality and respondent burden also may be carried out in the context of developing new surveys of health care providers and establishments that are currently out-of-scope of the National Health Care Surveys.
Specific motivations for conducting developmental studies include: (1) Within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), new clinical groups may be expanded to include dentists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, optometrists), mid-level providers (
Projects under development or in the planning stages include two projects related to opioid use: One that will investigate adding questions to NAMCS on physician understanding of guidelines for opioid use and one that will test the validation of an algorithm for identifying opioid-involved hospital visits. Another study will develop a Hospital-Based Victim Services Frame.
The National Health Care Surveys collect critical, accurate data that are used to produce reliable national estimates—and in recent years (when budget allows), state-level estimates—of clinical services and of the providers who delivered those services in inpatient, outpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care settings. The data from these surveys are used by providers, policy makers and researchers to address important topics of interest, including the quality and disparities of care among populations, epidemiology of medical conditions, diffusion of technologies, effects of policies and practice guidelines, and changes in health care over time. Research studies need to be conducted to improve existing and proposed survey design and procedures of the National Health Care Surveys, as well as to evaluate alternative data collection approaches particularly due to the expansion of electronic health record use, and to develop new sample frames of currently out-of-scope providers and settings of care. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate. Average burdens are designed to cover 15-40 min interviews as well as 90-minute focus groups, longer on-site visits, and situations where organizations may be preparing electronic data files. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 7,085.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins (42 CFR part 73). This information collection intends to support the Public Health Safety and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and ensure select agents or toxins are managed appropriately to prevent any threats to human health or safety. Data will be used to fulfill the requirements promulgated by HHS under this part and also subject to corresponding regulations promulgated by USDA.
CDC must receive written comments on or before June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-20-0034 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. 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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins (OMB Control No. 0920-0576)—Revision—Center for Preparedness and Response (CPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Subtitle A of the
CDC is requesting OMB approval to continue to collect information under the select agent regulations through the use of five forms: (1) Application for Registration for Possession. Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins (APHIS/CDC Form 1); (2) Request to Transfer Select Agents or Toxins (APHIS/CDC Form 2); (3) Incident Notification and Reporting (Theft, Loss, or Release) (APHIS/CDC Form 3); (4) Reporting the Identification of a Select Agent or Toxin (APHIS/CDC Form 4); and (5) Request for Exemption of Select Agents and Toxins for an Investigational Product (APHIS/CDC Form 5).
An entity may amend its registration (42 CFR 73.7(h)(1)) if any changes occur to the information previously submitted to CDC. When applying for an amendment to a certificate of registration, an entity would complete the relevant portion of the application package (APHIS/CDC Form 1).
Besides the forms listed above, there is no standard form for the following information:
1. An individual or entity may request an exclusion from the requirements of the select agent regulations of an attenuated strain of a select agent or a select toxin modified to be less potent or toxic. (42 CFR 73.3(e) and 73.4(e)).
2. Annual inspections that are conducted by the entity must be documented. (42 CFR 73.9(a)(6)).
3. An individual's security risk assessment may be expedited upon written request by a Responsible Official and a showing of good cause. (42 CFR 73.10(f)).
4. An individual or entity may request approval to perform a “restricted experiment” (42 CFR 73.13).
5. An individual or entity must develop and implement a written security plan, biosafety plan, and incident response plan (42 CFR 73.11(a), 42 CFR 73.12(a), and 42 CFR 73.14(a)).
6. The Responsible Official at the must ensure a record of the training for each individual with access to select agents and toxins and each escorted individual is maintained (42 CFR 73.15(d)).
7. An individual or entity may appeal a denial, revocation, or suspension of registration. (42 CFR 73.20(a)).
8. An individual may appeal a denial, limitation, or revocation of access approval. (42 CFR 73.20(b)).
The total estimated annualized burden for all data collection was calculated using the 2018 Annual Report of the Federal Select Agent Program available at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 4, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers (OMB No. 0920-0995, Expiration 05/31/2020)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of STD Prevention requests an extension and three-year approval of the currently approved information collection request that comprises the NNPTC Abbreviated Health Professional Application for Training (NNPTC Abbreviated HPAT). This extension will allow the NNPTC Abbreviated HPAT to continue to serve as the official training application form used for training activities conducted by the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention Training Centers' (PTCs) grantees funded by the (CDC). The PTCs are funded by CDC/Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP) to provide training and capacity-building that includes information, training, technical assistance and technology transfer.
The PTCs offer classroom and experiential training, web-based training, clinical consultation, and capacity building assistance to maintain and enhance the capacity of health care professionals to control and prevent STDs and HIV. The NNPTC Abbreviated HPAT is used to monitor and evaluate performance and reach of grantees that offer STD and HIV prevention training, training assistance, and capacity building assistance to physicians, nurses, disease intervention specialists, health educators, etc. During the previously approved three-year period, data was collected to monitor and evaluate the performance of the NNTPC grantees and the NNPTC program. This data provided the NNPTC with
The 4,500 respondents (who will engage in a total of 11,769 respondent instances) represent an average of the number of health professionals trained by PTC grantees during 2015. The evaluation instruments collect data on the impact of the training by the NNPTC. This data collection is necessary to assess and evaluate the performance of the grantees in delivering training, and to standardize training registration processes across the PTCs. The NNPTC Abbreviated HPAT allows CDC grantees to use a single instrument when collecting demographic data from its training and capacity building participants, regarding their: (1) Occupations, professions, and functional roles; (2) principal employment settings; (3) location of their work settings; and (4) programmatic and population foci of their work. The NNPTC Abbreviated HPAT takes approximately three minutes to complete. This data collection provides CDC with information to determine whether the training grantees are reaching their target audiences in terms of provider type, the types of organizations in which participants work, the focus of their work and the population groups and geographic areas served.
The evaluation instruments are used to assess training and capacity-building outcomes (knowledge, confidence, intention to use information, actual changes made as a result of training) immediately after and again 90 days after training events. The evaluation instruments vary based on the type of training offered and take between approximately 16 minutes to complete (for intensive multi-day trainings) to two minutes to complete (for short didactic or webinar sessions).
The CDC's Funding Opportunity Announcement PS 14-1407, National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers (NNPTC) requires the collection of national demographic information on grantees' trainees and national evaluation outcomes. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection are 502 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 4, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under § 630.3(h) (21 CFR 630.3(h)), a list is set forth of relevant transfusion-transmitted infections (RTTIs) (§ 630.3(h)(1)) and the conditions under which a transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI) would meet the definition of an RTTI (§ 630.3(h)(2)). The list of RTTIs under § 630.3(h)(1) includes, among other things, the following:
The Chagas, babesiosis, Zika virus, West Nile virus, and HTLV guidance documents provide recommendations for consignee and physician notification relating to donors that tested reactive for these infections.
In addition, a blood establishment may receive information from a donor following collection that reveals the donor had a risk factor for an RTTI or TTI at the time of collection and should have been deferred for the risk factor. FDA has recommended, in the following guidance documents, that such a blood collection establishment notify the consignee regarding the distributed blood components that are potentially at-risk for an RTTI or TTI. In some cases, we recommend that if the blood was transfused, the consignee notify the transfusion recipient's physician of record regarding the potential risk. This recommendation is included in Ebola virus, malaria, CJD and vCJD, and HIV guidance documents. These guidance documents are available from our website at
In the
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. These guidance documents, as applicable, also refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 601 and 640, and Form FDA 356h have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 606 and 630 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; the collections of information in 21 CFR 606.171 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0458.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 4, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Form FDA 3975 entitled “Certification of Identity,” which is used by FDA to identify an individual requesting a particular record under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. The form is available from our website at:
The FOIA grants the public a right to access Federal records not normally prepared for public distribution. The Privacy Act grants a right of access to members of the public who seek access to one's own records that are maintained in an Agency's system of records (
In the
Based on Agency data, we have received no more than 50 submissions since establishing the collection in 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 4, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA may issue and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases between the States or possessions or from foreign countries into the States. As derivatives of the human body, all human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) pose some risk of carrying pathogens that could potentially infect recipients or handlers. FDA has issued regulations related to HCT/Ps involving electronic establishment registration and listing using an electronic system, eligibility determination for donors, and current good tissue practice (CGTP).
The regulations in part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271) require domestic and foreign establishments that recover, process, store, label, package, or distribute an HCT/P regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and described in § 1271.10(a) (21 CFR 1271.10(a)), or that perform screening or testing of the cell or tissue donor, to register electronically with FDA (§§ 1271.1(a) (21 CFR 1271.1(a)) and 1271.10(b)(1)) and submit a list electronically of each HCT/P manufactured (§§ 1271.1(a) and 1271.10(b)(2)). Section 1271.21(a) (21 CFR 1271.21(a)) requires an establishment to follow certain procedures for initial registration and listing of HCT/Ps, and § 1271.25(a) and (b) (21 CFR 1271.25(a) and (b)) identify the required initial registration and HCT/P listing information. Section 1271.21(b), in brief, requires an annual update of the establishment registration.
In brief, FDA requires certain HCT/P establishments described in § 1271.1(b) to determine donor eligibility based on donor screening and testing for relevant communicable disease agents and diseases except as provided under 21 CFR 1271.90. The documented determination of a donor's eligibility is made by a responsible person as defined in § 1271.3(t) (21 CFR 1271.3(t)) and is based on the results of required donor screening, which includes a donor medical history interview (defined in § 1271.3(n)), and testing (§ 1271.50(a) (21 CFR 1271.50(a)). Certain records must accompany an HCT/P once the donor-eligibility determination has been made (§ 1271.55(a) (21 CFR 1271.55(a))). This requirement applies both to an HCT/P from a donor who is determined to be eligible as well as to an HCT/P from a donor who is determined to be ineligible or where the donor-eligibility determination is not complete if there is a documented urgent medical need, as defined in § 1271.3(u) (§§ 1271.60 and 1271.65 (21 CFR 1271.60 and 1271.65)). Once the donor-eligibility determination has been made, the HCT/P must be accompanied by a summary of records used to make the donor-eligibility determination (§ 1271.55(b)), and a statement whether, based on the results of the screening and testing of the donor, the donor is determined to be eligible or ineligible (§ 1271.55(a)(2)). Records used in determining the eligibility of a donor,
When a product is shipped in quarantine, as defined in § 1271.3(q), before completion of screening and testing, the HCT/P must be accompanied by records identifying the donor (
An HCT/P establishment is also required to establish and maintain procedures for all steps that are performed in determining eligibility (§ 1271.47(a) (21 CFR 1271.47(a)), including the use of a product from a donor of viable, leukocyte-rich cells or tissue testing reactive for cytomegalovirus (§ 1271.85(b)(2) (21 CFR 1271.85(b)(2))). The HCT/P establishment must record and justify any departure from a procedure relevant to preventing risks of communicable disease transmission at the time of its occurrence (§ 1271.47(d)).
FDA requires HCT/P establishments that manufacture HCT/Ps that are regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act to follow CGTP (§ 1271.1(b)). Section 1271.155(a) (21 CFR 1271.155(a)) permits the submission of a request for FDA approval of an exemption from or an alternative to any requirement in subpart C or D of part 1271. Section 1271.290(c) (21 CFR 1271.290(c)) requires establishments to affix a distinct identification code to each HCT/P that they manufacture that relates the HCT/P to the donor and to all records pertaining to the HCT/P. Whenever an establishment distributes an HCT/P to a consignee, § 1271.290(f) requires the establishment to inform the consignee, in writing, of the product tracking requirements and the methods the establishment uses to fulfill these requirements. Non-reproductive HCT/P establishments described in § 1271.10 are required under § 1271.350(a)(1) and (3) (21 CFR 1271.350(a)(1) and (3)) to investigate and report to FDA adverse reactions (defined in § 1271.3(y)) using Form FDA-3500A (§ 1271.350(a)(2)). Form FDA-3500A is approved under OMB control number 0910-0291. Section 1271.370(b) and (c) (21 CFR 1271.370(b) and (c)) requires establishments to include specific information either on the HCT/P label or with the HCT/P.
The standard operating procedures (SOPs) provisions under part 1271 include the following: (1) Section 1271.160(b)(2) (21 CFR 1271.160(b)(2)) (receiving, investigating, evaluating, and documenting information relating to core CGTP requirements, including complaints, and for sharing information with consignees and other establishments); (2) § 1271.180(a) (21 CFR 1271.180(a)) (to meet core CGTP requirements for all steps performed in the manufacture of HCT/Ps); (3) § 1271.190(d)(1) (21 CFR 1271.190(d)(1)) (facility cleaning and sanitization); (4) § 1271.200(b) (21 CFR 1271.200(b)) (cleaning, sanitizing, and maintenance of equipment); (5) § 1271.200(c) (calibration of equipment); (6) § 1271.230(a) and (c) (21 CFR 1271.230(a) and (c)) (validation of a process and review and evaluation of changes to a validated process); (7) § 1271.250(a) (21 CFR 1271.250(a)) (controls for labeling HCT/Ps); (8) § 1271.265(e) (21 CFR 1271.265(e)) (receipt, predistribution shipment, availability for distribution, and packaging and shipping of HCT/Ps); (9) § 1271.265(f) (suitable for return to
Section 1271.155(f) requires an establishment operating under the terms of an exemption or alternative to maintain documentation of FDA's grant of the exemption or approval and the date on which it began operating under the terms of the exemption or alternative. Section 1271.160(b)(3) requires the quality program of an establishment that performs any step in the manufacture of HCT/Ps to document corrective actions relating to core CGTP requirements. Section 1271.160(b)(6) requires documentation of HCT/P deviations. Section 1271.160(d) requires, in brief, documentation of validation of computer software if the establishment relies upon it to comply with core CGTP requirements. Section 1271.190(d)(2) requires documentation of all cleaning and sanitation activities performed to prevent contamination of HCT/Ps. Section 1271.195(d) requires documentation of environmental control and monitoring activities. Section 1271.200(e) requires documentation of all equipment maintenance, cleaning, sanitizing, calibration, and other activities. Section 1271.210(d) (21 CFR 1271.210(d)) requires, in brief, documentation of the receipt, verification, and use of each supply or reagent. Section 1271.230(a) requires documentation of validation activities and results when the results of processing described in 21 CFR 1271.220 cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and tests. Section 1271.230(c) requires that when changes to a validated process subject to § 1271.230(a) occur, documentation of the review and evaluation of the process and revalidation, if necessary, must occur. Section 1271.260(d) and (e) (21 CFR 1271.260(d) and (e)) requires documentation of any corrective action taken when proper storage conditions are not met and documentation of the storage temperature for HCT/Ps. Section 1271.265(c)(1) requires documentation that all release criteria have been met before distribution of an HCT/P. Section 1271.265(c)(3) requires documentation of any departure from a procedure relevant to preventing risks of communicable disease transmission at the time of occurrence. Section 1271.265(e) requires documentation of the activities in paragraphs (a) through (d) of that section, which must include identification of the HCT/P and the establishment that supplied the HCT/P, activities performed and the results of each activity, date(s) of activity, quantity of HCT/P subject to the activity, and disposition of the HCT/P. Section 1271.270(a) requires documentation of each step in manufacturing required in part 1271, subparts C and D. Section 1271.270(e) requires documentation of the name and address, and a list of responsibilities of any establishment that performs a manufacturing step for the establishment. Section 1271.290(d) and (e) require documentation of a method for recording the distinct identification code and type of each HCT/P distributed to a consignee to enable tracking from the consignee to the donor and to enable tracking from the donor to the consignee or final disposition. Section 1271.320(b) requires an establishment to maintain a record of each complaint that it receives. The complaint file must contain sufficient information about each complaint for proper review and evaluation of the complaint and for determining whether the complaint is an isolated event or represents a trend.
Section 1271.420(a) (21 CFR 1271.420(a)) requires importers of HCT/Ps to notify the FDA District Director having jurisdiction over the port of entry through which the HCT/Ps are offered for import. The HCT/Ps must be held intact or transported under quarantine until they are inspected and released by FDA.
Respondents to this information collection are establishments that recover, process, store, label, package, or distribute any HCT/P that is regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act or perform donor screening or testing. The estimates provided below are based on most recent available information from FDA's database system and trade organizations. The hours per response and hours per record are based on data provided by the Eastern Research Group, or FDA experience with similar recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
There are an estimated 2,736 HCT/P establishments (conventional tissue, eye tissue, peripheral blood stem cell, stem cell products from cord blood, reproductive tissue, and sperm banks), including 1,004 manufacturers of HCT/Ps regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C 262), that have registered and listed with FDA. In addition, we estimate that 193 new establishments have registered with FDA (§§ 1271.10(b)(1) and (2) and 1271.25(a) and (b)). There are an estimated 1,062 listing updates (§§ 1271.10(b)(2), 1271.21(c)(ii), and 1271.25(c)) and 358 location/ownership amendments (§ 1271.26).
Under § 1271.23, FDA estimates an average of one waiver request annually.
Under § 1271.55(a), an estimated total of 2,594,415 HCT/Ps (which include conventional tissues, eye tissues, hematopoietic stem cells/progenitor cells, and reproductive cells and tissues), and an estimated total of 2,454,415 non-reproductive cells and tissues (total HCT/Ps minus reproductive cells and tissues) are distributed per year by an estimated 1,632 establishments (2,736 − 1,104 = 1,632).
Under § 1271.60(c) and (d)(2), FDA estimates that 1,611 establishments shipped an estimated 572,000 HCT/P under quarantine, and that an estimated 15 establishments requested 64 exemptions from or alternative to any requirement under part 1271, subpart C or D, specifically under § 1271.155(a).
Under §§ 1271.290(c) and 1271.370(b) and (c), the estimated 2,109 non-reproductive HCT/P establishments label each of their 2,441,644 HCT/Ps with certain information. These establishments are also required to inform their consignees in writing of the requirements for tracking and of their established tracking system under § 1271.290(f).
FDA estimates 13 HCT/P establishments submitted 188 adverse reaction reports with 162 involving a communicable disease (§ 1271.350(a)(1)).
FDA estimates that 193 new establishments will create SOPs, and that 2,736 establishments will review and revise existing SOPs annually.
FDA estimates that 1,368 HCT/P establishments (2,736 × 50 percent = 1,368) and 1,055 non-reproductive HCT/P establishments (2,109 × 50 percent = 1,055) record and justify a departure from the procedures (§§ 1271.47(d) and 1271.265(c)(3)).
Under § 1271.50(a), HCT/P establishments are required to have a documented medical history interview about the donor's medical history and relevant social behavior as part of the donor's relevant medical records for each of the estimated total of 109,019 donors (which include conventional tissue donors, eye tissue donors, peripheral and cord blood stem cell donors, and reproductive cell and tissue donors), and the estimated total of 103,419 non-reproductive cells and tissue donors (total donors minus reproductive cell and tissue donors).
FDA estimates that 821 HCT/P establishments (2,736 × 30 percent =
FDA also estimates that 2,189 HCT/P establishments (2,736 × 80 percent = 2,189) have to maintain records for an average of 2 contract establishments to perform their manufacturing process (§ 1271.270(e) and 1,687 HCT/P establishments (2,109 × 80 percent = 1,687) maintain an average of 5 complaint records annually (§ 1271.320(b)).
FDA estimates that under § 1271.420(a), 200 establishments will submit 560 reports of HCT/Ps offered for imports.
In the
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 628,585 hours (111 reporting burden hours; 305,118 recordkeeping hours; and 323,356 disclosure burden hours) and a corresponding increase of annual responses, annual records, and annual disclosures. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of HCT/P establishments and an increase in the number of HCT/Ps distributed over the past few years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 2, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address the following: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Respondents to this collection of information cover a broad range of stakeholders who have specific characteristics related to certain products or services regulated by FDA. These stakeholders include members of the general public, healthcare professionals, the industry, and other stakeholders who are related to a product under FDA's jurisdiction.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information May 4, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection request supports Agency guidance entitled “Special Protocol Assessment” (Revision 1) (83 FR 16367, April 16, 2018), which describes procedures FDA uses to evaluate issues related to the adequacy (
As described in the guidance, a sponsor interested in an FDA assessment of a carcinogenicity protocol should notify the appropriate division in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of an intent to request special protocol assessment at least 30 days prior to submitting the request. With such notification, the sponsor should submit relevant background information so that FDA may review reference material related to carcinogenicity protocol design before receiving the carcinogenicity protocol.
The guidance asks that a request for special protocol assessment be submitted as an amendment to the investigational new drug application (IND) for the underlying product and that it be submitted to FDA in triplicate with Form FDA 1571 (
FDA suggests that the cover letter to the request for special protocol assessment be submitted via Fax to the appropriate division in CDER or CBER to enable FDA staff to prepare for the arrival of the protocol for assessment. FDA recommends that a request for special protocol assessment be submitted as an amendment to an IND for two reasons: (1) To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire IND and (2) to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in FDA's tracking databases enables the appropriate Agency official to monitor progress on the evaluation of the protocol and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.
The guidance recommends that the following information should be submitted to the appropriate Center with each request for special protocol assessment so that the Center may quickly and efficiently respond to the request:
• Questions to FDA concerning specific issues regarding the protocol.
• All data, assumptions, and information needed to permit an adequate evaluation of the protocol, including: (1) The role of the study in the overall development of the drug; (2) information supporting the proposed trial, including power calculations, the choice of study endpoints, and other critical design features; (3) regulatory outcomes that could be supported by the results of the study; (4) final labeling that could be supported by the results of the study; and (5) for a stability protocol, product characterization and relevant manufacturing data.
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on our experience with these submissions, we estimate approximately 15 hours on average would be needed per response. The information collection reflects an adjustment in burden by 608 hours. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions we received over the last few years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments; postponement.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the public meeting entitled “Medical Device User Fee Amendments for Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027; Public Meeting; Request for Comments” that appeared in the
The public meeting will take place remotely on May 5, 2020, beginning at 9 a.m. EST. Submit either electronic or written comments on the medical device user fee program and suggestions regarding the commitments FDA should propose for the next reauthorized program by June 5, 2020.
Ellen Olson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 1664, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4322,
The public meeting entitled “Medical Device User Fee Amendments for Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027; Public Meeting; Request for Comments” announced in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 2, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (the FPLA) require that cosmetic manufacturers, packers, and distributors disclose information about themselves or their products on the labels or labeling of their products. Sections 201, 301, 502, 601, 602, 603, 701, and 704 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 361, 362, 363, 371, and 374) and sections 4 and 5 of the FPLA (15 U.S.C. 1453 and 1454) provide authority to FDA to regulate the labeling of cosmetic products. Failure to comply with the requirements for cosmetic labeling may render a cosmetic adulterated under section 601 of the FD&C Act or misbranded under section 602 of the FD&C Act.
FDA's cosmetic labeling regulations are codified in part 701 (21 CFR part 701). Section 701.3 requires the label of a cosmetic product to bear a declaration of the ingredients in descending order of predominance. Section 701.11 requires the principal display panel of a cosmetic product to bear a statement of the identity of the product. Section 701.12 requires the label of a cosmetic product to specify the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor. Section 701.13 requires the label of a cosmetic product to declare the net quantity of contents of the product. The information collection provisions found in part 701 are currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0027. To improve the efficiency of Agency operations, we are consolidating these information collection elements into OMB control number 0910-0599.
Information collection associated with our VCRP are found in parts 710 and 720 (21 CFR parts 710 and 720). Participants have the option of submitting information via paper forms or via an online interface. The use of the term “form” refers to both the paper form and the online system.
Pursuant to part 710, we request that establishments that manufacture or package cosmetic products voluntarily register with us using Form FDA 2511 entitled “Registration of Cosmetic Product Establishment.” The online version of Form FDA 2511 is available on our VCRP website at
Because registration of cosmetic product establishments is not mandatory, voluntary registration provides FDA with the best information available about the locations, business trade names, and types of activity (manufacturing or packaging) of cosmetic product establishments. We store the registration information in a computer database and use the information to generate mailing lists for distributing regulatory information and for inviting firms to participate in workshops on topics in which they may be interested. Registration is permanent, although we request that respondents submit an amended Form FDA 2511 if any of the originally submitted information changes.
Pursuant to part 720, we request firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics to file with the Agency an ingredient statement for each of their products. Filing of cosmetic product ingredient statements is also voluntary. Ingredient statements for new submissions are reported on Form FDA 2512, “Cosmetic Product Ingredient Statement,” and on Form FDA 2512a, a continuation form. Amendments to product formulations also are reported on Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a. When a firm discontinues the commercial distribution of a cosmetic, we request that the firm notify FDA that they have discontinued a cosmetic product formulation by submitting an amended Form FDA 2512. If any of the information submitted on these forms is confidential, the firm may submit a request for confidentiality of a cosmetic ingredient.
FDA's use of an electronic submission system has been designed to make it easier for participants to provide information to FDA about their products. The online version of Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a are available on our VCRP website at
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimated annual third-party disclosure burden is based on data available to the Agency, our knowledge of and experience with cosmetics, and communications with industry. The hour burden is the additional or incremental time that establishments need to design and print labeling that includes the following required
We base our estimate on information from cosmetic industry personnel and FDA experience entering data submitted on paper Forms FDA 2511, 2512, and 2512a into the online system. We estimate that, annually, 1,702 establishments that manufacture or package cosmetic products will each submit 1 registration on Form FDA 2511, for a total of 1,702 annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take about 0.20 hour per response for a total of 340.4 hours, rounded to 340. We estimate that, annually, firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics will file 6,843 ingredient statements for new submissions on Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a. Each submission is estimated to take about 0.33 hour per response for a total of 2,258.19 hours, rounded to 2,258. We estimate that, annually, firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics will file 2,477, amendments to product formulations on Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a. Each submission is estimated to take about 0.17 hour per response for a total of 421.09 hours, rounded to 421. We estimate that, annually, firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics will file 232 notices of discontinuance on Form FDA 2512. Each submission is estimated to take about 0.10 hour per response for a total of 23.2 hours, rounded to 23. We estimate that, annually, one firm will file one request for confidentiality. Each such request is estimated to take 2 hours to prepare for a total of 2 hours. Thus, the estimated total reporting burden is 3,044 hours.
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 3,044 hours and a corresponding increase of 11,255 responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of hours and responses due to the consolidation of OMB control numbers 0910-0027 and 0910-0599. Total burden for the combined collection of information is therefore, 144,218 hours (141,174 hours from OMB control number 0910-0599 and 3,044 hours from OMB control number 0910-0027).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 2, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 2, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342) deems a food to be adulterated, in part, if the food bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health. Section 301(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated food. Under section 404 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 344), our regulations require registration of food processing establishments, filing of process or other data, and maintenance of processing and production records for acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers. These requirements are intended to ensure safe manufacturing, processing, and packing procedures, and to permit us to verify that these procedures are being followed. Improperly processed low-acid foods present life-threatening hazards if contaminated with foodborne microorganisms, especially
To protect the public health, our regulations require that each firm that manufactures, processes, or packs acidified foods or thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers for introduction into interstate commerce register the establishment with us using Form FDA 2541 (§§ 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2) (21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(2)). In addition to registering the plant, each firm is required to provide data on the processes used to produce these foods, using Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, and FDA 2541f for all methods except aseptic processing, or Form FDA 2541g for aseptic processing of low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (§§ 108.25(c)(2) and 108.35(c)(2)). Plant registration and process filing may be accomplished simultaneously. Process data must be filed prior to packing any new product, and operating processes and procedures must be posted near the processing equipment or made available to the operator (21 CFR 113.87(a)).
Regulations in parts 108, 113, and 114 (21 CFR parts 108, 113, and 114) require firms to maintain records showing adherence to the substantive requirements of the regulations. These records must be made available to FDA on request. Firms also must document corrective actions when process controls and procedures do not fall within specified limits (§§ 113.89, 114.89, and 114.100(c)); to report any instance of potential health-endangering spoilage, process deviation, or contamination with microorganisms where any lot of the food has entered distribution in commerce (§§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e)); and to develop and keep on file plans for recalling products that may endanger the public health (§§ 108.25(e) and 108.35(f)). To permit lots to be traced after distribution, acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers must be marked with an identifying code (§ 113.60(c)) (thermally processed foods) and § 114.80(b) (acidified foods).
The records of processing information are periodically reviewed during factory inspections by FDA to verify fulfillment of the requirements in parts 113 or 114. Scheduled thermal processes are examined and reviewed to determine their adequacy to protect public health. In the event of a public health emergency, records are used to pinpoint potentially hazardous foods rapidly and thus limit recall activity to affected lots.
As described in our regulations, processors may obtain the paper version of Forms FDA 2541, FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g by contacting us at a particular address by visiting
Although we encourage commercial processors to use the electronic submission system for plant registration and process filing, we will continue to make paper-based forms available. To standardize the burden associated with process filing, regardless of whether the process filing is submitted electronically or using a paper form, we are offering the public the opportunity to use four forms, each of which pertains to a specific type of commercial processing and is available both on the electronic submission system and as a paper-based form. The electronic submission system and paper-based form “mirror” each other to the extent practicable. The four process filing forms are as follows:
• Form FDA 2541d (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted Method);
• Form FDA 2541e (Food Process Filing for Acidified Method);
• Form FDA 2541f (Food Process Filing for Water Activity/Formulation Control Method); and
• Form FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic Systems).
At this time, the paper-based versions of the four forms and their instructions are all available for review at
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. We base our estimate of the number of respondents in table 1 on registrations, process filings, and reports received. The hours per response reporting estimates are based on our experience with similar programs and information received from industry. The reporting burden for §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e) is minimal because notification of spoilage, process deviation, or contamination of product in distribution occurs less than once a year. Most firms discover these problems before the product is distributed and, therefore, are not required to report the occurrence. We estimate that we will receive one report annually under §§ 108.25(d) and 108.35(d) and (e). The report is expected to take 4 hours per response, for a total of 4 hours.
We base our estimate of 10,392 recordkeepers in table 2 on the number of registered firms, excluding firms that were inactive or out of business, yet still registered. We estimate that 10,392 firms will each expend approximately 250 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in parts 108, 113 and 114, for a total of 2,598,000 hours.
Finally, our regulations require that processors mark thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers (§ 113.60(c)) and acidified foods (§ 114.80(b)) with an identifying code to permit lots to be traced after distribution. No burden has been estimated for the third-party disclosure requirements in §§ 113.60(c) and 114.80(b) because the coding process is done as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Coding is a business practice in foods for liability purposes, inventory control, and process control in the event of a problem. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by May 4, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (Pub. L. 103-417) added section 402(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(g)), which provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practice for dietary supplements. Section 402(g) of the FD&C Act also stipulates that such regulations will be modeled after current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for food and may not impose standards for which there are no current, and generally available, analytical methodology. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if it has been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice regulations.
Accordingly, we have promulgated regulations in part 111 (21 CFR part 111) establishing minimum CGMP requirements pertaining to the manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding of dietary supplements to ensure their quality. Included among the requirements is recordkeeping, documenting, planning, control, and improvement processes of a quality control system. Implementation of these processes in a manufacturing operation serves as the backbone to CGMP. The records must show what is being manufactured and whether the controls
Specifically, the recordkeeping requirements of the regulations in part 111 include establishing written procedures and maintaining records pertaining to: (1) Personnel; (2) sanitation; (3) calibration of instruments and controls; (4) calibration, inspection, or checks of automated, mechanical, or electronic equipment; (5) maintaining, cleaning, and sanitizing equipment and utensils and other contact surfaces; (6) water used that may become a component of the dietary supplement; (7) production and process controls; (8) quality control; (9) components, packaging, labels, and product received for packaging and labeling; (10) master manufacturing and batch production; (11) laboratory operations; (12) manufacturing operations; (13) packaging and labeling operations; (14) holding and distributing operations; (15) returned dietary supplements; and (16) product complaints.
Section 111.75 (21 CFR 111.75) reflects FDA's determination that manufacturers that test or examine 100 percent of the incoming dietary ingredients for identity can be assured of the identity of the ingredient. However, we recognize that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate, through various methods and processes in use over time for its particular operation, that a system of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no material diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary ingredient as compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing. Section 111.75 provides an opportunity for a manufacturer to make such a showing and reduce the frequency of identity testing of components that are dietary ingredients from 100 percent to some lower frequency. Section 111.75 sets forth the information a manufacturer is required to submit for an exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity testing when a manufacturer petitions the Agency for such an exemption to 100 percent identity testing under 21 CFR 10.30, and the Agency grants such exemption. This reporting burden is currently accounted for under OMB control number 0910-0608, Petition to Request an Exemption from 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: CGMP in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements. With this notice, we propose to consolidate information collection under § 111.75 into the instant and related information collection.
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have made no changes to our estimate of the information collection based on our most recent review. However, in consolidating burden from information collection previously accounted for under OMB control number 0910-0608, the information collection reflects an increase of 8 hours and one response annually.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDCD, March 30, 2020, 8:15 a.m. to March 31, 2020, 4:15 p.m., PORTER NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER, Building 35A, 35 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting location from Bldg. 35A to a virtual meeting. The URL link to this meeting is:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee, June 04, 2020, 09:00 a.m. to June 05, 2020, 06:00 p.m., Embassy Suites Hotel, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting type from regular in person to teleconference.
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.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (Committee) and its working groups will meet via teleconference to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
If you encounter technical difficulties with comment submission, contact the individual listed in the
Ms. Megan Johns Henry, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1255, fax 202-372-4908 or
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by U.S. Code, Title 46, section 7115. The Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.
The agenda for the April 29, 2020, teleconference is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Designated Federal Officer remarks.
(3) Remarks from the Committee Chairman.
(4) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(6) The Committee will address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 19-29, Review of CG Forms CG-719K and CG-719K/E
(7) Report on Status of Working Groups, Determination on Intercessional Meetings and Discussion of Working Group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the Working Groups, approve/formulate recommendations and close any completed tasks. Official action on these recommendations may be taken:
(a) Task Statement 17-26, Regulatory Reform;
(b) Task Statement 18-27, Mariner Mental Health;
(c) Task Statement 18-28, External Stakeholder Communication; and
(d) Task Statement 19-29, Review of CG Forms CG-719K and CG-719K/E;
(8) Public comment period.
(9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(10) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
During the April 29, 2020 teleconference, a public comment period will be held from approximately 10:00-10:15 a.m. Public comments will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments.
Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.
The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (Council) and its working groups will meet via teleconference to discuss matters relating to recreational boating safety. These meetings will be open to the public.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Mr. Jeff Decker, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1507 or
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the
The agenda for the National Boating Safety Advisory Council meeting is as follows:
(1) Call to Order.
(2) Opening remarks.
(3) Receipt and discussion of the following reports from the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety:
(a) Update on the U.S. Coast Guard's implementation of National Boating Safety Advisory Council Recommendations and Recreational Boating Safety Program Report.
(b) Alternate Designated Federal Officer's report concerning Council administrative and logistical matters including updates on key elements affecting the Council.
(c) 2019 National Recreational Boating Safety Survey Results.
(d) BSX-22 update on the National Recreational Boating Grant Program.
(e) Update on the current USCG RBS Strategic Plan and discussion of the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.
(4) National Boating Safety Advisory Council discussion on initiating a boating safety program on the use and benefits of cut-off switches for recreational vessels.
(5) National Boating Safety Advisory Council discussion on exemption from carriage of throwable personal flotation devices requirement for rafts over 16 feet in length.
(6) National Boating Safety Advisory Council discussion on Associated Equipment; specifically related to protective gear for Personal Watercraft operators and passengers and in general when applied to all boats.
(7) Update of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrator's Engineering, Research and Analysis committee's work over the past year and next steps.
(8) Presentation and discussion on the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund.
(9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(10) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
During the April 22, 2020 teleconference, a public comment period will be held from approximately 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Public comments will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments.
Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will remain the same from the previous quarter. For the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2020, the interest rates for overpayments will be 4 percent for corporations and 5 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 5 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
The rates announced in this notice are applicable as of April 1, 2020.
Bruce Ingalls, Revenue Division, Collection Refunds & Analysis Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 298-1107.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2020-7, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2020, and ending on June 30, 2020. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of five percent (5%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of four percent (4%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of five percent (5%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties are remaining the same from the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2020, and ending on September 30, 2020.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of August 5, 2020 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before July 2, 2020.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2017, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting qualified individuals interested in serving on the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) to apply for appointment. As provided for in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on how to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) and risk data; and performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States. Applicants will be considered for appointment for the five vacancies on the TMAC.
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST on May 31, 2020.
Applications for membership should be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Michael Nakagaki (Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC); FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Management Directorate, 400 C Street SW, Suite 6NW-1412, Washington, DC 20472-3020; telephone: (202) 212-2148; and email:
The TMAC is an advisory committee that was established by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, 42 U.S.C. 4101a, and in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The TMAC is required to make recommendations to FEMA on mapping-related issues and activities. This includes mapping standards and guidelines, performance metrics and milestones, map maintenance, interagency and intergovernmental coordination, map accuracy, funding strategies, and other mapping-related issues and activities. In addition, the TMAC is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of Flood Insurance Rate Maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.
Members of the TMAC will be appointed based on their demonstrated knowledge and competence regarding surveying, cartography, remote sensing, geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of preparing and using FIRMs. To the maximum extent practicable, FEMA will ensure that membership of the TMAC has a balance of Federal, State, local, Tribal, and private members, and includes geographic diversity.
FEMA is requesting qualified individuals who are interested in serving on the TMAC to apply for appointment. Applicants will be considered for appointment for five vacancies on the TMAC, the terms of which start on March 30, 2021. Certain members of the TMAC, as described below, will be appointed to serve as Special Government Employees (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title 18 United States Code. Candidates selected for appointment as SGEs are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450). This form can be obtained by visiting the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
(a) One member of a recognized professional mapping association or organization;
(b) A representative of State national flood insurance coordination offices;
(c) A representative of a local government agency that has entered into cooperating technical partnerships with the Administrator and demonstrated the capability to produce flood insurance maps;
(d) One member of a recognized floodplain management association or organization;
(e) One State mitigation officer.
Members of the TMAC serve terms of office for three years. There is no application form. However, applications must include the following information:
• The applicant's full name,
• home and business phone numbers,
• preferred email address,
• home and business mailing addresses,
• current position title and organization,
• resume or curriculum vitae,
• and the membership category of interest (
The TMAC shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice a year. Members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the TMAC. All travel for TMAC business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions. Current DHS and FEMA employees will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for SGE appointments.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Announcement of meeting; request for comments.
CISA announces a public meeting of the President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC). To facilitate public participation, CISA invites public comments on the agenda items and any associated briefing materials to be considered by the council at its next meeting.
The meeting was held via conference call on March 13, 2020.
Comments identified by docket number ”
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
•
•
•
Ginger K. Norris, 202-441-5885,
The NIAC is established under Section 10 of E.O. 13231 issued on October 16, 2001. Notice of this meeting is given under the
The NIAC met under an Exceptional Circumstance on March 13, 2020, to discuss the COVID-19 Pandemic and the ways in which the NIAC might be able to assist CISA with its ongoing response efforts. The following agenda was used for the NIAC discussion with CISA leadership.
Any member of the public who wishes to provide written comment can do so by emailing
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; reopening of public comment period.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the public comment period for the draft environmental assessment (draft EA) and draft habitat conservation plan (HCP) in support of an incidental take permit (ITP) application received from Aera Energy, LLC.
The comment period for the draft EA and draft HCP addressing the ITP application for incidental take, which opened via a notice that published on March 2, 2020 (85 FR 12322), is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before April 17, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using
•
•
For more information, see Public Comments under
Justin Sloan, Senior Wildlife Biologist, or Patricia Cole, Chief, San Joaquin Valley Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, by email at
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an incidental take permit (ITP) application from Aera Energy, LLC in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We issue this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; record of decision.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project (project) and final habitat conservation plan (HCP). The ROD documents the Service's decision to issue an incidental take permit (ITP) to Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, LLC (applicant). As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected Alternative 1—the Proposed Action, which includes implementation of the HCP and issuance of the ITP authorizing incidental take of one threatened species listed under the ESA and two species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) that may occur as a result of operation of the project over a 30-year period.
You may obtain copies of the ROD and other documents associated with the decision by the following methods.
•
•
•
Curtis Tanner, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a record of decision (ROD) for the proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP) to Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, LLC (applicant) for the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project (project) and final habitat conservation plan (HCP). The ROD documents the Service's decision to issue an ITP to the applicant. As summarized in the ROD, the Service has selected Alternative 1- the Proposed Action (described below), which includes implementation of the HCP and issuance of the ITP authorizing incidental take of the following covered species that may occur as a result of project operations during a 30-year period—the marbled murrelet (
We are advising the public of the availability of the ROD, developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as well as the final HCP as submitted by the applicant. All alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS). Our notice of availability of the FEIS and HCP was published in the
The project site encompasses approximately 9,700 acres of forestlands in Thurston and Lewis Counties, Washington. The applicant intends to initiate turbine operations in 2019, or as soon as possible thereafter. A detailed description of the project is presented in chapter 2 of the HCP. The majority of the project, including all 38 wind turbines, is located in Lewis County, Washington. Some supporting infrastructure is located in Thurston County, Washington. The wind energy generation facility is located on a prominent ridgeline on the Weyerhaeuser Company's Vail Tree Farm, located approximately 18 miles east of Centralia, Washington. The project is expected to produce an output of approximately 137 megawatts (MW) of electricity from 38 wind turbines, each of which is 492 feet tall (from ground to vertical blade tip), with rotor diameters of 446 feet. The turbine operating prescriptions presented in chapter 2 of the HCP include curtailment regimes and site management prescriptions.
Pre-project monitoring identified the presence of each covered species in the project area. The applicant determined that adverse effects to each of the covered species are unavoidable, and developed the HCP to cover take of those species caused by project operations over a period of 30 years. The HCP details measures the applicant will implement to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the unavoidable incidental take of the covered species.
Avoidance and minimization measures in the HCP to benefit the marbled murrelet include seasonal curtailment of turbine blades (turbine blades are fully stopped and feathered into the wind) and site management prescriptions to maintain transmission and distribution line flight diverters, shield artificial light sources, and minimize the artificial increase of potential nest predators in the project area. Mitigation measures in the HCP to benefit the marbled murrelet include acquisition and permanent management of conservation lands to promote the preservation and enhancement of suitable nesting habitat for the species, and funding the removal of abandoned or derelict fishing nets in the Salish Sea in which murrelets can become entangled and drown.
Avoidance and minimization measures in the HCP to benefit the bald eagle and the golden eagle include site management prescriptions to remove carrion to reduce scavenging by eagles on the project site, minimize cover for prey animals such as rabbits to reduce prey-based attractions of eagles to the project site, and testing of eagle detection-based turbine curtailment technologies intended to reduce eagle collisions with operating turbine blades. If effective, the turbine curtailment triggered by automated eagle-detection will be implemented routinely. Mitigation measures in the HCP intended to benefit bald eagles and golden eagles consist of retrofitting power poles to reduce the occurrence of eagle collisions with power lines and electrocution. Eagles will also receive marginal benefit from the conservation lands in the form of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.
The Service's purpose and need is to respond to the ITP application submitted by the applicant, and to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the ITP application. This assessment is complete, and was be made pursuant to the requirements of ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) and the BGEPA, and their respective implementing regulations. Any ITP issued by the Service must meet all applicable requirements of the ESA, BGEPA, and their implementing regulations.
Our FEIS analyzed the environmental impacts of no action, and the following three action alternatives related to the issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP: (A) The Proposed Action (Alternative 1); (B) a modified site design for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2); and (C) an enhanced curtailment regime for the Proposed Action (Alternative 3).
The environmental consequences of each alternative were analyzed in the FEIS. The types of effects on covered species were similar across action alternatives, with take resulting from project operations being mitigated through land acquisition, derelict net removal, and power pole retrofits. Increasing the use of avoidance and minimization measures through different turbine curtailment regimes can reduce the amount of take of the covered species and the amount of renewable electricity produced; a commensurate reduction in the amount of derelict net removal and power pole retrofits are expected with alternatives that increase turbine curtailment.
Public comments received in response to the DEIS were considered, and the FEIS reflects clarifications of the existing analysis to address public comments.
The FEIS does not identify an environmentally preferred alternative. Pursuant to NEPA implementing regulations found at 40 CFR 15.2(b), the Service identified the No Action Alternative—Option B (no approval of the HCP/no issuance of the ITP/no project construction) as the environmentally preferred alternative in the ROD.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our FEIS, we have selected the Proposed Action option (Alternative 1). The Proposed Action includes the applicant's implementation of the final HCP and the Service's issuance of an ITP authorizing incidental take of the covered species that may occur as a result of project operations.
In order to issue an ITP for covered species under the ESA, we must determine that the HCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). In addition, in order to issue an ITP covering bald eagles and golden eagles, we must determine that the HCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 50 CFR 22.26(f). We have made the determination that the HCP meets both sets of criteria, as described further in the ROD.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received an application from Duane DeChaux (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The ITP would authorize the applicant's take of the Yelm pocket gopher, incidental to otherwise lawful activities during construction of their single-family home and agricultural shop in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a habitat conservation plan (HCP) with measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species. We have also prepared a draft environmental action statement for our preliminary determination that the HCP and permit decision may be eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. We provide this notice to open a public comment period and invite comments from all interested parties regarding the documents.
Please submit written comments by May 4, 2020.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tim Romanski, Conservation Planning and Hydropower Branch Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531). The ITP would authorize the applicant's “take” of the Yelm pocket gopher (
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions that authorize the Service to issue permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species caused by otherwise lawful activities, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence, including a home, driveway, landscaping areas, underground utilities, and an agricultural building on 5 acres in Thurston County, Washington. All construction and landscaping activity will be confined to an area encompassing 1.28 acres. The applicant will continue to implement agricultural activities as conditioned by commitments in the HCP on the remaining acreage.
The property is currently occupied by the Yelm pocket gopher. The applicant proposes to offset adverse effects to the species by executing a conservation easement with Thurston County for a 2.58-acre conservation site within the 5-acre property. The conservation site will be managed for successful Yelm pocket gopher feeding, breeding, and sheltering. The Service proposes to issue the requested 10-year ITP based on the applicant's commitment to implement the HCP, if permit issuance criteria are met.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
After public review, we will assess the comments received and finalize the EAS. We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and any comments received, to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the requested section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on the proposed ITP action. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period, and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will issue an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the applicant for the take of the covered species, incidental to otherwise lawful covered activities.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Tribal consultation.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA) will be hosting a consultation session by webinar with interested Tribes regarding the 477 Program.
Comments must be received on or before Thursday, April 30, 2020. Consultation by webinar will be held Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1 p.m. See the
Send comments to:
Dawn Selwyn, Acting Associate Deputy Bureau Director—Indian Services at (202) 208-6941.
Several Federal agencies, including Interior, are party to an interagency memorandum of agreement (MOA) to implement Public Law 102-477, the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (477 Program).
We invite Tribes to attend to a consultation session by webinar, to provide input on the 477 Program on Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.:
•
•
The Department previously announced this webinar session in a March 6, 2020 letter to Tribal leaders. That letter also announced sessions on April 6, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee, and April 28, 2020, in Burlingame, California that have since been canceled due to cancellation of the associated conferences (the Native American Finance Officers Association 38th Annual Conference and the 2020 Tribal Self-Governance Conference). The Department will announce any rescheduled sessions in a future letter to Tribes and by
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin and by this notice is announcing for the opening of the comment period. The BLM will hold public meetings throughout the project area to share information with the public and answer questions.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin within 60 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the BLM Idaho State Office, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709. Interested persons may also review the Draft Programmatic EIS online at:
Ammon Wilhelm, telephone 208-373-3824; address BLM Idaho State Office, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; email
The sagebrush communities in the Great Basin are home to over 350 species of plants and wildlife and are a vital part of Western working landscapes. Wildfire and cheatgrass invasions are threatening these vegetative communities; approximately 45% of the historical range of sagebrush has been lost. Between 2009 and 2018, over 13.5 million acres burned on BLM land within the project area. Many sagebrush communities, both burned and unburned, are being overtaken by invasive annual grasses and encroaching pinyon-juniper. Fuels reduction and rangeland restoration treatments can reduce fire severity, which increases the vegetative communities' resistance to invasive annual grasses and improves their ability to recover after wildfire.
The Project Area covers approximately 223 million acres, including portions of California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Restoration projects would be implemented within an analysis area covering approximately 38.5 million acres of sagebrush communities managed by the BLM within the project area boundary. The analysis area is defined by the current and historical presence of sagebrush on BLM-administered lands.
The purpose of future treatments is to enhance the long-term function, viability, resistance, and resilience of vegetative communities and to protect, conserve, and restore sagebrush communities within the project area. Functioning and viable sagebrush communities provide multiple-use opportunities for all user groups as well as habitat for sagebrush-dependent species.
Intact sagebrush communities are disappearing within the Great Basin due to increased wildfires, the spread of invasive annual grasses, and the encroachment of pinyon-juniper. Restoration treatments such as fuels reduction and revegetation are needed to increase intact sagebrush communities and improve their ability to resist annual grass invasion and recover from disturbance such as wildfire.
The preferred alternative (Alternative B) analyzes a full suite of manual, chemical and mechanical treatments, including prescribed fire, seeding, and targeted grazing, to restore degraded vegetative communities within the 38.5 million-acre sagebrush analysis area.
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Office, Boise, Idaho, and the BLM Vale District Office, Vale, Oregon, have prepared the Tri-state Fuel Breaks Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOI-BLM-ID-B000-2015-0001-EIS) (Final EIS) and, by this notice, are announcing its availability.
The BLM will not issue a final decision on the proposal for a minimum of 30 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
Interested persons may also review the Final EIS and accompanying background documents on the project website:
Lance Okeson, Project Lead, telephone: 208-384-3300; 3948 South Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705; email:
Southwestern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, and northern Nevada (the Tri-state area) comprise one of the largest intact strongholds of sagebrush-steppe habitat in the Northern Great Basin. This area supports big game and sagebrush-dependent species and provides for a variety of multiple-use activities. Assessments have identified the project area as a landscape particularly threatened by wildfire and the subsequent spread of invasive annual grasses. For example, the 2010 Rapid Eco-regional Assessment of the Northern Basin and Range and Snake River Plain identified the tri-state area as being at high risk for large-scale wildfires. Wildfires in this remote area can grow quickly and affect hundreds of thousands of acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat and working landscapes within a matter of days. The 2012 Long Draw Fire (558,198 acres), the 2014 Buzzard Complex Fire (395,747 acres), the 2015 Soda Fire (285,360 acres), the 2018 Martin Fire (435,569 acres), and the 2018 Sugar Loaf Fire (233,462 acres)—all of which were in or near the project area—each impacted over a hundred thousand acres within 24 hours.
The sagebrush-steppe landscape within this area represents one of the most impacted ecosystems in the United States. The Secretary of the Interior's 2017 Wildland Fire Directive and Secretarial Order 3372 call for active management of public lands to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to America's forests and rangelands. Management of wildfire has been identified as one of the key issues for maintaining sage-grouse populations in sagebrush-dominated landscapes.
The purpose of the action is to provide a network of fuel breaks to enable wildland fire suppression resources in the tri-state area to more safely, rapidly, and effectively protect natural and cultural resources from wildfires. The strategy proposes to create and maintain fuel breaks along established roads through mechanical, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire treatments. Fuel breaks reduce fuel accumulations and disrupt fuel continuity in order to modify fire behavior and provide safe anchor points for firefighters. Fuel breaks allow firefighters to more rapidly contain and control wildland fires and increase suppression efficacy by enabling firefighters to engage wildfires over a larger area. This network would improve firefighters' opportunities for protecting one of the few remaining large areas of intact sagebrush-steppe habitat from the threat of wildland fire.
Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), a fuel break network would not be created. Fuels adjacent to roadways would not be treated to reduce fuel accumulations and disrupt fuel continuity. Fire suppression personnel would continue to use existing paved and other improved BLM and county roads and natural topographic features to attempt holding and controlling wildfire.
Under all action alternatives, fuel breaks would only be implemented alongside existing roads. Fuel breaks would extend up to, but no farther than, 200 feet from both sides of roadways. Environmental constraints such as adjacent vegetation, terrain, soil type, and resource concerns would dictate width and treatment type in a given area. No fuel breaks would be constructed in designated wilderness. Fuel breaks could be established along the non-wilderness side of boundary roads adjacent to designated wilderness and along boundary roads surrounding wilderness study areas (WSAs).
The methods for fuel break creation and maintenance analyzed in the Final EIS include mowing, hand cutting, seeding (including seedbed preparation techniques), herbicide treatment, prescribed fire (
Alternative 2 contains the highest number and density of fuel breaks of all action alternatives. The BLM would implement and maintain a fuel break network along approximately 1,539 miles of existing roads: 731 miles in Idaho and 808 miles in Oregon.
Alternative 3 was developed to protect natural resources from large wildfires while minimizing impacts to cultural resources. Alternative 3 emphasizes avoidance of cultural resources and limiting impacts to special management areas (
Alternative 4 emphasizes protection to wildlife and their habitat while providing a network of fuel breaks that meets the purpose and need. The fuel break network would span 910 miles of existing roads: 450 miles in Idaho and 460 miles in Oregon.
The Final EIS introduces Alternative 5, the preferred alternative, which blends elements of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to provide a strategic fuel break network that limits adverse impacts to wildlife and cultural resources. This alternative reflects adjustments to fuel break routes previously analyzed in the Draft EIS under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 based on the analysis of impacts and public comments received. The fuel break network for this alternative would
Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Final EIS. Public comments resulted in the development of Alternative 5, which is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS.
On October 26, 2017, the DEA Acting Administrator issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (hereinafter collectively, OSC), to Brewster Drug, Inc. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Brewster, Washington. The OSC informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of its DEA Certificate of Registration AB6785161 and proposed its revocation, the denial of any pending application for renewal or modification of such registration, and the denial of any applications for additional DEA registrations, on the ground that its “continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.” OSC, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f)).
The OSC alleged that Registrant is a corporate entity in the state of Washington.
The OSC alleged that “DEA's investigation [of Registrant] has revealed separate types of misconduct, which, taken together, pose an imminent danger to public health or safety.”
Based on his “preliminary finding that controlled substances were diverted from [Registrant] in connection with failure to maintain complete records and dispensing controlled substances without a valid prescription,” the former Acting Administrator concluded that Registrant's registration “is inconsistent with the public interest.”
The OSC notified Registrant of its right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving its right to a hearing, the procedures for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option.
On October 31, 2017, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) personally served the OSC on Brian Johnson, Registrant's PIC at Registrant's address. GX 3, at 3. On the same day, Diversion Investigators took custody of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration and removed all controlled substances in Registrant's possession, pursuant to the Immediate Suspension Order.
According to the Government, since the date of service of the Order, neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has filed a written statement or made any communication in writing to the Agency since the OSC was served. Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), at 2;
On February 25, 2019, I issued an Order taking notice of the Agency's registration records, which showed that on January 16, 2018, DEA approved the registration of a different retail pharmacy, called “Brewster Marketplace Pharmacy & T.V. Hardware LLC” at the same street address as Registrant. Order dated February 25, 2019 (hereinafter, February Order). The February Order directed the Government “to investigate and to address whether Registrant has discontinued its business practice as a retail pharmacy and whether its DEA registration has thus terminated pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.52.”
On March 25, 2019, I received the Government's Reply to Administrator's February Order (hereinafter, GR), which confirmed that Registrant discontinued business on December 29, 2017, and sold the business to Brewster Marketplace Pharmacy and Hardware, LLC (hereinafter, Marketplace). GR, at 2. The Government asserts that because
According to the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), the controlled substances inventory that DEA seized from Registrant's registered location on the date DEA served the OSC “shall be forfeited to the United States” and “[a]ll right, title, and interest in such controlled substances shall vest in the United States upon a revocation order becoming final.” 21 U.S.C. 824(f). Disposition of Registrant's seized controlled substances inventory remains outstanding even though Registrant discontinued business, and, therefore, its registration is terminated. 21 CFR 1301.52. I shall, therefore, adjudicate this OSC to finality as required by 21 U.S.C. 824(f).
I make the following findings.
Registrant, a retail pharmacy, was a corporate entity organized under the laws of Washington State. OSC, at 2. It was registered with the DEA as a retail pharmacy authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II-V pursuant to Registration AB6785161, with a registered address at 811 US Highway 97, P.O. Box 798, Brewster, Washington 98812. GX 1 (Certificate of Registration). Registrant's registration would have expired by its terms on July 31, 2020; however, it appears that the Registrant discontinued business on December 29, 2017.
According to the DI in charge of this investigation, at the time of the investigation, Brian Johnson and Nikki Johnson were listed as Registrant's “Governing Persons,” under the Revised Code of Washington, which defines “Governor” as “a director of a business corporation . . . or any other person under whose authority the powers of an entity are exercised and under whose direction the activities and affairs of the entity are managed pursuant to the organic law and organic rules of the entity.” GX 3, at 2 (Declaration of Diversion Investigation) (citing Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 23.95.105(12) (West 2019));
According to the DI, Brian Johnson worked as Registrant's PIC and is married to Nikki Johnson. GX 3, at 2. Agency registration records show that Brian Johnson is the contact for Registrant's DEA registration.
The Government's evidence includes a sworn Declaration, dated March 15, 2018, by an investigator (hereinafter, Investigator V.) employed by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission, Washington State Department of Health (DOH).
According to the Government's evidence, a physician practicing in Wenatchee, Washington (hereinafter, Dr. F.) averred in a sworn declaration that, while she was treating Patient M.R. on February 17, 2017, the patient showed her three bottles of oxycodone filled by Registrant. GX 5 (Declaration of Dr. F.), at 1. Patient M.R. told Dr. F. that he had obtained them from Registrant, and that he did not know how much he had received, but “recalled the first bottle was for a smaller amount than on the prescription as they did not have enough pills to fill as written” and that “[h]e later received the remainder from that prescription.”
Dr. F. stated that she telephoned Registrant on February 17, 2017, and asked the PIC to find out how much oxycodone had been provided to patient M.R., but the PIC was unable to tell her.
Investigator V. reported that he “obtained a copy of the original prescription written by N.P. for Patient M.R. from [Registrant],” which “has a fill sticker from [Registrant] reflecting prescription number N1133568” and indicates the “prescription was filled on February 11, 2017.”
The Investigator obtained a copy of the Washington state PMP report for Patient M.R. “to identify what [Registrant] reported to the PMP” regarding the controlled substance prescriptions it filled for M.R.
(1) 364 tablets oxycodone 15mg on February 1 under prescription #1132787, a 14 day supply;
(2) 182 tablets oxycodone 30mg on February 11 under prescription #1133568, a 14 day supply;
(3) 364 tablets oxycodone 15mg on February 11 under prescription #1132787, a 14 day supply.
The Investigator also obtained Registrant's patient profile for Patient M.R. for the time period February 1—February 28, 2017, which shows Registrant's internal dispensing record of prescriptions it filled for M.R. GX 4, at 2. A copy of this report was submitted to the Government's evidentiary record. GX 4, Appendix 2. The patient profile records two oxycodone dispensings on February 11, 2017, showing prescription number 1132787 for 364 tablets of oxycodone 15mg, and prescription number 1133568 for 182 tablets of oxycodone 30 mg.
According to the Investigator, Dr. F. sent him photocopies of the three prescription bottles patient M.R. brought to his appointment. GX 4, at 2. “She [ ] informed me that her patient, M.R., had three bottles of various strength oxycodone that [he] reported [he] obtained from Registrant based on the single prescription from [N.P.].”
1) One bottle labeled RX#N113278[ ]
(2) One bottle labeled RX#N1132787 for 364 tablets of oxycodone dated February 1, 2017, issued to [M.R.] by Dr. [N.P.], with the initials “BJ” on the label), and
(3) One bottle labeled RXN#113356[], for 182 tablets of oxycodone, dated February 11, 2017, issued to [M.R.] by [N.P.], with the initials “BJ” on the label.
Investigator V. further attested that he spoke with PIC Brian Johnson regarding the Registrant's dispensing multiple bottles of various strength oxycodone on the basis of a single prescription, and he memorialized the conversation in a Memorandum, dated June 13, 2017. GX 4, Appendix 5. He reported, “PIC Johnson explained that he may have filled the prescription for 30 mg oxycodone tablets with 15 mg tablets because he did not have enough supply on hand,” but he “was not sure when or what quantities he dispensed to patient M.R., and he could not account for prescription RX#1133568, shown in the PMP.” GX 4, at 2. Investigator V. further stated he “confronted PIC Johnson on the fact that he had only a record of the single issued prescription corresponding with prescription number 1132787,” and “he acknowledged that he had made no record of partial fills or substitute fills and had no other explanation” for M.R.'s three prescription bottles.
According to the Investigator, PIC Johnson “confirm[ed] that it was he who was the responsible pharmacist on each of the dispensing[s],” but that “he was sure the patient wasn't given more medication than the doctor had prescribed but doesn't recall the exact amount in each bottle.” GX 4, Appendix 5. He also told the Investigator that “he [didn't] recall the exact events,” but believed he “either didn't have enough, or any, of the 30 mg Oxycodone so he gave him a partial quantity of the 15 mg tablets” and that he “didn't document how much he gave him at this time.”
Additionally, Investigator V.'s Memorandum reported that Johnson stated that “he wasn't sure how the patient received a bottle dated [February 1, 2017] as he doesn't recall giving him that one and it's not listed in his computer,” but he acknowledged that the prescription was entered into the system on February 1, 2017.
Investigator V.'s Memorandum also stated that PIC Johnson “identified the partial adhesives near the back tag label applied to the [ARNP's] prescription, which he opined may have been the previous label [RX 1132787 for 364 oxycodone 15mg] that he put on the prescription and then must have removed it when he filled the 30mg tablets.”
The DI reported, in a sworn Declaration dated March 19, 2018, that he conducted an accountability audit for Registrant on August 15, 2017. GX 3, at 2. As part of the audit, he conducted a physical count and review of some, but not all, controlled substances on hand at Registrant, and “compared that count with the [Registrant's] biennial inventory records, dispensing logs, DEA 222 forms, and invoices compared with shipping records, which [he] had subpoenaed from pharmacy suppliers McKesson and Amerisource Bergen.”
The DI stated that he issued an administrative subpoena to Three Rivers Hospital in Brewster, Washington to obtain PIC Johnson's patient file.
The DI also obtained Emergency Medical Service records from the Douglas Okanogan County Fire Department,
The DI also reported that during an interview with PIC Johnson on October 31, 2017, which included two of his DEA colleagues, “PIC Johnson admitted that he was diverting controlled substances from the pharmacy and was, on average, taking approximately 4-5 oxycodone 30 mg tablets at a time, twice a day,” but he “could not recall . . . how long he had been diverting controlled substances from the pharmacy.”
The DI also interviewed PIC Johnson's wife, Nikki Johnson, who told them that she began noticing that PIC Johnson was using controlled substances “about a year prior,” and that “he would `plan ahead' and bring home controlled substance pills [from Registrant] in his pockets and she would occasionally find controlled substances pills in his pockets at home.”
In particular, the Government's evidence includes a copy of a medical incident report obtained by the DI from the Douglas Okanogan County Fire Department on July 29, 2017.
PIC Johnson's patient records from Three Rivers Hospital (TRH) show that on July 29, 2017, PIC Johnson was treated in the emergency room after EMS documented “[c]oncern for heatstroke vs. drug OD?” GX 3, Appendix 2, at 2. The results of an administered urine drug test were positive for amphetamines and oxycodone.
A document titled “ER Note” for PIC Johnson on that date states that his chief complaint was “altered mental status” and that “he denie[d] taking any medications,” and “denies recreational drug use”; however, the reviewing doctor's assessment was “Narcotic overdose.”
The records attached to the DI's Declaration show that on September 29, 2017, the EMS responded to an emergency call on Highway 97, Pateros, Washington, where they encountered PIC Johnson sitting “in a car along the road [ ] shaking and non-respon[sive] to [rescue personnel] on the scene.” GX 3, Appendix 3, at 4. The EMTs reported that he “kept saying that he was late and needed to get to work.”
On October 7, 2017, the EMS responded to a call at Registrant in response to a complaint of PIC Johnson “shaking, possibly having seizure while standing.” GX 3, Appendix 3, at 8. The EMT's report states that, upon arrival, they encountered PIC Johnson and the field assessment of him was “Substance Abuse—Opioid.”
According to the hospital patient records for PIC Johnson on that date, a urine drug screen showed positive results for amphetamines and
The Government has demonstrated that PIC Johnson used the Registrant's registration to procure drugs for his own addiction. By his own admission to the DI, PIC Johnson was “diverting controlled substances from the pharmacy and was, on average, taking approximately 4-5 oxycodone 30 mg tablets at a time, twice a day.” GX 3, at 3. His wife, and co-owner of Registrant, confirmed this admission in stating to the DI that PIC Johnson “would `plan ahead' and bring home controlled substance pills [from Registrant] in his pockets.”
Based on the declaration of the DI and the records from EMS and Three Rivers Hospital, I find that the Government has established that PIC Johnson was impaired on at least two occasions, while working as the Pharmacist in Charge. GX 3, Appendix 2 & 3. Particularly, EMS was dispatched on July 29, 2017, and October 7, 2017, to Registrant to attend to PIC Johnson. GX 3, at 3 (citing GX 3, Appendix 3). Laboratory tests conducted at the hospital on those two occasions demonstrated that PIC Johnson tested positive for oxycodone and amphetamines. GX 3, Appendix 2, 20;
Based on the uncontested declaration of the DI, I find that Registrant failed to maintain adequate records of its controlled substances.
Regarding the multiple fillings of Patient M.R.'s prescription, I find that the Government's evidence substantially indicates that on more than one occasion, PIC Johnson dispensed varying dosages of Oxycodone to Patient M.R. on the basis of a single prescription. Although the evidence is unclear as to how many bottles were filled on February 1, 2017, it appears that the PMP entries for the prescription were inaccurate, because it shows only one prescription filled on February 1, for the full prescription.
The Government asserts that Registrant's registration should be revoked because its continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, and requests that I issue a final order affirming the Order of Immediate Suspension issued on October 26, 2017. RFAA, at 1. According to the Government, Registrant's pharmacist in charge “circumvented the CSA's prescription requirement by leapfrogging the doctor-patient component of the CSA's closed system, obtained [
In addition, the Government requests that all controlled substances seized from Registrant on October 31, 2017, pursuant to the Order of Immediate Suspension be forfeited to the United States.
Section 304(a) of the CSA provides that “[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render [its] registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” which is defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(21) and includes a pharmacy, the CSA requires that the Agency consider the following factors in making the public interest determination:
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing . . . controlled substances.
(3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the . . . distribution[ ] or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
According to Agency decisions, I “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[ ] appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration.
Also, pursuant to section 824(d), “[t]he Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend any registration simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under this section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” 21 U.S.C. 824(d)(1). Congress has defined “the phrase `imminent danger to the public health or safety' [to] mean[ ] that, due to the failure of the registrant to maintain effective controls against diversion or otherwise comply with the obligations of a registrant under [the CSA], there is a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of the registration.”
Under the Agency's regulation, “[a]t any hearing for the revocation or suspension of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to . . . 21 U.S.C. 824(a) . . . are satisfied.” 21 CFR 1301.44(e). In this matter, I have considered all of the factors and find that the Government's evidence with respect to factors two, four and five establishes that Registrant, through its corporate principal and pharmacist-in-charge, has committed acts which render its registration “inconsistent with the public interest” and which support the revocation of its registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). I further find that the Government's evidence, supports my initial finding and further establishes that Registrant's misconduct satisfies the imminent danger standard of 21 U.S.C. 824(d), in that, Registrant's failure “to maintain effective controls against diversion or otherwise comply with the obligations of a registrant under” the CSA created “a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that . . . abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of [its] registration.”
The Government has established that Registrant unlawfully dispensed controlled substances to Patient M.R. The definition of “dispense” under the CSA is “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user . . . pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner.”
Factor Four is demonstrated by evidence that a registrant has not complied with laws related to controlled substances, including violations of the CSA, DEA regulations, or other state or local laws regulating the dispensing of controlled substances. The Government's case relies primarily on the actions of Registrant's PIC and co-owner. “Agency precedent has consistently held that the registration of a pharmacy may be revoked as the result of the unlawful activity of the pharmacy's owners, majority shareholders, officers, managing pharmacist, or other key employee.”
Under the CSA, it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. 844(a). While PIC Johnson was authorized to order controlled substances for the pharmacy and to possess controlled substances in his capacity as the Registrant's PIC, he was authorized to do so only for the purpose of dispensing the controlled substances to patients “pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner,” in this case, a prescription. 21 U.S.C. 822(b) (“Persons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to . . . dispense controlled substances . . . are
The Government asserts that not only does PIC Johnson's misconduct in dispensing to himself violate 21 U.S.C. 844(a) (unauthorized possession of controlled substances), but that such possession demonstrates the Registrant's violation of § 829(a) and (b) (requiring a prescription to dispense controlled substances). RFAA, at 8. Further, it alleges that the Registrant's conduct violates federal regulations mandating that a pharmacist may dispense scheduled drugs only pursuant to a written prescription signed by the practitioner. 21 CFR 1306.11 (schedule II) and 1306.21 (schedules III-V).
There is substantial evidence that Registrant violated the recordkeeping requirements of the CSA. Recordkeeping is one of the CSA's principal tools for preventing the diversion of controlled substances.
In addition, as found herein, the Government's evidence substantially indicates that PIC Johnson filled multiple prescriptions for varying dosages of Oxycodone to Patient M.R. on the basis of a single prescription. Registrant filled the single Schedule II oxycodone prescription on more than one occasion in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a). Further, it is clear that Registrant did not maintain adequate records regarding its dispensing to Patient M.R.
On the basis of these unrefuted facts I find that Registrant, through its PIC, failed to maintain accurate records of its dispensing activities to M.R., violated federal law in dispensing to M.R. without a valid prescription, and Registrant's inventory overages and shortages further demonstrate violations of federal law and regulations. Such findings weigh against entrusting Registrant with a registration.
Although factor five is broad, DEA decisions have qualified its breadth by limiting the considerations made under that factor to those where there is “a substantial relationship between the conduct and the CSA's purpose of preventing drug abuse and diversion.”
In this case, Registrant is a corporation, not an individual, but “misconduct of an entity's principal is properly considered in determining whether to revoke the entity's registration.”
Additionally, on September 29, 2017, EMS and hospital records demonstrate that PIC Johnson showed signs of drug abuse while operating his vehicle on his way to work.
Having considered all of the factors, I conclude that the evidence pertinent to factors two, four and five demonstrate a
For purposes of the imminent danger inquiry, my findings also lead to the conclusion that Respondent has “fail[ed] . . . to maintain effective controls against diversion or otherwise comply with the obligations of a registrant” under the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 824(d)(2). The uncontroverted, substantial evidence that Respondent was severely impaired while working or heading to work, as evidenced by his emergency room treatments for potential overdose three times in the course of three months, establishes that there was “a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance . . . [would] occur in the absence of the immediate suspension” of Registrant's registration.
Where, as here, the Government has met its
The CSA authorizes the Attorney General to “promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient execution of his functions under this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. 871(b). This authority
Here the Registrant failed to respond to the Government's Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension Order and did not avail itself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. PIC Johnson did arguably accept responsibility on two occasions, one by admitting to the DI that he was diverting controlled substances, and the other when he admitted to the state investigator that he “shouldn't have done that.” GX 3, at 3; GX 4, Appendix 5. However, he also told the DI that “it would be more dangerous to have a new pharmacist who does not know the community operating [Registrant] tha[n] it would be for [him] to continue operating the Pharmacy notwithstanding his regular diversion, abuse, and impairment.” GX 3, at 3. This statement undercuts any acceptance of responsibility and also highlights PIC Johnson's lack of judgment in believing that it would benefit the community to have a pharmacist under the influence of controlled substances. Furthermore, because neither PIC Johnson nor anyone else testified nor presented any evidence on behalf of the Registrant in this proceeding, the Registrant has not provided any assurances that it has implemented remedial measures to ensure such conduct is not repeated. Such silence weighs against the Registrant's continued registration.
Accordingly, I find that the factors weigh in favor of sanction and I shall order the sanctions the Government requested, as contained in the Order below.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. AB6785161 issued to Brewster Drug, Inc. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Brewster Drug, Inc. to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Brewster Drug, Inc. for additional registrations in Washington. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I further order that all controlled substances seized pursuant to the Order of Immediate Suspension of Registration are forfeited to the United States. This Order is effective May 4, 2020.
On June 28, 2019, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Gregory L. Molden, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) of New Orleans, Louisiana. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration No. BM0671481.
Specifically, the OSC alleged that on or about September 25, 2018, Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on one count of “Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, one count of “Conspiracy to Pay and Receive Illegal Health Care Kickbacks,” in violation of 18 U.S.C 371, and eleven counts of “Health Care Fraud,” in violation of 18 U.S.C 1347.
Additionally, the OSC alleged that the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners issued an Interim Consent Order for Suspension of Medical License on May 13, 2019. OSC, at 2. This Order, according to the OSC, indefinitely suspended Respondent's Louisiana medical license leaving Respondent without authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Louisiana—the state in which Respondent is registered with DEA.
The OSC notified Respondent of the right to either request a hearing on the allegations or submit a written statement in lieu of exercising the right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option.
By letter dated August 7, 2019, Respondent timely requested a hearing.
The Office of Administrative Law Judges put the matter on the docket and assigned it to Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, Chief ALJ). Order Denying Continuance Request and Directing the Filing of Government Evidence Regarding its Lack of State Authority Allegation and Briefing Schedule dated August 9, 2019 (hereinafter, Briefing Schedule), at 1. In the Briefing Schedule, the Chief ALJ denied the Respondent's request for a continuance
In its motion, the Government argued that there is “no dispute as to a material fact” and that “it is appropriate for the [Chief ALJ] to grant summary disposition.” GX, at 1. The Government stated that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, the state in which he is registered with the DEA, because his medical license is suspended.
Respondent filed “Molden['s] Response to Government's Motion for Summary Disposition,” dated August 29, 2019 (hereinafter, Response).
The Chief ALJ granted the Government's Motion finding that “summary disposition of an administrative case is warranted where, as here, there is no factual dispute of substance.” RD, at 4 (citing
The Chief ALJ made no findings on the OSC's mandatory federal program exclusion allegation.
By letter dated October 15, 2019, the Chief ALJ certified and transmitted the record to me for final Agency action. The certified record did not include a request from the Government to proceed on the mandatory federal program exclusion allegation. Accordingly, I find that the Government has abandoned the mandatory federal program exclusion allegation. In the October 15, 2019, letter, the Chief ALJ advised that neither party filed exceptions. I find that the time period to file exceptions has expired.
I issue this Decision and Order based on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.46. I make the following findings of fact.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. BM0671481 at the registered address of 2300 S Galvez St., New Orleans, LA 70125-3102. GX 1, at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
On May 13, 2019, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners issued an Interim Consent Order for Suspension of Medical License (hereinafter, Suspension of Medical License). GX 3, at 1. According to the Suspension of Medical License, Respondent “was criminally convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on twelve felony counts related to the practice of medicine.”
Therefore, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners ordered that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Louisiana be placed on an indefinite suspension effective on the date of signature, May 13, 2019.
.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is not licensed to engage in the practice of medicine and, therefore, cannot dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, the state in which Respondent is registered with the DEA (as discussed more fully below).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . ., to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices.
According to the Suspension of Medical License, Respondent's license as a physician is suspended, and he can no longer engage in the practice of medicine in Louisiana. GX 3, at 2-3. Because Respondent cannot engage in the practice of medicine in Louisiana, he cannot prescribe medicine in Louisiana and therefore cannot “dispense” controlled substances under the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 802(10).
Per the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, the “practice of medicine” means “engagement in, the diagnosing, treating, curing, or relieving of any bodily or mental disease, condition, infirmity, deformity, defect, ailment, or injury in any human being, . . . whether by the use of any drug, instrument or force, . . . or any other agency or means; or the examining, . . . of any person or material from any person for such purpose whether such drug, instrument, force, or other agency or means is applied to or used by the patient . . . .” La. Stat. Ann. § 37:1262(3) (2019). Because Respondent cannot engage in the practice of medicine as defined above, Respondent clearly cannot “dispense”
Similarly, because Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana, he is not a “practitioner” authorized to write “prescriptions” as defined by the Louisiana Pharmacy Practice Act.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Louisiana has been suspended; and therefore, Respondent currently lacks authority to manufacture, distribute, prescribe, or dispense controlled substances in Louisiana. Therefore, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BM0671481 issued to Gregory L. Molden. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Gregory L. Molden to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other application of Gregory L. Molden, for additional registration in Louisiana. This Order is effective May 4, 2020.
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, DOJ.
Notice.
This notice announces the completion date of the claims adjudication program referred to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“Commission”) by the Department of State by letter dated October 7, 2014 (the “Iraq II program”), involving claims of United States nationals against the Republic of Iraq that were settled under the “Claims Settlement Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Iraq,” dated September 2, 2010. By prior notice, the Commission announced the commencement of the Iraq II program on October 23, 2014 (79 FR 63439).
The completion date of the Iraq II program is April 13, 2020.
Brian M. Simkin, Chief Counsel, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, 441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC 20579, Tel. (202) 616-6975, FAX (202) 616-6993.
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Secretary of State and the Commission under subsection 4(a)(1)(C) of Title I of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 455, 81st Cong., approved March 10, 1950, as amended by Public Law 105-277, approved October 21, 1998 (22 U.S.C. 1623(a)(1)(C))), the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission hereby gives notice that on April 13, 2020, the Commission will complete the claims adjudication programs referred to the Commission by the Department of State by letter dated October 7, 2014 (the “Iraq II program”), involving claims of United States nationals against the Republic of Iraq that were settled under the “Claims Settlement Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Iraq,” dated September 2, 2010.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following extensions of a currently approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before June 2, 2020 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Mackie Malaka, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 6060, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at
Address requests for additional information to Mackie Malaka at the address above or telephone 703-548-2704.
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, requires financial institutions that meet certain thresholds to report data annually about Each application or loan, including the application date; the action taken and the date of that action; the loan amount; the loan type and purpose; and, if the loan is sold, the type of purchaser; Each applicant or borrower, including ethnicity, race, sex, and income; and Each property, including location and occupancy status.
A covered lender generally must update information quarterly, all reportable transaction must be recorded within 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter in which final action is taken on a loan application register (LAR), and must submit the completed LAR annually to the appropriate Federal agency by March 1 of the year following the year covered by the LAR. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) then prepares a disclosure statement from data submitted by the financial institutions, and provides the disclosure statement to the financial institution. Within three business days of receiving its statement, the financial institution must make a copy available at its home office. In addition, within ten business days of receiving its disclosure statement, the financial institution must either: (1) Make the disclosure statement available in at least one branch office in every Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Metropolitan Division (Division) where it has an office or (2) post a notice in at least one branch office per MSA and Division where it has an office stating that the disclosure statement is available upon written request. A covered lender must make each public disclosure statement available to the public for five years.
Each financial institution must retain its completed LAR for three years and during that period it must make its LAR available to the public after redacting certain information to protect the privacy of its applicants and borrowers.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on March 31, 2020.
National Science Foundation.
Request for information.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), chaired by the National Science Foundation, seeks public input on the content and organization of the next 5-year Arctic Research Plan: 2022-2026.
Written comments must be submitted no later than July 2, 2020.
Email comments to
Contact Meredith LaValley at 940-733-5675.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) is initiating development of the next Arctic Research Plan, as called for in the Arctic Research Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4108). The Plan aims to strengthen interagency communication, coordination, and collaboration of the 14 Federal agencies, departments and offices that make up IARPC. The Plan will address critical needs in Arctic research and identify those areas where research in the Arctic can be improved through interagency collaboration. More information is available at
IARPC is chartered as a subcommittee under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) managed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President. The Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA) provides for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic. The ARPA established an Arctic Research Commission (ARC) and an Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), to implement the Act. IARPC was formally created by Executive Order 12501 and with the Director of the National Science Foundation serving as Chair.
IARPC is charged with enhancing both the scientific monitoring of and research on local, regional, and global environmental issues in the Arctic. To meet the Nation's economic, scientific, and environmental needs, IARPC envisions a prosperous, sustainable and healthy Arctic realized through research coordinated among Federal agencies and domestic and international collaborators.
IARPC is required by law to prepare and execute a 5-year Arctic Research Plan, which helps to coordinate the overall Federal effort in Arctic research. To address the interests and needs of all, IARPC works in partnership with representatives from local communities, Indigenous Peoples, the State of Alaska, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, research institutions, and the academic community. To date, two research Plans have been released and implemented. The current Plan, “Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021,” has four policy drivers and nine research goals (see below). The current Plan is being implemented by nine collaboration teams which are co-led by program managers and researchers from IARPC agencies and individuals from the research community and Alaska Native partners.
In September 2019, the IARPC Principals approved the development of the next Arctic Research Plan, covering the period of 2022-2026, with a planned release date at the end of calendar year 2021.
Plans reflect the goals and missions of the Federal agencies supporting research in the Arctic and are developed in coordination with the goals and objectives set out by the Arctic Research Commission. Arctic Research Plans focus on research which will be enhanced through collaboration among Federal agencies. The new Arctic Research Plan will provide a blueprint for effective Federal coordination of Arctic research for the period 2022-2026, positioning the United States to remain a global leader in Arctic research and stewardship for many years to come.
As called for in the ARPA, IARPC seeks input to ensure that the research interests and needs of all are addressed appropriately in the new Plan. Input is sought from any interested individuals and organizations, and IARPC is committed to an open and equitable engagement process throughout the development of the Plan. A second
1. Content of the Plan: The critical issues where Federally-funded science and engineering research can provide knowledge to promote good decision-making at all levels related to the Arctic.
2. Organization of the Plan: The structure of the Arctic Research Plan and how it might be updated to better meet and communicate the science needs and plans for the Arctic.
The current Plan “Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021” has four policy drivers and nine research goals.
The policy drivers for the Arctic Research Plan FY2017-2021 are:
• Enhance the well-being of Arctic residents;
• Advance stewardship of the Arctic environment;
• Strengthen national and regional security; and
• Improve understanding of the Arctic as a component of planet Earth.
The 9 goals of the Arctic Research Plan FY2017-2021 are:
• Enhance understanding of health determinants and improve the well-being of Arctic residents;
• Advance process and system understanding of the changing Arctic
• Enhance understanding and improve predictions of the changing Arctic sea ice cover;
• Increase understanding of the structure and function of Arctic marine ecosystems and their role in the climate system and advance predictive capabilities;
• Understand and project the mass balance of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland Ice Sheet, and their consequences for sea level rise;
• Advance understanding of processes controlling permafrost dynamics and the impacts on ecosystems, infrastructure, and climate feedbacks;
• Advance an integrated, landscape-scale understanding of Arctic terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and the potential for future change;
• Strengthen coastal community resilience and advance stewardship of coastal natural and cultural resources by engaging in research related to the interconnections of people, and natural and built environments; and
• Enhance frameworks for environmental intelligence gathering, interpretation, and application toward decision support.
For the full Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021, see:
For the full Arctic Research Plan 2013-2017, see:
For details on the conduct of research we aim to support in the new Plan, see the Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Combined license application; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice of receipt and availability of an application for a combined license from Oklo Power, a subsidiary of Oklo, Inc.
The application for the combined license was received on March 11, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0088 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:
•
•
•
Lucieann Vechioli, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6035; email:
On March 11, 2020, Oklo Power, a subsidiary of Oklo, Inc. filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and title 10 of the
An applicant may seek a COL in accordance with subpart C of 10 CFR part 52.
The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information such as financial qualifications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77 as well as technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79.
Subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LTSE proposes a rule change to (i) amend how the Pre-Market Session and Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities will operate, and (ii) make certain non-substantive, technical changes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend LTSE Rules 11.190, 11.220, and 11.231 to revise how its Pre-Market Session and Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities
Existing LTSE Rule 11.190 provides that limit orders with a time-in-force (“TIF”) of DAY or GTX,
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(d) would be identical to existing LTSE Rule 11.190(d), but for the capitalization of the defined term “Order Amendment” in proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(d)(6).
Existing LTSE Rule 11.231 provides for an auction-style Opening Match
Under proposed LTSE Rule 11.231(a), orders for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities not eligible for trading prior to the commencement of the Regular Market Session that are received and queued during the Pre-Market Session, as described in LTSE Rule 11.190(a), would be queued in the time sequence of their receipt by the System, pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2).
Under proposed LTSE Rule 11.231(c), at the commencement of the Regular Hours Trading, orders for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities queued during the Pre-Market Session would be processed as incoming orders, consistent with LTSE Rules 11.190 and 11.230 in their relative time priority, pursuant to proposed LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2).
Under proposed LTSE Rule 11.231(d), all messages in Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities that are relevant to the Order Book and are received after the commencement of the Regular Market Session would be processed after the completion of the Regular Market Session Opening Process.
Under proposed LTSE Rule 11.231(e), if a security is subject to a halt, suspension, or pause in trading during the Pre-Market Session, the Exchange would not accept orders for that security for the Regular Market Session Opening Process or otherwise. If the halt, suspension, or pause remains in effect at the time of the Regular Market Session Opening Process, the Opening Process would not occur at the normally scheduled time. Once the security resumes trading, the Exchange would conduct the Regular Market Session Opening Process for any orders in the queue, and would then accept and execute orders as usual in accordance with prevailing market session rules.
The Exchange believes that permitting certain limit orders with a TIF which makes them ineligible to trade during the Pre-Market Session to become part of the Pre-Market Session order queue and to join the Order Book at the commencement of the Regular Market Session is consistent with an orderly and predictable market opening.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2), which would replace existing LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2) in its entirety, would require that orders queued for the Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities be ranked and maintained in time priority. The order established as the oldest in the System
To illustrate how the proposed Opening Process would operate, consider the following example where the Order Book prior to the start of Regular Market Session is as follows:
And the Pre-Market Session queue is as follows:
The Order Book at the start of the Regular Market Session would be as follows, as each of the orders in the Pre-Market Session queue are treated as incoming orders in relative time priority (and for illustrative purposes only, the time to drain each order in the queue is 1 millisecond):
Note that Orders F and B are gone; that is because incoming Order F would have executed against resting Order B.
As described in proposed LTSE Rule 11.231(d), all messages in Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities relevant to the Order Book received after the commencement of the Regular Market Session would be processed after the completion of the Regular Market Session Opening Process. Orders received during the Regular Market Session would become part of the Order Book only after the Pre-Market Session queue is completed. For example, if the following orders are received at the start Regular Market Session:
Then the Order Book would be as follows:
The preceding example illustrates how the proposed Opening Process would operate solely for orders in Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities. The Exchange has a different opening process for LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities in Rule 11.350, which would remain unchanged.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities. The simplicity and determinism of this Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities will facilitate trading of NMS stocks without imposing burdens on market participants to adapt to, or adopt, another opening cross methodology for securities where the Exchange is not the primary listing market. The Exchange also believes that the streamlined approach of the proposed rule change to commencing trading in the Regular Market Session removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a clear and transparent process designed to provide a means for trading in a Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Security to open in an orderly and timely manner.
In addition, the Exchange also believes that rejecting market orders with a TIF of DAY received during the Pre-Market Session will provide for a more orderly Opening Process and protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that market orders marked DAY, which are treated as having a TIF of IOC, should be treated in the same way as market orders marked IOC, which are rejected.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change aligns with the philosophy and principles of the Very Simple Market or VSM
LTSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities is designed to promote fair competition among brokers and dealers and exchanges by offering an alternative Opening Process, thereby promoting intermarket competition between exchanges in furtherance of the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act.
With respect to intramarket competition, the proposed Opening Process would apply equally to all non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities, and all Members and market participants that send orders to LTSE through Members in the Pre-Market Session. As described above, Members are permitted to enter orders for the Pre-Market Session queue, and all orders received are maintained in time priority. Consequently, LTSE does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would revise the Clearing Agency Investment Policy (“Investment Policy”) of NSCC and its affiliates, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC,” and together with DTC and NSCC, the “Clearing Agencies”) in order to (1) include the proceeds of the issuance of term debt by NSCC as part of the description of “Default Liquidity Funds” within the section for “Investable Funds”; (2) clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund;
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to revise the Investment Policy, which was adopted for each clearing agency in December 2016
The Investment Policy governs the management, custody and investment of cash deposited to the respective NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, and the DTC Participants Fund, the proprietary liquid net assets (cash and cash equivalents) of the Clearing Agencies, and other funds held by the Clearing Agencies pursuant to their respective rules.
The Investment Policy identifies the guiding principles for investments and defines the roles and responsibilities of DTCC staff in administering the Investment Policy pursuant to those principles. The Investment Policy is co-owned by DTCC's Treasury group (“Treasury”)
The Investment Policy also identifies sources of funds that may be invested, and the permitted investments of those funds, including the authority required to make such investments and the parameters of, and limitations on, each type of investment. Allowable investments include bank deposits, reverse repurchase agreements, direct obligations of the U.S. government,
The Investment Policy is reviewed and approved by the Boards annually. In connection with the most recent annual review of the Investment Policy and in order to reflect recent changes to NSCC's default liquidity funds, the Clearing Agencies have decided to propose certain revisions and updates. These proposed revisions, described in greater detail below, are designed to update the Investment Policy and help ensure that it reflects the Clearing Agencies' practices related to investments of funds.
First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of investable funds in Section 5 of the Investment Policy to include proceeds from the issuance of term debt by NSCC in the description of NSCC's default liquidity funds.
This table identifies the sources of investable funds that are invested by the Clearing Agencies, and groups these sources of funds into separate categories. One of the categories of investable funds is the default liquidity funds of NSCC, which is currently described as including the proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper and extendible notes. NSCC recently proposed to raise additional prefunded default liquidity through the periodic issuance and private placement of term debt.
The proposed change to the Investment Policy would include proceeds from the issuance of term debt in this category of “Investable Funds” to reflect the recent effectiveness of NSCC's proposal.
Second, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to make two revisions to the Investment Policy to clarify how DTC's Participants Fund may be invested. It has historically been DTC's practice to invest its Participants Fund in cash deposit accounts only, so that the funds are available for same-day access and settlement.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to update the Investment Policy to more clearly reflect this practice. First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of allowable investments in Section 6.1 of the Investment Policy to include a separate column to identify the DTC Participants Fund, and show these funds as being available for investment only in bank deposits, including DTC's cash deposit account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Currently, the DTC Participants Fund is included in the same column as the NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, which may also be invested in other investment types. Therefore, as currently written, this table indicates that DTC's Participants Fund may also be invested in those other investment types. The proposed change to create a separate column for DTC's Participants Fund would more clearly identify the allowable investments of these funds.
Also, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.1 of the Investment Policy, which describes the limits on investments in bank deposits, to explicitly state that DTC's Participants Fund may only be invested in demand deposit, savings or checking bank accounts that provide same day access to funds. This proposed change would clearly identify the limits on investments of DTC's Participants Fund in certain types of bank deposits.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly identifying DTC's practice with respect to the investment of its Participants Fund deposits.
Finally, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.2 of the Investment Policy, which describes investment limits on investments in reverse repurchase agreements. The proposed changes would include additional detail to more clearly describe the collateral that may be posted by a counterparty in connection with these investments and to identify the required haircuts on such collateral.
More specifically, in these arrangements, where the Clearing Agencies are the purchaser of securities, the counterparty to the transaction delivers to the custodian collateral (either securities or cash). Currently, the Investment Policy states that securities posted as collateral must have a market value equal to 102% or greater of the cash invested. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would further state that U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. agency securities and agency mortgage-backed securities posted as collateral must have a two percent haircut; and cash posted as collateral shall have no haircut, because cash does not carry any associated market risk that could lead to a change in collateral value.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly describing the limits applicable to these types of investments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed modifications to the Investment Policy are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of each of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of each of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
First, the proposed change to include proceeds from NSCC's issuance of term debt in the table of “Investable Funds” would make investments of these funds subject to the guidelines and restrictions set forth in the Investment Policy, and,
Second, the proposed changes to clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund and enhance the description of restrictions applicable to investments in reverse repurchase agreements would improve the clarity and accuracy of the Investment Policy. By creating clearer descriptions, the Clearing Agencies believe these proposed changes would make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies.
For the reasons described above, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes would improve the effectiveness of the Investment Policy and allow the Investment Policy to continue to be administered in alignment with the investment guidelines and governance procedures set forth therein. Given that such guidelines and governance procedures are designed to safeguard funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard the Clearing Agencies' own and their participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the Investment Policy follows a prudent and conservative investment philosophy, placing the highest priority on maximizing liquidity and avoiding risk of loss, by requiring the segregation of funds of each Clearing Agency and of types of funds of each Clearing Agency, using external credit ratings in the evaluation of counterparties, and establishing investment limits by counterparty as well as investment type. As originally implemented, the Investment Policy was designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
For the reasons stated above, the Clearing Agencies believe that each of the proposed revisions would improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the Investment Policy and, therefore, make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies. In this way, the proposed changes would better allow the Clearing Agencies to maintain this document in a way that is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16). Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed revisions would be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
Each of the Clearing Agencies believes that none of the proposed revisions to the Investment Policy would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Investment Policy applies equally to allowable investments of FICC and NSCC Clearing Funds and DTC Participants Fund deposits, as applicable, of each member of the Clearing Agencies, and establishes a uniform policy at the Clearing Agencies. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would not affect any changes on the fundamental purpose or operation of this document and, as such, would also not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing Agencies.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's schedule of fees, effective April 8, 2020, to implement a change in the maximum contingent Operational Loss Fee in accordance with OCC's Capital Management Policy. Proposed changes to OCC's schedule of fees are attached [sic] as Exhibit 5 to the filing. Material proposed to be added to OCC's schedule of fees as currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not 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 proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's schedule of fees to update the maximum aggregate Operational Loss Fee that OCC would charge Clearing Members in equal shares in the unlikely event that OCC's shareholders' equity (“Equity”) falls below certain thresholds defined in OCC's Capital Management Policy. The proposed fee change is designed to enable OCC to replenish capital to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act, which requires OCC, in pertinent part, to “hold[] liquid net assets funded by equity to the greater of either (x) six months . . . current operating expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and service”
On January 24, 2020, the SEC approved OCC's Capital Management Policy, which includes OCC's replenishment plan.
The RWD Amount and, in turn, the Adjusted RWD Amount are determined annually based on OCC's corporate budget, the assumptions articulated in
Since the allocation of the Operational Loss Fee is a function of the number of Clearing Members at the time of the charge, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member is subject to fluctuation during the course of the year. However, if the proposed Operational Loss Fee were charged to 106 Clearing Members, the number of Clearing Members as of December 31, 2019 for example, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member would be $1,338,365.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
OCC also believes that the proposed Operational Loss Fee would result in an equitable allocation of fees among its participants because it would be equally applicable to all Clearing Members. As the Commission has recognized, OCC's designation as a SIFMU and its role as the sole covered clearing agency for all listed options contracts in the U.S. makes it an integral part of the national system for clearance and settlement, through which “Clearing Members, their customers, investors, and the markets as a whole derive significant benefit . . . regardless of their specific utilization of that system.”
In addition, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii), which requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage OCC's general business risk, including by maintaining a viable plan, approved by the Board and updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should its equity fall close to or below the amount required under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
OCC also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-002 and should be submitted on or before April 24, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 3, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and
According to the Exchange, since it became a national securities exchange, the Exchange has contracted with FINRA through various regulatory services agreements to perform certain regulatory functions on its behalf.
The Exchange now proposes to reallocate operational responsibility from FINRA to Nasdaq Regulation for certain enforcement activity, specifically, the handling of certain contested disciplinary proceedings.
After careful review, 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 believes that the Exchange could leverage its knowledge of its markets and members, its experience with investigation and enforcement work, and its surveillance, investigation, and enforcement staff, in helping to effectively, efficiently, and with immediacy, litigate certain contested disciplinary proceeds.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would revise the Clearing Agency Investment Policy (“Investment Policy”) of FICC and its affiliates, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC,” and together with DTC and FICC, the “Clearing Agencies”) in order to (1) include the proceeds of the issuance of term debt by NSCC as part of the description of “Default Liquidity Funds” within the section for “Investable Funds”; (2) clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund;
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to revise the Investment Policy, which was adopted for each clearing agency in December 2016
The Investment Policy governs the management, custody and investment of cash deposited to the respective NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, and the DTC Participants Fund, the proprietary liquid net assets (cash and cash equivalents) of the Clearing Agencies, and other funds held by the Clearing Agencies pursuant to their respective rules.
The Investment Policy identifies the guiding principles for investments and defines the roles and responsibilities of DTCC staff in administering the Investment Policy pursuant to those principles. The Investment Policy is co-owned by DTCC's Treasury group (“Treasury”)
The Investment Policy also identifies sources of funds that may be invested, and the permitted investments of those funds, including the authority required to make such investments and the parameters of, and limitations on, each type of investment. Allowable investments include bank deposits, reverse repurchase agreements, direct obligations of the U.S. government, money market mutual funds, high-grade corporate debt, and hedge transactions. Finally, the Investment Policy defines the approval authority required to exceed established investment limits.
The Investment Policy is reviewed and approved by the Boards annually. In connection with the most recent annual review of the Investment Policy and in order to reflect recent changes to NSCC's default liquidity funds, the Clearing Agencies have decided to propose certain revisions and updates. These proposed revisions, described in greater detail below, are designed to update the Investment Policy and help ensure that it reflects the Clearing Agencies' practices related to investments of funds.
First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of investable funds in Section 5 of the Investment Policy to include proceeds from the issuance of term debt by NSCC in the description of NSCC's default liquidity funds.
This table identifies the sources of investable funds that are invested by the Clearing Agencies, and groups these sources of funds into separate categories. One of the categories of investable funds is the default liquidity funds of NSCC, which is currently described as including the proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper and extendible notes. NSCC recently proposed to raise additional prefunded default liquidity through the periodic issuance and private placement of term debt.
The proposed change to the Investment Policy would include proceeds from the issuance of term debt in this category of “Investable Funds” to reflect the recent effectiveness of NSCC's proposal.
Second, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to make two revisions to the Investment Policy to clarify how DTC's Participants Fund may be invested. It has historically been DTC's practice to invest its Participants Fund in cash deposit accounts only, so that the funds are available for same-day access and settlement.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to update the Investment Policy to more clearly reflect this practice. First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of allowable investments in Section 6.1 of the Investment Policy to include a separate column to identify the DTC Participants Fund, and show these funds as being available for investment only in bank deposits, including DTC's cash deposit account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Currently, the DTC Participants Fund is included in the same column as the NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, which may also be invested in other investment types. Therefore, as currently written, this table indicates that DTC's Participants Fund may also be invested in those other investment types. The proposed change to create a separate column for DTC's Participants Fund would more clearly identify the allowable investments of these funds.
Also, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.1 of the Investment Policy, which describes the limits on investments in bank deposits, to explicitly state that DTC's Participants Fund may only be invested in demand deposit, savings or checking bank accounts that provide same day access to funds. This proposed change would clearly identify the limits on investments of DTC's Participants Fund in certain types of bank deposits.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly identifying DTC's practice with respect to the investment of its Participants Fund deposits.
Finally, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.2 of the Investment Policy, which describes investment limits on investments in reverse repurchase agreements. The proposed changes would include additional detail to more clearly describe the collateral that may be posted by a counterparty in connection with these investments and to identify the required haircuts on such collateral.
More specifically, in these arrangements, where the Clearing Agencies are the purchaser of securities, the counterparty to the transaction delivers to the custodian collateral (either securities or cash). Currently, the Investment Policy states that securities posted as collateral must have a market value equal to 102% or greater of the cash invested. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would further state that U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. agency securities and agency mortgage-backed securities posted as collateral must have a two percent haircut; and cash posted as collateral shall have no haircut, because cash does not carry any associated market risk that could lead to a change in collateral value.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly describing the limits applicable to these types of investments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed modifications to the Investment Policy are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of each of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of each of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
First, the proposed change to include proceeds from NSCC's issuance of term debt in the table of “Investable Funds” would make investments of these funds subject to the guidelines and restrictions set forth in the Investment Policy, and, therefore, would assure the safeguarding of these funds.
Second, the proposed changes to clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund and enhance the description of restrictions applicable to investments in reverse repurchase agreements would improve the clarity and accuracy of the Investment Policy. By creating clearer descriptions, the Clearing Agencies believe these proposed changes would make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies.
For the reasons described above, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes would improve the effectiveness of the Investment Policy and allow the Investment Policy to continue to be administered in alignment with the investment guidelines and governance procedures set forth therein. Given that such guidelines and governance procedures are designed to safeguard funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard the Clearing Agencies' own and their participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the Investment Policy follows a prudent and conservative investment philosophy, placing the highest priority on maximizing liquidity and avoiding risk of loss, by requiring the segregation of funds of each Clearing Agency and of types of funds of each Clearing Agency, using external credit ratings in the evaluation of counterparties, and establishing investment limits by counterparty as well as investment type. As originally implemented, the Investment Policy was designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
For the reasons stated above, the Clearing Agencies believe that each of the proposed revisions would improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the Investment Policy and, therefore, make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies. In this way, the proposed changes would better allow the Clearing Agencies to maintain this document in a way that is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16). Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed revisions would be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
Each of the Clearing Agencies believes that none of the proposed revisions to the Investment Policy would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Investment Policy applies equally to allowable investments of FICC and NSCC Clearing Funds and DTC Participants Fund deposits, as applicable, of each member of the Clearing Agencies, and establishes a uniform policy at the Clearing Agencies. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would not affect any changes on the fundamental purpose or operation of this document and, as such, would also not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing Agencies.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would revise the Clearing Agency Investment Policy (“Investment Policy”) of DTC and its affiliates, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC,” and together with DTC and NSCC, the “Clearing Agencies”) in order to (1) include the proceeds of the issuance of term debt by NSCC as part of the description of “Default Liquidity Funds” within the section for “Investable Funds”; (2) clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund;
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to revise the Investment Policy, which was adopted for each clearing agency in December 2016
The Investment Policy governs the management, custody and investment of cash deposited to the respective NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, and the DTC Participants Fund, the proprietary liquid net assets (cash and cash equivalents) of the Clearing Agencies, and other funds held by the Clearing
The Investment Policy identifies the guiding principles for investments and defines the roles and responsibilities of DTCC staff in administering the Investment Policy pursuant to those principles. The Investment Policy is co-owned by DTCC's Treasury group (“Treasury”)
The Investment Policy also identifies sources of funds that may be invested, and the permitted investments of those funds, including the authority required to make such investments and the parameters of, and limitations on, each type of investment. Allowable investments include bank deposits, reverse repurchase agreements, direct obligations of the U.S. government, money market mutual funds, high-grade corporate debt, and hedge transactions. Finally, the Investment Policy defines the approval authority required to exceed established investment limits.
The Investment Policy is reviewed and approved by the Boards annually. In connection with the most recent annual review of the Investment Policy and in order to reflect recent changes to NSCC's default liquidity funds, the Clearing Agencies have decided to propose certain revisions and updates. These proposed revisions, described in greater detail below, are designed to update the Investment Policy and help ensure that it reflects the Clearing Agencies' practices related to investments of funds.
First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of investable funds in Section 5 of the Investment Policy to include proceeds from the issuance of term debt by NSCC in the description of NSCC's default liquidity funds.
This table identifies the sources of investable funds that are invested by the Clearing Agencies, and groups these sources of funds into separate categories. One of the categories of investable funds is the default liquidity funds of NSCC, which is currently described as including the proceeds from the issuance of commercial paper and extendible notes. NSCC recently proposed to raise additional prefunded default liquidity through the periodic issuance and private placement of term debt.
The proposed change to the Investment Policy would include proceeds from the issuance of term debt in this category of “Investable Funds” to reflect the recent effectiveness of NSCC's proposal.
Second, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to make two revisions to the Investment Policy to clarify how DTC's Participants Fund may be invested. It has historically been DTC's practice to invest its Participants Fund in cash deposit accounts only, so that the funds are available for same-day access and settlement.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to update the Investment Policy to more clearly reflect this practice. First, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend the table of allowable investments in Section 6.1 of the Investment Policy to include a separate column to identify the DTC Participants Fund, and show these funds as being available for investment only in bank deposits, including DTC's cash deposit account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Currently, the DTC Participants Fund is included in the same column as the NSCC and FICC Clearing Funds, which may also be invested in other investment types. Therefore, as currently written, this table indicates that DTC's Participants Fund may also be invested in those other investment types. The proposed change to create a separate column for DTC's Participants Fund would more clearly identify the allowable investments of these funds.
Also, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.1 of the Investment Policy, which describes the limits on investments in bank deposits, to explicitly state that DTC's Participants Fund may only be invested in demand deposit, savings or checking bank accounts that provide same day access to funds. This proposed change would clearly identify the limits on investments of DTC's Participants Fund in certain types of bank deposits.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly identifying DTC's practice with respect to the investment of its Participants Fund deposits.
Finally, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to amend Section 6.2.2 of the Investment Policy, which describes investment limits on investments in reverse repurchase agreements. The proposed changes would include additional detail to more clearly describe the collateral that may be posted by a counterparty in connection with these investments and to identify the required haircuts on such collateral.
More specifically, in these arrangements, where the Clearing Agencies are the purchaser of securities, the counterparty to the transaction delivers to the custodian collateral (either securities or cash). Currently, the Investment Policy states that securities posted as collateral must have a market value equal to 102% or greater of the cash invested. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would further state that U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. agency securities and agency mortgage-backed securities posted as collateral must have a two percent haircut; and cash posted as collateral shall have no haircut, because cash does not carry any associated market risk that could lead to a change in collateral value.
The proposed changes would improve the Investment Policy by more clearly describing the limits applicable to these types of investments.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed modifications to the Investment Policy
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of each of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of each of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
First, the proposed change to include proceeds from NSCC's issuance of term debt in the table of “Investable Funds” would make investments of these funds subject to the guidelines and restrictions set forth in the Investment Policy, and, therefore, would assure the safeguarding of these funds.
Second, the proposed changes to clarify the allowable investments for DTC's Participants Fund and enhance the description of restrictions applicable to investments in reverse repurchase agreements would improve the clarity and accuracy of the Investment Policy. By creating clearer descriptions, the Clearing Agencies believe these proposed changes would make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies.
For the reasons described above, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes would improve the effectiveness of the Investment Policy and allow the Investment Policy to continue to be administered in alignment with the investment guidelines and governance procedures set forth therein. Given that such guidelines and governance procedures are designed to safeguard funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard the Clearing Agencies' own and their participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the Investment Policy follows a prudent and conservative investment philosophy, placing the highest priority on maximizing liquidity and avoiding risk of loss, by requiring the segregation of funds of each Clearing Agency and of types of funds of each Clearing Agency, using external credit ratings in the evaluation of counterparties, and establishing investment limits by counterparty as well as investment type. As originally implemented, the Investment Policy was designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
For the reasons stated above, the Clearing Agencies believe that each of the proposed revisions would improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the Investment Policy and, therefore, make the Investment Policy more effective in governing the management, custody, and investment of funds of and held by the Clearing Agencies. In this way, the proposed changes would better allow the Clearing Agencies to maintain this document in a way that is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16). Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the proposed revisions would be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16) under the Act.
Each of the Clearing Agencies believes that none of the proposed revisions to the Investment Policy would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Investment Policy applies equally to allowable investments of FICC and NSCC Clearing Funds and DTC Participants Fund deposits, as applicable, of each member of the Clearing Agencies, and establishes a uniform policy at the Clearing Agencies. The proposed changes to the Investment Policy would not affect any changes on the fundamental purpose or operation of this document and, as such, would also not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing Agencies.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act regulates the initiation or resumption of quotations in a quotation medium by a broker-dealer for over-the-counter (“OTC”) securities. The Rule is intended to prevent broker-dealers from initiating or resuming quotations for OTC securities that may facilitate a fraudulent or manipulative scheme. Subject to certain exceptions, the Rule prohibits broker-dealers from publishing a quotation for a security, or submitting a quotation for publication, in a quotation medium unless they have reviewed specified information concerning the security and the issuer. With respect to the securities of certain private issuers, a broker-dealer must make such information reasonably available upon request to any person expressing an interest in a proposed transaction in the security with such broker or dealer.
Based on information provided by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), we understand that in the 2019 calendar year, approximately 34 broker-dealers completed information reviews pursuant to the Rule for 384 securities—87 concerning securities of reporting issuers, and 297 concerning securities of non-reporting issuers. The collection of information that is submitted to FINRA for review and approval is currently not available to the public from FINRA.
We estimate that it will take a broker-dealer 4 hours to review, record and retain the information pertaining to a reporting issuer (approximately 3 hours relating to recordkeeping and one hour relating to third-party disclosure), and 8 hours to review, record and retain the information pertaining to a non-reporting issuer (approximately 7 hours relating to recordkeeping and one hour relating to third-party disclosure). We therefore estimate that the total time burden for recordkeeping associated with the information review requirement of the Rule will be 2,340 hours [for (87 reviews for reporting issuers × 3 hours) + (297 reviews for non-reporting issuers × 7 hours)]; and the total time burden for third-party disclosure associated with the information review requirement of the Rule will be 384 hours [for (87 reviews for reporting issuers × 1 hour) + (297 reviews for non-reporting issuers × 1 hour)]. Thus, we estimate the industrywide total annual burden hours associated with the information review requirement under the Rule to be 2,724 hours (2,340 hours for recordkeeping + 384 hours for third-party disclosure). The Commission believes that the internal compliance costs for these 2,724 hours would be borne by internal staff working at a rate of $62 per hour.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-2—Recordkeeping Requirements Relating to Stabilizing Activities—requires underwriters to maintain information regarding stabilizing activities conducted in accordance with Rule 104 of Regulation M. The collections of information under Regulation M and Rule 17a-2 are necessary for covered persons to obtain certain benefits or to comply with certain requirements. The collections of information are necessary to provide the Commission with information regarding syndicate covering transactions and penalty bids. The Commission may review this information during periodic examinations or with respect to investigations. Except for the information required to be kept under Rule 104(i) (17 CFR 242.104(i)) and Rule 17a-2(c), none of the information required to be collected or disclosed for PRA purposes will be kept confidential. The recordkeeping requirement of Rule 17a-2 requires the information be maintained in a separate file, or in a separately retrievable format, for a period of three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f) (17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)).
There are approximately 805 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 4,025 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately 5 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 4,025 burden hours. The total estimated internal compliance cost for the respondents is approximately $281,750, resulting in an internal cost of compliance for each respondent per response of approximately $350.00 (
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates 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 of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 103—Nasdaq Passive Market Making—permits passive market-making in Nasdaq securities during a distribution. A distribution participant that seeks use of this exception would be required to disclose to third parties its intention to engage in passive market making.
There are approximately 307 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 307 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately 1 hour to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 307 burden hours. The total estimated internal labor cost of compliance for the respondents is approximately $21,490.00 per year, resulting in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance per response of approximately $70.00 (
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates 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 of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 101—Activities by Distribution Participants—prohibits distribution participants from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by this rule may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as a calculation of the average daily trading volume of the securities in distribution, the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates, and the maintenance of a written policy regarding general compliance with Regulation M for de minimus transactions.
There are approximately 1,589 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 27,215 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on average approximately 17.127 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 27,215 burden hours. The total estimated internal labor compliance cost for the respondents is approximately $1,905,050, resulting in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance for each respondent per response of approximately $1,198.90 (
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice that Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declarations have been issued for each State and Territory of the U.S.
Issued between 03/16/2020 to 03/21/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declarations, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. For additional information, please visit
The following United States and U.S. Territories have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
Belpre Industrial Parkersburg Railroad, LLC (BIP), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate approximately 46.9 miles of rail
BIP states that it will shortly enter into an agreement with CSXT to lease the Lines from CSXT and BIP will be the operator of the Lines.
According to BIP, the lease does not contain a provision or agreement that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. BIP certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the transaction will not exceed those of a Class III carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is April 18, 2020 (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than April 10, 2020 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36388, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on BIP's representative, David F. Rifkind, Stinson LLP, 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006.
According to BIP, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Raritan Central Railway, LLC (RCRY), a Class III railroad, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and operate approximately 7.08 miles of rail lines in Middlesex County, N.J. (the Line), consisting of the following: (1) The Bonhamton Industrial Track, from the switch connection for the east and west legs of the Northeast Corridor wye, including the at-grade crossing of High Street, to its connection with the Raritan Industrial Track; (2) the Miracle Run Branch, from its connection with the Bonhamton Industrial Track to the end of Conrail's ownership in the vicinity of Vineyard Road; (3) the Raritan Industrial Track, from its connection with the Bonhamton Industrial Track to the east side of Crows Mill Road, including the at-grade crossing thereof; and (4) the Raritan Center Industrial Track, from its connection with the Raritan Industrial Track to a point 579 feet beyond the point of switch towards Heller Park, and to a point 150 feet beyond the clearance point of said switch towards the out of service track for headroom only.
The verified notice states that RCRY entered into a lease with Conrail dated March 17, 2020, to provide common carrier rail service over the Line. The verified notice further states that RCRY will operate the Line after the transaction, although Conrail, the current operator of the Line, has reserved rights to operate over portions of the Line.
RCRY certifies that the lease does not impose or include an interchange commitment.
RCRY further certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of the proposed transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is April 17, 2020 (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than April 10, 2020 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36393, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on RCRY's representative: Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Suite 2620, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
According to RCRY, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.7(e) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of availability of finding of no significant impact/record of decision.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its decision to adopt the United States Air Force (USAF) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Personnel Recovery Training Program for the establishment of a Temporary Military Operations Area (TMOA) in Playas, New Mexico. This notice announces that, based on its independent review and evaluation of the EA and supporting documents, the FAA is adopting the EA and issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision (ROD) for the establishment of the Playas TMOA.
Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7378.
A TMOA is needed to support large force personnel recovery training events, known as Red Flag-Rescue, to ensure combat forces have gained experience operating jointly before deploying to theater. The Red Flag-Rescue training events provide the Department of Defense (DoD) personnel recovery forces combat search and rescue missions in a large force training event simulating deployed conditions. The Red Flag-Rescue training events encompass many different types of land-based and airspace exercises over several states. The subject FAA FONSI/ROD is only for the activation of the Playas TMOA over Playas, New Mexico, for a specific exercise within the Red Flag-Rescue.
After evaluating the EA, the FAA has issued a FONSI/ROD to establish the Playas TMOA for separate Red Flag-Rescue training events. Each training event is anticipated to last approximately two to three weeks. The TMOA would only be used during a specified timeframe during each Red Flag-Rescue training event with specific times of use announced via Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). The TMOA would only be activated during an approximate two to three week period, biannually, for up to four years. The total activation period would not exceed 45 days. The actual times of use of activation would vary from continuous to day-night windows, scheduled to meet training requirements.
In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), the Council on Environmental Quality's (“CEQ”) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable authorities, including the FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2M, “Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,” paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of the USAF's EA, dated February 2020, and its supporting documents. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for approving special use airspace (SUA) under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and coordinated with the USAF during the environmental review process.
The Draft EA was provided for public review for 36 days starting on September 20, 2019, and ending on October 26, 2019. Fourteen comments were received on the Draft EA during this time period; however, only one comment received was specific to the FAA's Proposed Action, and it requested clarification of the Proposed Action.
The FONSI/ROD and EA are available upon request by contacting Paula Miller at: Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7378.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) for an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that would allow an individual who successfully completes a training program consistent with a set of Intermodal Recommended Practices (IRPs) developed by IANA to be considered a qualified inspector for purposes of the periodic inspection rule, or a qualified brake inspector, for purposes of the brake system inspection, repair and maintenance requirements.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2020.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2020-0081 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Under 49 CFR 381.315(a), FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The FMCSRs require individuals performing (1) annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) under 49 CFR 396.17, or (2) inspections, maintenance, repairs, or service to the brake systems on CMVs under § 396.25, to be properly qualified to perform such inspections. Under §§ 396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii), an individual who has a combination of training or experience totaling at least 1 year as outlined in those sections is considered to be qualified to conduct those inspections. IANA has applied for an exemption to allow a chassis mechanic who has successfully completed a training program consistent with IANA's IRPs to be a qualified inspector or qualified brake inspector without having the required 1 year of training or experience. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on IANA's application for an exemption from §§ 396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii) of the FMCSRs. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the “Addresses” section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2020-0060 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel WIDGEON is:
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2020-0058 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MASTIVIA is:
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2020-0059 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MOBY is:
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before May 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2020-0057 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CREOLA is:
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
A.
The BEA Program complements the community development activities of banks and thrifts (collectively referred to as banks for purposes of this NOFA), by providing financial incentives to expand investments in CDFIs and to increase lending, investment, and Service Activities within Distressed Communities. Providing monetary awards to banks for increasing their community development activities leverages the CDFI Fund's dollars and puts more capital to work in Distressed Communities throughout the nation.
B.
C.
D.
1. Estimated Award Amounts: The award percentage used to derive the estimated award amount for Applicants that are CDFIs is three times greater than the award percentage used to derive the estimated award amount for Applicants that are not CDFIs;
2. Priority Factors: Priority Factors will be assigned based on an Applicant's asset size, as described in Section V.A.14 of this NOFA (Application Review Information: Priority Factors); and
3. Priority of Awards: The CDFI Fund will rank Applicants in each category of Qualified Activity according to the priorities described in Section V.A.16. of this NOFA (Application Review Information: Award Percentages, Award Amounts, Application Review Process, Selection Process, Programmatic Financial Risk, and Application Rejection), and specifically parts V.B.2: Selection Process, V.B.3: Programmatic and Financial Risk, and V.B.4: Persistent Poverty Counties.
E.
F.
G.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Distressed Community Financing Activities (12 CFR 1806.103) means Consumer Loans and Commercial Loans and Investments. Consumer Loans include Affordable Housing Loans; Education Loans; Home Improvement Loans; and Small Dollar Consumer Loans. Commercial Loans and Investments includes Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments; Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments; and Small Business Loans and related Project Investments. Service Activities (12 CFR 1806.103) include Deposit Liabilities, Financial Services, Community Services, Targeted Financial Services, and Targeted Retail Savings/Investment Products.
When calculating BEA Program Award amounts, the CDFI Fund will only consider the amount of a Qualified Activity that has been fully disbursed or, in the case of a partially disbursed Qualified Activity, will only consider the amount that an Applicant reasonably expects to disburse for a Qualified Activity within 12 months from the end of the Assessment Period. Subject to the requirements outlined in Section VI. of this NOFA, in the case of Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments, the total principal amount of the transaction must be $10 million or less to be considered a Qualified Activity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may consider transactions with a total principal value of over $10 million, subject to review.
An activity funded with prior BEA Program Award dollars, or funded to satisfy requirements of an Award Agreement from a prior BEA Program award or an agreement under any CDFI Fund program, shall not constitute a Qualified Activity for the purposes of calculating or receiving an award.
E.
Please note that a Distressed Community as defined by the BEA Program is not the same as an Investment Area as defined by the CDFI Program, a Low-Income Community as defined by the NMTC Program, or an Area of Economic Distress as defined by the CMF Program.
1. Designation of Distressed Community by a CDFI Partner: CDFI Partners that receive CDFI Support Activities in the form of loans, technical assistance or deposits from an Applicant must be integrally involved in a Distressed Community. Applicants must provide evidence that each CDFI Partner that is the recipient of CDFI Support Activities is integrally involved in a Distressed Community, as noted in the Application. CDFI Partners that receive Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans or grants are not required to demonstrate Integral Involvement. Additional information on Integral Involvement can be found in Section V. of this NOFA.
2. Distressed Community Determination by a BEA Applicant: Applicants applying for a BEA Program Award for performing Distressed Community Financing Activities or Service Activities must verify that addresses of both Baseline Period and Assessment Period activities are in Distressed Communities when completing their Application.
A BEA Applicant shall determine an area is a Distressed Community by:
a. Selecting a census tract where the Qualified Activity occurred that meets the minimum area and eligibility requirements; or
b. selecting the census tract where the Qualified Activity occurred, plus one or more census tracts directly contiguous to where the Qualified Activity occurred that when considered in the aggregate, meet the minimum area and eligibility requirements set forth in this section.
F.
G.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
The CDFI Fund electronically retrieves validated Grant Application Packages from
Once the CDFI Fund has retrieved the validated Grant Application Package from
Applicants are advised that the CDFI Fund will not notify them when the validated Grant Application Package has been retrieved from
Applicants are advised that the lookup function in the FY 2020 BEA Application in AMIS, uses the DUNS number reported on the validated Grant Application Package to match it with the correct AMIS Organization account. Therefore, Applicants must make sure the DUNS number included in the Grant Application Package submitted in
Applicants are also highly encouraged to provide EIN, Authorized Representative and/or Contact Person
E.
F.
An original, signed notarized letter identifying the authorized Entity Administrator for the entity associated with the DUNS number is required by SAM and must be mailed to the Federal Service Desk. This requirement is applicable to new entities registering in SAM, as well as existing entities with registrations being updated or renewed in SAM. Additional information on the notarized letter process can be located at:
The CDFI Fund will not consider any Applicant that fails to properly register or activate its SAM's account and, as a result, is unable to submit its Grant Application Package in
G.
H.
1. Confirmation of Application Submission: Applicants may verify that their Grant Application Package was successfully submitted and validated in
a.
b. AMIS Submission Information: AMIS is the web-based portal where Applicants will directly enter their application information and add supporting documentation, when applicable. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages the Applicant to allow sufficient time to confirm the Application content, review the material submitted, and remedy any issues prior to the BEA Transactions deadline. Only the Authorized Representative or an Application Point of Contact can submit the FY 2020 BEA Program Application in AMIS.
Applicants will not receive an email confirming that their FY 2020 BEA Program Application was successfully submitted in AMIS. Instead, Applicants should check their AMIS account to ensure that the status of the FY 2020 BEA Program Application shows “Under Review.” Step-by-step instructions for submitting an FY 2020 BEA Program Application in AMIS are provided in the Application Instructions, Supplemental Guidance, and AMIS Training Manual for the BEA Program Electronic Application.
2. Multiple Application Submissions: If an Applicant submits multiple versions of its Grant Application Package in
Applicants can only submit one FY 2020 BEA Program Application in AMIS. Upon submission, the Application will be locked and cannot be resubmitted, edited, or modified in any way. The CDFI Fund will not unlock a submitted Application or allow multiple Application submissions.
3. Late Submission: The CDFI Fund will not accept an SF-424 Mandatory in
I.
1. The Award Recipient shall use BEA Program Award funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. D. of this NOFA and the Authorized BEA Program Activities described in its Award Agreement.
2. The Award Recipient may not distribute BEA Program Award funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
3. BEA Program Award funds shall only be disbursed to the Award Recipient.
4. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may disburse BEA Program Award funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
J.
A.
The CDFI Fund will not collect or accept any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in AMIS or in any of the application submission materials. PII is information, which if lost, compromised, or disclosed without authorization, could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to an individual. Although Applicants are required to enter addresses of individual borrowers/residents of Distressed Communities in AMIS, Applicants must not include the following PII for the individuals who received the financial products or services in AMIS or in the supporting documentation: name of the individual, Social Security Number, driver's license or state identification number, passport number, and Alien Registration Number. This information should be redacted from all supporting documentation. If the CDFI Fund discovers PII during the review of an Application, the transaction will be deleted from the application record and deemed ineligible.
1. CDFI Related Activities: CDFI Related Activities include Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, and
2. Eligible CDFI Partner: CDFI Partner is defined as a certified CDFI that has been provided assistance in the form of CDFI Related Activities by an unaffiliated Applicant (12 CFR 1806.103). For the purposes of this NOFA, an eligible CDFI Partner must have been certified as a CDFI as of the date that the BEA Applicant made its investment or provided support, and be Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community (if the BEA Applicant provided CDFI Support Activities to the CDFI Partner).
3. Integrally Involved: Integrally Involved is defined at 12 CFR 1806.103. For purposes of this NOFA, in order for an Applicant to report CDFI Support Activities in its Application, the CDFI Partner which received the support must be deemed to be Integrally Involved by demonstrating it has: (i) Provided at least 10 percent of the number of its financial transactions or dollars transacted (
4. Limitations on eligible Qualified Activities provided to certain CDFI Partners: A CDFI Applicant cannot receive credit for any financial assistance or Qualified Activities provided to a CDFI Partner that is also an FDIC-insured depository institution or depository institution holding company.
5. Certificates of Deposit: Section 1806.103 of the Interim Rule states that any certificate of deposit (CD) placed by an Applicant or its Subsidiary in a CDFI Partner that is a bank, thrift, or credit union must be: (i) Uninsured and committed for at least three years; or (ii) insured, committed for a term of at least three years, and provided at an interest rate that is materially below market rates, in the determination of the CDFI Fund.
a. For purposes of this NOFA, “materially below market interest rate” is defined as an annual percentage rate that does not exceed the yields on Treasury securities at constant maturity as interpolated by Treasury from the daily yield curve and available on the Treasury website at
b. For purposes of this NOFA, a deposit placed by an Applicant directly with a CDFI Partner that participates in a deposit network or service may be treated as eligible under this NOFA if it otherwise meets the criteria for deposits in 12 CFR.1806.103 and the CDFI Partner retains the full amount of the initial deposit or an amount equivalent to the full amount of the initial deposit through a deposit network exchange transaction.
6. Equity Investment: An Equity Investment means financial assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, which CDFI meets such criteria as set forth in this NOFA, in the form of a grant, a stock purchase, a purchase of a partnership interest, a purchase of a limited liability company membership interest, or any other investment deemed to be an Equity Investment by the CDFI Fund.
7. Equity-Like Loan: An Equity-Like Loan is a loan provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, and made on such terms that it has characteristics of an Equity Investment, as such characteristics may be specified by the CDFI Fund (12 CFR 1806.103). For purposes of this NOFA, an Equity-Like Loan must meet the following characteristics:
a. At the end of the initial term, the loan must have a definite rolling maturity date that is automatically extended on an annual basis if the CDFI borrower continues to be financially sound and carry out a community development mission;
b. Periodic payments of interest and/or principal may only be made out of the CDFI borrower's available cash flow after satisfying all other obligations;
c. Failure to pay principal or interest (except at maturity) will not automatically result in a default of the loan agreement; and
d. The loan must be subordinated to all other debt except for other Equity-Like Loans. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to determine, in its sole discretion and on a case-by-case basis, whether an instrument meets the above-stated characteristics of an Equity-Like Loan.
8. CDFI Support Activity: A CDFI Support Activity is defined as assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI that is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, in the form of a loan, Technical Assistance, or deposits.
9. CDFI Program Matching Funds: Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, and CDFI Support Activities (except Technical Assistance) provided by a BEA Applicant to a CDFI and used by the CDFI for matching funds under the CDFI Program are eligible as a Qualified Activity under the CDFI Related Activity category.
10. Commercial Loans and Investments: Commercial Loans and Investments is a sub-category of Distressed Community Financing Activities and is defined as the following lending activity types: Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments; Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments; and Small Business Loans and related Project Investments.
11. Consumer Loans: Consumer Loans is a sub-category of Distressed
12. Distressed Community Financing Activities and Service Activities: Distressed Community Financing Activities comply with consumer protection laws and are defined as (1) Consumer Loans; or (2) Commercial Loans and Investments. In addition to the requirements set forth in the Interim Rule, this NOFA provides the following additional requirements:
a. Affordable Housing Development Loans and Related Project Investments: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments do not include housing for students, or school dormitories. In addition, for such transactions, Applicants will be required to provide supporting documentation that demonstrates that at least 60 percent of the units in the property financed are or will be sold or rented to Eligible Residents who meet Low-and-Moderate-income requirements, as noted in the Application instructions.
b. Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Commercial Real Estate Loans (12 CFR 1806.103) and related Project Investments are generally limited to transactions with a total principal value of $10 million or less.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may consider transactions with a total principal value of over $10 million, subject to review. For such transactions, Applicants must provide a separate narrative, or other information, to demonstrate that the proposed project offers, or significantly enhances the quality of, a facility or service not currently provided to the Distressed Community.
c. Small Dollar Consumer Loan: For purposes of this NOFA, eligible Small Dollar Consumer Loans are affordable loans that serve as available alternatives to the marketplace for individuals who are Eligible Residents with a total principal value of no less than $500 and no greater than $5,000 and have a term of ninety (90) days or more.
d. Distressed Community Financing Activities—Transactions Less Than $250,000: For purposes of this NOFA, Applicants are expected to maintain records for any transaction submitted as part of the FY 2020 BEA Program Application, including supporting documentation for transactions in the Distressed Community Financing Activity category of less than $250,000. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to request supporting documentation from an Applicant during its Application Review process for a Distressed Community Financing Activities transaction less than $250,000.
e. Low- and Moderate-Income residents: For the purposes of this NOFA, Low-Income means borrower income that does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, and Moderate-Income means borrower income may be 81 percent to no more than 120 percent of the area median income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data.
13. Reporting Certain Financial Services: The CDFI Fund will value the administrative cost of providing certain Financial Services using the following per unit values:
a. $100.00 per account for Targeted Financial Services including safe transaction accounts, youth transaction accounts, Electronic Transfer Accounts and Individual Development Accounts;
b. $50.00 per account for checking and savings accounts that do not meet the definition of Targeted Financial Services;
c. $5.00 per check cashing transaction;
d. $50,000 per new ATM installed at a location in a Distressed Community;
e. $500,000 per new retail bank branch office opened in a Distressed Community, including school-based bank branches approved by the Applicant's Federal bank regulator;
f. In the case of Applicants engaging in Financial Services activities not described above, the CDFI Fund will determine the unit value of such services;
g. When reporting the opening of a new retail bank branch office, the Applicant must certify that such new branch is intended to remain in operation for at least the next five years;
h. Financial Service Activities must be provided by the Applicant to Eligible Residents or enterprises that are located in a Distressed Community. An Applicant may determine the number of Eligible Residents who are Award Recipients of Financial Services by either: (i) Collecting the addresses of its Financial Services customers, or (ii) certifying that the Applicant reasonably believes that such customers are Eligible Residents or enterprises located in a Distressed Community and providing a brief analytical narrative with information describing how the Applicant made this determination. Citations must be provided for external sources. In addition, if external sources are referenced in the narrative, the Applicant must explain how it reached the conclusion that the cited references are directly related to the Eligible Residents or enterprises to whom it is claiming to have provided the Financial Services; and
i. When reporting changes in the dollar amount of deposit accounts, only calculate the net change in the total dollar amount of eligible Deposit Liabilities between the Baseline Period and the Assessment Period. Do not report each individual deposit. If the net change between the Baseline Period and Assessment Period is a negative dollar amount, then a negative dollar amount may be recorded for Deposit Liabilities only. Instructions for determining the net change is available in the FY 2020 BEA Program Application in AMIS.
14. Priority Factors: Priority Factors are the numeric values assigned to individual types of activity within: (i) The Distressed Community Financing Activities, and (ii) Services Activities categories of Qualified Activities. For the purposes of this NOFA, Priority Factors will be based on the Applicant's asset size as of the end of the Assessment Period (December 31, 2019) as reported by the Applicant in the Application. Asset size classes (
15. Certain Limitations on Qualified Activities:
a. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant for which the Applicant receives benefits through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 42), shall not constitute an Equity Investment, Project Investment, or other Qualified Activity, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award.
b. New Markets Tax Credits: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant for which the Applicant receives benefits as an investor in a Community Development Entity that has received an allocation of New Markets Tax Credits, authorized pursuant to Section 45D of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 45D), shall not constitute an Equity Investment, Project Investment, or other Qualified Activity, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award. Leverage loans used in New Markets Tax Credit structured transactions that meet the requirements outlined in this NOFA are considered Distressed Community Financing Activities. The application materials will provide further guidance on requirements for BEA transactions which were leverage loans used in a New Markets Tax Credit structured transaction.
c. Loan Renewals and Refinances: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant shall not constitute a Qualified Activity, as defined in this part, for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award if such financial assistance consists of a loan to a borrower that has matured and is then renewed by the Applicant, or consists of a loan to a borrower that is retired or restructured using the proceeds of a new commitment by the Applicant.
d. Certain Business Types: Financial assistance provided by an Applicant shall not constitute a Qualified Activity, as defined in this part, for the purposes of financing the following business types: Adult entertainment providers, golf courses, race tracks, gambling facilities, country clubs, facilities offering massage services, hot tub facilities, suntan facilities, or stores where the principal business is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises.
e. Prior BEA Program Awards: Qualified Activities funded with prior funding round BEA Program Award dollars or funded to satisfy requirements of the BEA Program Award Agreement shall not constitute a Qualified Activity for the purposes of calculating or receiving a BEA Program Award.
f. Prior CDFI Fund Awards: No Applicant may receive a BEA Program Award for the same activities funded by another CDFI Fund program or Federal program.
16. Award Percentages, Award Amounts, Application Review Process, Selection Process, Programmatic and Financial Risk, and Application Rejection: The Interim Rule and this NOFA describe the process for selecting Applicants to receive a BEA Program Award and determining Award amounts.
a. Award percentages: In the CDFI Related Activities subcategory of CDFI Equity, for all Applicants, the estimated award amount will be equal to 18 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities reported in this subcategory.
In the CDFI Related Activities subcategory of CDFI Support Activities, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 18 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 6 percent of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory.
In Distressed Community Financing Activities' subcategory of Consumer Lending, the estimated award amount for certified CDFI Applicants will be 18 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 6 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory.
In the Distressed Community Financing Activities subcategory of Commercial Lending and Investments, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 9 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activities in this subcategory. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 3 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity in this subcategory.
In the Service Activities category, for a certified CDFI Applicant, the estimated award amount will be equal to 9 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity for the category. If an Applicant is not a certified CDFI, the estimated award amount will be equal to 3 percent of the weighted value of the increase in Qualified Activity for the category.
b. Award Amounts: An Applicant's estimated award amount will be calculated according to the procedure outlined in the Interim Rule (at 12 CFR 1806.403). As outlined in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404, the CDFI Fund will determine actual Award amounts based on the availability of funds, increases in Qualified Activities from the Baseline Period to the Assessment Period, and the priority ranking of each Applicant.
In calculating the increase in Qualified Activities, the CDFI Fund will determine the eligibility of each transaction for which an Applicant has applied for a BEA Program Award. In some cases, the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund may not be the same as the estimated award amount requested by the Applicant.
For purposes of calculating award payment amounts, the CDFI Fund will treat Qualified Activities with a total principal amount less than or equal to $250,000 as fully disbursed. For all other Qualified Activities, Award Recipients will have 12 months from the end of the Assessment Period to make disbursements and 15 months from the end of the Assessment Period to submit to the CDFI Fund subsequent payment requests for the corresponding portion of their awards, after which the CDFI Fund will rescind and de-obligate any outstanding award balance and said outstanding award balance will no longer be available to the Award Recipient.
B.
1. Application Review Process: All Applications will be initially evaluated by external non-Federal reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their experience in understanding various financial transactions, reading and interpreting financial documentation,
2. Selection Process: If the amount of funds available during the funding round is insufficient for all estimated Award amounts, Award Recipients will be selected based on the process described in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404. This process gives funding priority to Applicants that undertake activities in the following order: (i) CDFI Related Activities, (ii) Distressed Community Financing Activities, and (iii) Service Activities, as described in the Interim Rule at 12 CFR 1806.404(c).
Within each category, CDFI Applicants will be ranked first according to the ratio of the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund for the category to the total assets of the Applicant, followed by Applicants that are not CDFI Applicants according to the ratio of the actual award amount calculated by the CDFI Fund for the category to the total assets of the Applicant. Selections within each priority category will be based on the Applicants' relative rankings within each such category, subject to the availability of funds and any established maximum dollar amount of total awards that may be awarded for the Distressed Community Financing Activities category of Qualified Activities, as determined by the CDFI Fund.
The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion: (i) May adjust the estimated award amount that an Applicant may receive; (ii) may establish a maximum amount that may be awarded to an Applicant; and (iii) reserves the right to limit the amount of an award to any Applicant if the CDFI Fund deems it appropriate.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Applicant to confirm or clarify information. If contacted, the Applicant must respond within the CDFI Fund's time parameters or the Application may be rejected.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to change its eligibility and evaluation criteria and procedures. If those changes materially affect the CDFI Fund's award decisions, the CDFI Fund will provide information regarding the changes through the CDFI Fund's website.
3. Programmatic and Financial Risk: The CDFI Fund will consider safety and soundness information from the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency as defined in Section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q)). If the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency identifies safety and soundness concerns, the CDFI Fund will assess whether the concerns cause or will cause the Applicant to be incapable of completing the activities for which funding has been requested. The CDFI Fund will not approve a BEA Program Award under any circumstances for an Applicant if the appropriate Federal bank regulatory agency indicates that the Applicant received a composite rating of “5” on its most recent examination, performed in accordance with the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System.
Furthermore, the CDFI Fund will not approve a BEA Program Award for an Applicant that has:
a. A CRA assessment rating of below “Satisfactory” on its most recent examination; (ii.) a financial audit with: a going concern paragraph, an adverse opinion, a disclaimer of opinion, or a withdrawal of an opinion on its most recent audit; or (iii.) a Prompt Corrective Action directive from its regulator imposing restrictions on its level of lending activities, that was active at the time the Applicant submitted its Application to the CDFI Fund or becomes active during the CDFI Fund's evaluation of the Application for: activities which funding has been requested, activities which meet the BEA Program criteria of Qualified Activities, or other circumstances which may impact an Applicant's ability to successfully manage, re-invest, and/or report on a FY 2020 BEA Program Award.
Applicants and/or their appropriate Federal bank regulator agency may be contacted by the CDFI Fund to provide additional information related to Federal bank regulatory or CRA information. The CDFI Fund will consider this information and may choose to not approve a FY 2020 BEA Program Award for an Applicant if the information indicates that the Applicant may be unable to responsibly manage, re-invest, and/or report on a FY 2020 BEA Program Award during the period of performance.
4. Persistent Poverty Counties: Should the CDFI Fund determine, upon analysis of the initial pool of BEA Program Award Recipients, that it has not achieved the 10 percent PPC requirement mandated by Congress, Award preference will be given to Applicants that committed to deploying a minimum of 10 percent of their FY 2020 BEA Program Award in PPCs. Applicants may be required to deploy more than the minimum commitment percentage, but the percentage required should not exceed the maximum commitment percentage provided in the Application. Applicants that committed to serving PPCs and are selected to receive a FY 2020 BEA Program award, will have their PPC commitment incorporated into their Award Agreement as a Performance Goal which will be subject to compliance and reporting requirements. No Applicant, however, will be disqualified from consideration for not making a PPC commitment in its BEA Program Application.
5. Application Rejection: The CDFI Fund reserves the right to reject an Application if information (including administrative error) comes to the CDFI Fund's attention that either: adversely affects an Applicant's eligibility for an award; adversely affects the CDFI Fund's evaluation or scoring of an Application; or indicates fraud or mismanagement on the Applicant's part. If the CDFI Fund determines any portion of the Application is incorrect in a material respect, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject the Application.
There is no right to appeal the CDFI Fund's award decisions. The CDFI Fund's award decisions are final. The CDFI Fund will not discuss the specifics of an Applicant's FY 2020 BEA Program Application or provide reasons why an Applicant was not selected to receive a FY 2020 BEA Program Award. The CDFI Fund will only respond to general questions regarding the FY 2020 BEA Program Application and award decision process until 30 days after the award announcement date.
C.
A.
B.
If the Award Recipient's certification status as a CDFI changes, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to re-calculate the award, and modify the Award Agreement based on the Award Recipient's non-CDFI status.
By executing an Award Agreement, the Award Recipient agrees that, if the CDFI Fund becomes aware of any information (including an administrative error) prior to the effective date of the Award Agreement that either adversely affects the Award Recipient's eligibility for an award, or adversely affects the CDFI Fund's evaluation of the Award Recipient's Application, or indicates fraud or mismanagement on the part of the Award Recipient, the CDFI Fund may, in its discretion and without advance notice to the Award Recipient, terminate the Award Agreement or take other actions as it deems appropriate.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to rescind an award if the Award Recipient fails to return the Award Agreement, signed by the authorized representative of the Award Recipient, and/or provide the CDFI Fund with any other requested documentation, within the CDFI Fund's deadlines.
In addition, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Award Agreement and the award made under this NOFA for any criteria described in the following table:
C.
D.
Each Award Recipient is responsible for the timely and complete submission of the reporting requirements. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Award Recipient to request additional information and documentation. The CDFI Fund may consider financial information filed with Federal regulators during its compliance review. The CDFI Fund will use such information to monitor each Award Recipient's compliance with the requirements in the Award Agreement and to assess the impact of the BEA Program. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify these reporting requirements if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice has been provided to Award Recipients.
E.
Each of the Qualified Activities categories will be ineligible for indirect costs and an associated indirect cost rate. The cost principles used by Award Recipients must be consistent with Federal cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the BEA Program Award. In addition, the CDFI Fund will require Award Recipients to: maintain effective internal controls; comply with
A.
The following table lists contact information for the CDFI Fund,
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4703, 4703 note, 4713; 12 CFR part 1806.
Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee April 14, 2020, telephonic public meeting.
The United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) telephonic public meeting scheduled for April 14, 2020.
Interested persons should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and location.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by email to
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7208.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA National Academic Affiliations Council (NAAC) will meet via conference call on May 1, 2020, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.
On May 1, 2020, the Council will discuss the healthcare education community response to COVID-19. The Council will receive public comments from 3:50 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the Council. The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 1-800-767-1750. At the prompt, enter access code 12095 then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral statements are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting or at any time, by email to
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 4, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Danny S. Green, (202) 421-1354 or email
a. VA Form 26-1820 is completed by lenders closing VA-guaranteed and insured loans under the automatic or prior approval procedures.
b. VA Form 26-8497 is used by lenders to verify a loan applicant's income and employment information when making guaranteed and insured loans. VA does not require the exclusive use of this form for verification purposes, any alternative verification document would be acceptable provided that all information requested on VA Form 26-8497 is provided.
c. Lenders making guaranteed and insured loans complete VA Form 26-8497a to verify the applicant's deposits in banks and other savings institutions.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VBA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 2, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Danny S. Green at (202) 421-1354.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
The intake process for both DoD's and VA's complaint system share common data elements, but have some modifications specific to each agencies complaint handling process:
By direction of the Secretary.