Agricultural Marketing Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
The U.S. Codex Office
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture's administrative regulations by adding procedural regulations for the review and issuance of agency guidance documents.
July 6, 2020.
Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1400, (202) 720-0038.
On October 9, 2019, the President signed Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.” Section 4 of the order directs that, “[w]ithin 300 days of the date on which [the Office of Management and Budget] issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall, consistent with applicable law, finalize regulations, or amend existing regulations as necessary, to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.”
In accordance with that direction, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending its administrative regulations in 7 CFR part 1 to add a new Subpart Q, “Review and Issuance of Agency Guidance Documents.” These new regulations codify the process, review, and other requirements set forth in section 4 of the executive order.
This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment are not required.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this regulatory action does not meet the criteria for significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
The regulations added by this rule are intended to improve the internal management of USDA. As such, it is for the use of USDA personnel only and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. Accordingly, we expect the economic impact of this rule, if any, to be minimal.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Claims, Cooperatives, Courts, Equal access to justice, Fraud, Freedom of information, Government employees, Indemnity payments, Lawyers, Motion pictures, Penalties, Privacy.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 1 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, unless otherwise noted.
(a) This subpart governs all United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees and contractors involved with all phases of issuing USDA guidance documents.
(b) These procedures apply to all newly issued guidance documents and, in certain respects, guidance documents already in effect.
(c)(1) For purposes of this subpart, the term “guidance document” is defined as in Executive Order 13891 and means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation.
(2) The term is not confined to formal written documents; guidance documents may come in a variety of forms, including (but not limited to) letters, memoranda, circulars, bulletins, advisories, and may include video, audio, and Web-based formats. See Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Bulletin 07-02, “Agency Good Guidance Practices,” 72 FR 3432, 3434,
(d) “Guidance document” does not include the following:
(1) Rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 or similar statutory provisions;
(2) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a);
(3) Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;
(4) Decisions of agency adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or similar statutory provisions;
(5) Internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties;
(6) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials;
(7) Agency statements of specific applicability, including advisory or legal opinions directed to particular parties about circumstance-specific questions (
(8) Agency statements that do not set forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, including speeches and presentations, editorials, media interviews, press materials, or congressional testimony that do not set forth for the first time a new policy or interpretation;
(9) Grant solicitations and awards; or
(10) Contract solicitations and awards.
(e) The term “significant guidance document” means a guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated to:
(1) Lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the U.S. economy, a sector of the U.S. economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles of E.O. 12866.
(f) The term “significant guidance document” does not include the categories of documents excluded in writing by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
(g) Significant guidance documents must be reviewed by OIRA before issuance and must demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.
Each USDA agency that issues a guidance document shall ensure that the guidance document satisfies the following requirements:
(a) The guidance document complies with all applicable statutes and regulations;
(b) The guidance document identifies or includes:
(1) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;
(2) The issuing agency and agency component, as applicable;
(3) A unique identifier, including, at a minimum, the date of issuance and title of the document and its Z-RIN, if applicable;
(4) The activity or entities to which the guidance document applies;
(5) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
(6) A statement noting whether the guidance document is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
(7) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document.
(c) The guidance document does not use mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the language is describing an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to USDA employees or contractors and does not foreclose the Department's consideration of positions advanced by non-Federal entities.
(d) The guidance document is written in plain and understandable English;
(e) All guidance documents include a clear and prominent statement declaring that the contents of the document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Each USDA agency that issues guidance documents shall:
(a) Ensure all guidance documents in effect are on its website in a single, searchable, indexed database, and available to the public. Guidance documents that do not appear on the website are considered rescinded.
(b) Note on its website that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.
(c) Maintain and advertise on its website a means for the public to comment electronically on any guidance documents that are subject to the notice-and comment procedures of this subpart and to submit requests electronically for issuance, reconsideration, modification, or rescission of guidance documents in accordance with this subpart.
(d) Designate an office to receive and address complaints from the public that a USDA agency is not following the requirements of OMB's Good Guidance Bulletin or is improperly treating a guidance document as a binding requirement.
(a) Each USDA agency that issues a guidance document shall, to the extent practicable, make a good faith effort to estimate the likely economic impact of the guidance document to determine whether the document might be significant.
(b) When a USDA agency is assessing or explaining whether it believes a guidance document is a “significant guidance document,” it shall, at a minimum, provide the same level of analysis that would be required for a determination of major/not major under the Congressional Review Act. When an agency determines that a guidance document will be significant, the agency shall conduct and publish an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action (which may entail a regulatory impact analysis) of the sort that would accompany a significant rulemaking, to the extent reasonably possible.
(a) For guidance documents proposed to be issued by an agency, if there is a reasonable possibility the guidance document may be considered “significant” or “otherwise of importance to the Department's interests,” or if the agency is uncertain whether the guidance document may
(1) Relate to a major program, policy, or activity of the Department or a high-profile issue pending for decision before the Department;
(2) Involve one of the Secretary's top policy priorities;
(3) Garner significant press or congressional attention; or
(4) Raise significant questions or concerns from constituencies of importance to the Department, such as Committees of Congress, States or Indian tribes, the White House or other departments of the Executive Branch, courts, consumer or public interest groups, or leading representatives of industry.
(b) USDA shall submit significant guidance documents to OMB for coordinated review. In addition, USDA may determine that it is appropriate to coordinate with OMB in the review of guidance documents that are otherwise of importance to the Department's interests.
(c) If the guidance document is determined by the proposing agency or OBPA to be not significant, the proposing agency shall issue the guidance document through its standard process.
(a) To obtain a designation from OIRA, USDA agencies shall prepare and submit to OBPA a designation request for guidance documents. Designation requests must include the following information:
(1) A summary of the guidance document; and
(2) The agency's recommended designation of “not significant,” or “significant,” as well as a justification for that designation.
(b) OBPA shall seek a significance determination from OIRA for guidance documents, as appropriate, in the same manner as for rulemakings. Prior to publishing a guidance document, and with sufficient time to allow OIRA to review the document in the event that it is designated “significant,” USDA shall provide OIRA with an opportunity to review the designation request or the guidance document, if requested, to determine if it meets the definition of “significant” under Executive Order 13891.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a proposed USDA guidance document determined to be a “significant guidance document” shall be subject to the following informal notice-and-comment procedures. The issuing agency shall publish a notice in the
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not apply to any significant guidance document or categories of significant guidance documents for which OBPA finds, in consultation with OIRA, the proposing agency, and the Office of the Secretary, good cause that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (and incorporates the finding of good cause and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the guidance document issued).
(c) Where appropriate, the proposing agency may recommend to OBPA that a particular guidance document that is otherwise of importance to the Department's interests shall also be subject to the informal notice-and-comment procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section.
Any person may petition a USDA agency to withdraw or modify a particular guidance document. Petitions may be submitted by postal mail to: Guidance Officer, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1400. Email petitions may be sent to
No USDA agency may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical facts.
In emergency situations or when the issuing agency is required by statutory deadline or court order to issue guidance documents more quickly than this subpart's review procedures allow, the issuing agency shall coordinate with OBPA to notify OIRA as soon as possible and, to the extent practicable, shall comply with the requirements of this subpart at the earliest opportunity. Wherever practicable, the issuing agency shall schedule its proceedings to permit sufficient time to comply with the procedures set forth in this subpart.
Unless otherwise determined in writing, it is the policy of USDA that upon issuing a guidance document determined to be “significant,” the issuing agency shall submit a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office in accordance with the procedures described in 5 U.S.C. 801 (the Congressional Review Act).
This subpart is intended to improve the internal management of USDA. As such, it is for the use of USDA personnel only and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a rule that was published in the
Effective June 3, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 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:
•
•
•
Jill Shepherd, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1230; email:
In FR Doc. 2020-08855 appearing on page 26576 in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Trent XWB-97 model turbofan engines. This AD requires updating electronic engine control (EEC) software. This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's finding that a P30 (air pressure) sense line could become partially blocked with a mixture of ice and water, which would cause a time-lag in the P30 signal, interfering with the fuel flow limit calculations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 18, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 708 6 0; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7236; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2020-0035, dated February 26, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During ground tests, it was found that a P30 (air pressure) sense line could become partially blocked with a mixture of ice and water, which would cause a time-lag in the
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of thrust control, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address these potential unsafe conditions, Rolls-Royce defined a new EEC SW, XWB_97-7.0, P/N RRY23XWB0001024, which corrects these issues.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires updating the EEC SW. This [EASA] AD also prohibits installation of affected SW on any engine.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) Trent XWB 73-AK304, dated November 8, 2019. The ASB describes procedures for updating the EEC software.
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. The FAA is issuing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires updating the EEC software with EEC software that is eligible for installation within 365 days after the effective date of this AD.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than 30 days, upon a finding of good cause.
The FAA has found the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no domestic operators use this product. It is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. operators. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for this same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this final rule contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this final rule, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 0 engines installed on 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
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 this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 18, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) Trent XWB-97 model turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine (Turbine/Turboprop).
This AD was prompted by the manufacturer's finding that a P30 (air pressure) sense line could become partially blocked with a mixture of ice and water, which would cause a time-lag in the P30 signal, interfering with the fuel flow limit calculations. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent interference with the fuel flow limit calculations within the engine control system. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of thrust control and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 365 days after the effective date of this AD, update the electronic engine control (EEC) software with EEC software that is eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, EEC software eligible for installation is EEC software XWB_97-7.0, part number RRY23XWB0001024, or later.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7236; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0035, dated February 26, 2020, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD requires a repetitive check of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) fuel quantity calculation for the center wing tank (CWT) fuel quantity, developing a process to provide documentation to the flight crew that this check was done, and revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to incorporate verification procedures and flight crew awareness. This AD was prompted by reports of discrepancies between the FQIS fuel quantity and the refueling truck uploaded fuel amount, followed by certain engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) messages. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 18, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3555; email:
The FAA has received reports involving discrepancies between the airplane FQIS, specifically the CWT fuel quantity, and the refueling truck uploaded fuel amount, followed by a FUEL DISAGREE EICAS message at an early stage of flight (
There are practical difficulties in comparing the fuel quantity uploaded by the refueling truck or hydrant. The fueling system relies on the airplane FQIS to report the mass (kilograms or pounds) of fuel onboard and stops the fueling process when the requested fuel for the next flight is onboard. The refueling trucks then report the volume (liters or gallons) of fuel that was uploaded because fuel is paid for by a volume measurement. Comparing the fuel volume upload with the final fuel load mass, which also accounts for the remaining fuel in the tanks from previous flight, is not an easy calculation and is prone to significant inaccuracies. The existing airplane maintenance manual and operator fueling procedures require verification that the correct fuel amount required for the current mission has been loaded onto the airplane. The FAA has received reports that verification tasks are either not accomplished or done incorrectly. As a result, the flight crew may be unaware of insufficient fuel loaded in the CWT and the airplane is dispatched for the mission. The airplane onboard fuel management system typically reports fuel quantity anomalies within the first three hours of flight resulting in a FUEL DISAGREE EICAS message and/or an INSUFFICIENT FUEL EICAS message that necessitates fuel check (
Discrepancies in the CWT FQIS fuel quantity and the refueling truck uploaded fuel amount could result in an airplane dispatched with insufficient fuel loaded in the CWT and with the flight crew unaware of the insufficient fuel prior to departure. This condition, coupled with continued flight to the destination airport after receiving the EICAS messages while en route to the destination, could result in fuel exhaustion and subsequent power loss of all engines. Thereby, resulting in the inability to land at the destination airport or at a diversion airport, possibly leading to uncontrolled flight into terrain.
The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires a repetitive check of the FQIS fuel quantity calculation and display of the CWT fuel quantity through a new procedure, Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure, developing a process to provide documentation to the flight crew that this check was done, and revising the existing AFM to incorporate verification procedures for flight crew awareness.
The FAA considers this AD interim action. The FAA has been coordinating with Boeing in the development of a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. However, due to the urgency of the unsafe condition and due to additional time needed for Boeing to develop the modification, the FAA has determined that interim action is necessary. Once the modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because discrepancies in the CWT FQIS fuel quantity and the refueling truck uploaded fuel amount could result in an airplane dispatched with insufficient fuel loaded in the CWT and with the flight crew unaware of the insufficient fuel prior to departure. This condition, coupled with continued flight to the destination airport after receiving the EICAS messages while en route to the destination, could result in fuel exhaustion and subsequent power loss of all engines. Thereby, resulting in the inability to land at the destination airport or at a diversion airport, possibly leading to uncontrolled flight into terrain. Additionally, the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 255 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, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 18, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a Center Wing Tank (CWT) having a capacity of 26,100 U.S. gallons or greater.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address discrepancies in the CWT fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) fuel quantity and the refueling truck uploaded fuel amount, which could result in an airplane dispatched with insufficient fuel loaded in the CWT and with the flight crew unaware of the insufficient fuel prior to departure. This condition, coupled with continued flight to the destination airport after receiving engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) messages while en route to the destination, could result in fuel exhaustion and subsequent power loss of all engines. Thereby, resulting in the inability to land at the destination airport or at a diversion airport, possibly leading to uncontrolled flight into terrain.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Check the fuel quantity of the CWT by doing the “Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure” as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD. Thereafter, check the fuel quantity of the CWT as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD before further flight after any center tank fueling (adding or removing fuel).
(1) Get access to the refueling station door and integrated refuel panel on the left wing.
(2) Close and latch the refueling station door on the left wing for a minimum of five (5) seconds. If installed, make sure the right wing refueling station door is closed.
(3) Re-open the refueling station door and wait for the fuel quantity display to reset.
(4) Make sure that the center or total fuel tank quantities still remain within fuel load sheet requirements. If the fuel quantity is incorrect then accomplish actions specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) Adjust fuel loading as applicable for fuel upload parameters. Refer to operator's refuel procedures for adjusting the fuel load.
(ii) Repeat the “Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure,” starting at paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(5) Close the refueling station door.
(6) Notify the operator after the “Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure” has been done, and correct fuel load verified.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a process to the FAA (Flight Standards) for approval that describes at the end of the fueling process and before each flight how documentation is provided to the flight crew that the CWT fuel quantity check using the “Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure” specified in paragraph (g) of this AD was done.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the “Certificate Limitations: Fuel Quantity Indication System
(2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the “Normal Procedures: Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS)—Refueling Station Door Cycling Procedure” section of the operator's existing AFM by incorporating the information specified in figure 2 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
(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 (k) 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 Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3555; email:
None.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 144,000-acre “Tualatin Hills” viticultural area in portions of Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon, and the approximately 33,600-acre “Laurelwood District” viticultural area in portions of Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. TTB is establishing both viticultural areas in the same document because a small portion of their boundaries is contiguous. The two viticultural areas lie entirely within the established Willamette Valley viticultural area. The Laurelwood District viticultural area is also entirely within the established Chehalem Mountains viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective July 6, 2020.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these laws.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
• An explanation showing the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from an existing AVA so as to warrant separate recognition, if the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Rudolf Marchesi, president of Montinore Estate, Alfredo Apolloni, owner and winemaker of Apolloni Vineyards, and Mike Kuenz, general manager of David Hill Vineyard and Winery, on behalf of themselves and other local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Tualatin Hills” AVA in portions of Multnomah and Washington Counties.
The proposed Tualatin Hills AVA is located in Oregon, lies entirely within the established Willamette Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.90), and covers approximately 144,000 acres. There are 33 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of approximately 860.5 acres, as well as 21 wineries, within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA are its soils, elevation, and climate.
The soils of the proposed AVA are described as primarily Laurelwood soils and similar associated types, such as Kinton and Cornelius soils, with almost no exposed volcanic or marine sedimentary soil types. The Laurelwood soils are derived from weathered basalt and loess and are fine, silty soils with no rocks. The soils generally have low levels of organic material and a high clay content, making them moderately fertile without promoting overly vigorous vine growth. The soils reach depths of up to 100 feet which, when combined with the high clay content, reduces the need for irrigation in most vineyards within the proposed AVA.
The petition describes Laurelwood soils as unique to the northwestern portion of the established Willamette Valley AVA, which includes the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA. According to the petition, the only place outside the proposed AVA where Laurelwood soils occur is on the northeast-facing slopes of the
The proposed Tualatin Hills AVA is located in the upland hills of the Tualatin River watershed and encompasses elevations between 200 and 1,000 feet, which is generally considered the upper limit for growing commercial wine grapes in this region of Oregon. Furthermore, the petition states that elevations below 200 feet were excluded because the lower elevations are relatively flat and more susceptible to frost. The proposed AVA is surrounded to the north and west by the higher elevations of the Coastal Range, which typically exceed 1,000 feet. To the east of the proposed AVA is the broad, flat plain of the Tualatin River Valley, where elevations are generally below 200 feet. The petition notes that there is a small region between the northeast corner and the southeast corner of the proposed AVA that has similar elevations to the proposed AVA. However, this region was not included in the proposed AVA because it is within the urban development zone of metro Portland and is currently used for commercial and residential buildings and public parks; there is no commercial viticulture in this area. To the south and southeast of the proposed AVA are the Chehalem Mountains, which includes elevations of over 1,000 feet and, according to the petition, are considered to be a separate, distinct landform from the uplands within the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA.
The climate of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA is characterized by average annual rainfall amounts of 43.67 inches, which is lower than annual rainfall amounts in the regions to the west and north, and higher than amounts in the regions to the east and south. The moderate rainfall amounts discourage the growth of mold and mildew in vineyards within the AVA. Differences between daytime high temperatures and nighttime low temperatures, referred to as diurnal temperature variations, are greater in the proposed AVA than in the all the surrounding regions except the region to the south. Greater diurnal variations slow the development of sugars and reduce acid loss in grapes, allowing grape varietals that require a long growing season to fully develop their flavor and aroma compounds.
TTB received a petition from Luisa Ponzi, president of Ponzi Vineyards, Maria Ponzi, winemaker of Ponzi Vineyards, and Kevin Johnson, winemaker of Dion Vineyards, on behalf of themselves and other local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Laurelwood” AVA. However, at the request of TTB, the petitioners agreed to add the word “District” to the proposed name, in order to avoid a potential impact on current label holders who are using “Laurelwood” as a brand name or fanciful name on their wine labels. The proposed Laurelwood District AVA is located west of the city of Portland and lies entirely within the established Willamette Valley AVA and the established Chehalem Mountains AVA. The proposed Laurelwood District AVA covers approximately 33,600 acres and contains 25 wineries and approximately 70 commercially-producing vineyards that cover a total of approximately 975 acres.
According to the petition, the distinguishing feature of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA is the predominance of the Laurelwood soil series. Although Laurelwood soil exists outside the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, specifically within the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA to the northwest, the petition states that there are differences between the Laurelwood soil of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA and the Laurelwood soil of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA. For instance, the Laurelwood soil of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA consists of loess combined with basalt that is older than the basalt found in the Laurelwood soil of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA. However, the petition states that the primary distinction between the soils of the two proposed AVAs is the contiguity of Laurelwood soil within the proposed Laurelwood District AVA. Within the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA, large concentrations of Laurelwood soil are dispersed throughout, separated by regions without Laurelwood soils. By contrast, within the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, Laurelwood soil covers the entirety of the proposed AVA. Additionally, within the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA, Laurelwood soil is often mixed with related soil series, particularly Kinton and Cornelius soils. Within the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, Kinton and Cornelius soils exist only in small, isolated pockets along the eastern edge.
TTB published Notice No. 181 in the
In Notice No. 181, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Tualatin Hills and Laurelwood District AVA's location within the Willamette Valley AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the two proposed AVAs sufficiently differentiates them from the Willamette Valley AVA. TTB also requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVAs are so distinguishable from the Willamette Valley AVA that the proposed AVAs should no longer be part of the established AVA. TTB solicited comments on whether distinguishing features of the proposed Laurelwood District sufficiently differentiate it from the established Chehalem Mountains AVA, and if the features of the proposed AVA are so distinctive that it should no longer be part of the established Chehalem Mountains AVA. Finally, TTB also solicited comments on whether the distinguishing features of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA sufficiently differentiate it from the proposed
In response to Notice No. 181, TTB received a total of nine comments. Of the nine comments, only one comment (comment 3) specifically mentioned the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA. That comment, submitted by a local wine industry member with vineyards in both of the proposed AVAs, supported the establishment of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA as a way to inform consumers of the region's characteristics, which he believes are unique from the surrounding regions, including the proposed Laurelwood District AVA. None of the comments opposed the establishment of the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA or its inclusion within the established Willamette Valley AVA.
All nine of the comments TTB received mentioned the proposed Laurelwood District AVA. Three of the comments, comments 1, 4, and 5, did not oppose establishing this AVA, but expressed opposition to the proposed Laurelwood District AVA name. The opposing comments generally state the belief that naming an AVA after a soil type would be misleading, as it would imply that the soil is found only within that AVA, when in fact there are vineyards outside the proposed AVA that are planted entirely on Laurelwood soil. As a result, consumers would be confused by wines made outside the proposed Laurelwood District AVA that claim that the grapes were grown in Laurelwood soils. Comment 4 stated that allowing an AVA to be named after a soil type would “set a dangerous precedent” and could lead to the creation of other AVAs that treat the name of a soil type as if it were “solely proprietary.” Comment 4 was the only comment to suggest alternative names for the proposed AVA, including “North Slope,” “Laurel,” “Mountainside,” “Fern Hill, “Spring Hill,” “Midway,” and “Mountain Home.” Comment 4 appeared to favor the name “North Slope,” noting that 91 percent of the wine wholesalers the commenter surveyed in his work as a director of wine sales for a local winery preferred that name to “Laurelwood District.” Comment 4 also claimed that the website of Ponzi Vineyards, one of the petitioners for the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, uses the phrase “North Slope” to refer to the vineyard's location.
Six of the comments support the establishment of the Laurelwood District AVA as proposed. The supporting comments all came from self-identified local wine industry members. The comments generally support the proposed Laurelwood District AVA due to the prevalence of the Laurelwood soil, and believe that the establishment of the proposed AVA would provide consumers with more information about the origin of the grapes in the wine, rather than cause confusion. Comment 6 also stated the belief that there is ample evidence that the region of the proposed AVA is known as “Laurelwood,” but did not provide any additional examples.
TTB believes that the commenters who oppose the proposed “Laurelwood District” AVA name may misunderstand the rationale for the proposed name and what limitations its establishment would place on the use of the Laurelwood soil name on a wine label or in advertising. Although the prominent soil series in both the proposed Tualatin Hills and Laurelwood District AVAs is called “Laurelwood,” the proposed Laurelwood District AVA does not derive its name from the soil but from the community of Laurelwood, which, according to the petition, was named after a school built in the area in 1904. The soil series was first formally identified by the USDA in 1974,
Furthermore, TTB notes that at least 20 established AVAs share their names with soils or soil series. For example, Comment 8, submitted in response to the proposed rulemaking, mentions The Rocks District of Milton-Freewater AVA (27 CFR 9.249), which shares its name with the Freewater soil series,
Additionally, although the distinguishing feature of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA is the Laurelwood soil series, it is not merely the presence of this soil that defines the proposed AVA. The Laurelwood soil series does have a very narrow range, but it is found in some of the regions surrounding the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, including the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA. What primarily distinguishes the proposed Laurelwood District AVA from other regions that contain Laurelwood soil is the near-uniformity of the soil within the proposed boundaries. Soil maps included as Exhibit A-1 of the Tualatin Hills AVA petition and Figure 1 of the Laurelwood District AVA show that the soils of the proposed Laurelwood AVA consist almost entirely of Laurelwood series, whereas the proposed Tualatin Hills AVA has large patches of Laurelwood soils separated by expanses of soils from other series, including Kinton and Cornelius soils.
TTB is proposing to make only the full name of the proposed Laurelwood District AVA a term of viticultural significance. Additionally, current label holders who use the word “Laurelwood” in a brand name would not be affected by the establishment of the Laurelwood District AVA.
Finally, although comment 4 provided some alternative names for the proposed Laurelwood District AVA, the comment only noted that the names were names of features or communities within the proposed AVA. The comment did not include evidence that the entire region of the proposed AVA is known by any of these alternative names, as required by § 9.12(a)(1). The link to the Ponzi Vineyards website included in the comment
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 181, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioners supports the establishment of the Tualatin Hills and Laurelwood District AVAs. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Tualatin Hills” AVA in portions of Multnomah and Washington Counties, Oregon, and the “Laurelwood District” AVA in portions of Washington and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
TTB has also determined that the Tualatin Hills AVA will remain part of the established Willamette Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 181, the Tualatin Hills AVA shares some broad characteristics with the Willamette Valley AVA. For example, elevations within both AVAs are generally below 1,000 feet, and the soils are primarily silty loams and clay loams. However, the Tualatin Hills AVA is comprised mainly of rolling hills and lacks the major valley floors that are a primary feature of the Willamette Valley AVA. Additionally, annual rainfall amounts are slightly higher for the Tualatin Hills AVA than for the Willamette Valley AVA in general.
TTB has also determined that the Laurelwood District AVA will remain part of both the established Willamette Valley AVA and the established Chehalem Mountains AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 181, the Laurelwood District AVA shares some broad characteristics with both established AVAs. For example, both the Willamette Valley AVA and the Laurelwood District AVA are in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains and, therefore, share similar annual rainfall amounts and growing degree day accumulations. Like the Chehalem Mountains AVA, the Laurelwood District AVA consists of hilly-to-mountainous terrain with vineyards planted at elevations between 200 and 1,000 feet. However, the Laurelwood District AVA differs from both the Willamette Valley and Chehalem Mountains AVAs because its primary soil is the Laurelwood series, whereas the other two AVAs have a much wider diversity of soils.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Tualatin Hills AVA and the Laurelwood District AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioners provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text. The boundaries of the Tualatin Hills and Laurelwood District AVAs may also be viewed on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of these two AVAs, their names, “Tualatin Hills” and “Laurelwood District,” will be recognized as names of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulations clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Tualatin Hills” or “Laurelwood District” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating the phrase “Laurelwood” as a term of viticultural significance, in order to avoid a potential negative effect on current labels that use “Laurelwood” as part of a brand name or as a truthful description of vineyard soils on wine labels. Therefore, the phrase “Laurelwood” (without the word “district”) may be used as a brand name, part of a brand name, or a truthful description of vineyard soils on wine labels without having to meet the appellation of origin eligibility requirements for the Laurelwood District AVA.
The establishment of the Tualatin Hills and Laurelwood District AVAs will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Willamette Valley” or “Chehalem Mountains” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Willamette Valley AVA will not be affected by the establishment of these new AVAs. The establishment of the Tualatin Hills AVA will allow vintners to use “Tualatin Hills” and “Willamette Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Tualatin Hills AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. The establishment of the Laurelwood District AVA will allow vintners to use “Laurelwood District,” “Willamette Valley,” and “Chehalem Mountains” as appellations of origin for wines made
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Vancouver, 1974 (1:250,000);
(2) Dixie Mountain, OR, 2014;
(3) Gaston, OR, 2014;
(4) Laurelwood, OR, 2014;
(5) Forest Grove, OR, 2014;
(6) Hillsboro, OR, 2014; and
(7) Linnton, OR, 2014.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Dixie Mountain map at the intersection of North West Skyline Boulevard and North West Moreland Road. From the beginning point, proceed southwesterly along North West Moreland Road for approximately 1.3 miles to road's intersection with the Multnomah-Washington County line; then
(2) Proceed south along the Multnomah-Washington County for approximately 1.2 miles to the county line's intersection with the 1,000-foot elevation contour; then
(3) Proceed northwesterly along the 1,000-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Vancouver map and continuing generally southwesterly along the meandering 1,000-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the Washington-Yamhill County line; then
(4) Proceed east along the Washington-Yamhill County line, crossing onto the Gaston map, to the intersection of the county line with NW South Road; then
(5) Proceed northeast along NW South Road to its intersection with SW South Road; then
(6) Proceed northeasterly along SW South Road to its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(7) Proceed easterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for approximately 1.9 miles to its intersection with East Main Street/SW Gaston Road in the village of Gaston; then
(8) Proceed south, then east along SW Gaston Road for approximately 0.9 mile, crossing onto the Laurelwood map, to the road's intersection with the 240-foot contour line just south of an unnamed road known locally as SW Dixon Mill Road; then
(9) Proceed north along the meandering 240-foot elevation contour for approximately 5 miles to its intersection with SW Sandstrom Road; then
(10) Proceed west along SW Sandstrom Road for approximately 0.15 mile to its third crossing of the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(11) Proceed northwesterly and then northeasterly along the meandering 200-foot contour line for approximately 2.9 miles to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as SW Fern Hill Road, north of an unnamed road known locally as SW Blooming Fern Hill Road; then
(12) Proceed north along SW Fern Hill Road for approximately 1.2 miles, crossing onto the Forest Grove map, to the road's intersection with Oregon Highway 47; then
(13) Proceed northerly along Oregon Highway 47 for approximately 7.6 miles to its intersection with Oregon Highway 6/NW Wilson River Highway; then
(14) Proceed east along Oregon Highway 6/NW Wilson River Highway for approximately 2.5 miles to its intersection with Sunset Highway; then
(15) Proceed southeast along Sunset Highway for approximately 2.3 miles to its intersection with the railroad tracks; then
(16) Proceed east along the railroad tracks, crossing onto the Hillsboro map, to the intersection of the railroad tracks and an unnamed road known locally as NW Dick Road; then
(17) Proceed south along NW Dick Road for approximately 0.3 mile to its intersection with NW Phillips Road; then
(18) Proceed east along NW Phillips Road for approximately 1.2 miles, crossing onto the Linnton map, to the road's intersection with an unnamed road known locally as NW Old Cornelius Pass Road; then
(19) Proceed northeast along NW Old Cornelius Pass Road to its intersection with NW Skyline Boulevard Road; then
(20) Proceed north and west along NW Skyline Boulevard for approximately 10.5 miles, crossing over the northeast corner of the Hillsboro map and onto the Dixie Mountain map and then returning to the beginning point.
(a)
(b)
(1) Laurelwood, OR, 2014;
(2) Scholls, Oreg., 1961; photorevised 1985;
(3) Newberg, OR, 2014;
(4) Beaverton, Oreg., 1961; photorevised 1984;
(5) Sherwood, Oreg., 1961; photorevised 1985; and
(6) Dundee, Oreg., 1956; revised 1993.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Laurelwood map at the intersection of Winters Road and Blooming Fern Hill Road in section 17, T1S/R3W. From the beginning point, proceed west then northwest along Blooming Fern Hill Road for approximately 0.4 mile to its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(2) Proceed north then northeasterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for 1.5 miles to its intersection with SW La Follette Road; then
(3) Proceed south along SW La Follette Road for 0.25 mile to its intersection with the 240-foot elevation contour, north of Blooming Fern Hill Road; then
(4) Proceed easterly then southerly along the 240-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Scholls map and back onto the Laurelwood map, for a total of 17 miles to the intersection of the elevation contour with SW Laurel Road; then
(5) Proceed east along SW Laurel Road for 0.15 mile to its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(6) Proceed easterly along the 200-foot elevation contour, crossing over the Scholls map and onto the Newberg map, then crossing Heaton Creek and back onto the Scholls map for a total of 17.5 miles to the intersection of the elevation contour with Mountain Home Road east of Heaton Creek; then
(7) Proceed easterly then southerly along the 200-foot elevation contour, crossing over the Beaverton and Sherwood maps and back onto the Scholls map for a total of 8.9 miles to the intersection of the elevation contour with the middle tributary of an unnamed stream along the western boundary of section 24, T2S/R2W; then
(8) Proceed southeast along the 200-foot elevation contour, crossing over the northeast corner of the Newberg map and onto the Sherwood map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with Edy Road in section 25, T2S/R2W; then
(9) Proceed southwest along the 200-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Newberg map and back onto the Sherwood map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with Elwert Road along the eastern boundary of section 25, T2S/R2W; then
(10) Proceed south along Elwert Road for 0.85 mile to its intersection with an unnamed highway known locally as Oregon Highway 99W, along the eastern boundary of section 36, T2S/R2W; then
(11) Proceed southwesterly along Oregon Highway 99W for 0.45 mile to its intersection with the 250-foot elevation contour immediately south of an unnamed tributary of Cedar Creek in section 36, T2S/R2W; then
(12) Proceed southerly along the 250-foot elevation contour for 1 mile to its intersection with Middleton Road in section 1, T2S/R2W; then
(13) Proceed southwesterly along Middleton Road, which becomes Rein Road, for 0.5 mile to the intersection of the road with the 200-foot elevation contour immediately south of Cedar Creek; then
(14) Proceed easterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for 1.6 miles to its intersection with an unnamed light-duty east-west road known locally as Brookman Road in the village of Middleton, section 6, T3S/R1W; then
(15) Proceed east on Brookman Road for 0.4 mile to its intersection with the shared Washington-Clackamas County line at the western corner of section 5, T3S/R1W; then
(16) Proceed south along the Washington-Clackamas County line for 1 mile to its intersection with Parrett Mountain Road along the eastern boundary of section 7, T3S/R1W; then
(17) Proceed southwesterly along Parrett Mountain Road, crossing onto the Newberg map, for a total of 2.6 miles, to the intersection with an unnamed local road known locally as NE Old Parrett Mountain Road; then
(18) Proceed west along NE Old Parrett Mountain Road for 1.7 mile to its intersection with NE Schaad Road; then
(19) Proceed west along NE Schaad Road for 0.5 mile to its intersection with an unnamed local road known locally as NE Corral Creek Road; then
(20) Proceed north along NE Corral Creek Road for 0.9 mile to its westernmost intersection with an unnamed local road known locally as NE Veritas Lane, south of Oregon Highway 99W; then
(21) Proceed north westerly in a straight line for approximately 0.05 mile to the intersection of Oregon Highway 99W and the 250-foot elevation contour; then
(22) Proceed northwesterly along the 250-foot elevation contour for 1 mile to its intersection with the second, westernmost intermittent stream that is an unnamed tributary of Spring Brook; then
(23) Proceed northerly along the unnamed stream, crossing the single-gauge railroad track, for 0.5 mile to the intersection of the stream with the 430-foot elevation contour; then
(24) Proceed west along the 430-foot elevation contour for 0.25 mile, crossing an unnamed road known locally as Owls Lane, to the intersection of the elevation contour with NE Kincaid Road; then
(25) Proceed northwesterly along NE Kincaid Road for 0.25 mile to its intersection with NE Springbrook Road; then
(26) Proceed northwesterly along NE Springbrook Road for 0.22 mile to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Bell Road; then
(27) Proceed east along Bell Road for 0.5 mile, making a sharp northwesterly turn, then continuing along the road for 0.2 mile to its intersection with Mountain Top Road; then
(28) Proceed northwesterly along Mountain Top Road for 1.9 miles to its intersection with SW Hillsboro Highway, also known as Highway 219; then
(29) Proceed north along SW Hillsboro Highway for 0.1 mile to its intersection with Mountain Top Road at the Washington-Yamhill County line; then
(30) Proceed northwest along Mountain Top Road for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Dundee map, to the intersection of the road with Bald Peak Road in section 26, T2S/R3W; then
(31) Proceed northwest, then northeast, then north along Bald Peak Road, crossing onto the Laurelwood map, for a total of 4.8 miles, to the intersection of the road with SW Laurelwood Road; then
(32) Proceed southwest, then northwest, along SW Laurelwood Road for 0.8 mile to its intersection with the 700-foot elevation contour; then
(33) Proceed northeast, then northwest, then north along the 700-foot elevation contour for 5 miles, passing west of Iowa Hill and Spring Hill, to the intersection of the elevation contour and SW Winters Road; then
(34) Proceed north on SW Winters Road for 2 miles, returning to the beginning point.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
This rule finalizes Department of Defense (DoD) implementation of Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA FY18). The law made significant changes to the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program; specifically it: Updated co-payment requirements; authorized a new process for encouraging use of pharmaceutical agents that provide the best clinical effectiveness by excluding coverage for particular pharmaceutical agents that provide very little or no clinical effectiveness relative to similar agents and for giving preferential status to agents that provide enhanced clinical effectiveness; and authorized special reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures to encourage use of high-value products and discourage use of low-value products with respect to pharmaceutical agents provided as part of medical services from authorized providers. This rule finalizes the changes made to the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit Program as stated in the interim final rule.
This final rule is effective July 6, 2020.
Col Markus Gmehlin, Acting, Chief, Pharmacy Operations, Defense Health Agency (DHA), telephone (703) 681-2890.
On December 11, 2018 (83 FR 63574-63578), the Department of Defense published an interim final rule titled “TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program Reforms” for a 60-day public comment period. The public comment period ended on February 11, 2019. Eight public comments were received. Two of the comments were written by students enrolled in college classes with an assignment involving commenting on
One comment was a general statement from an individual who admitted not knowing what TRICARE does and to not reading the entire rule but commended the Department for attempting to take care of its beneficiaries. The individual added that Congress and its agencies write laws that are too complicated. This final rule has been carefully reviewed to ensure it is as clear as possible to those affected by it and no changes have been made in that regard.
The remaining three comments represent the pharmaceutical industry, a biotechnology trade association, and an organization focused on patient-centeredness in healthcare. All three comments voiced concerns centering on accessibility of medicines, ensuring a robust process of evaluation of agents when being considered from a clinical benefit, incorporating patient-oriented outcomes that matter, and excluding newly approved drugs. In addition, all three commented on the portion of the rule pertaining to changes in the physician add-on payment rates for medications administered as part of a medical procedure or office visit. We appreciate these comments, which are summarized here, along with DoD's response.
The Department of Defense Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee will be engaging the authority granted by this rule to exclude agents in a judicious manner. Prior to this rule, the DoD was required to include all Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription medications on the DoD Uniform Formulary regardless of safety, effectiveness, or cost. This practice is divergent with current formulary management approaches as applied throughout the healthcare industry and is inconsistent with commercial practice standards. Not only is this practice counter to providing patients with the most clinically effective and safest treatment modalities, but also is imprudent use of tax payer money. The P&T Committee process for evaluating drugs for formulary status is outlined in 32 CFR 199.21(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) which describes the type of materials that may be included as part of the clinical effectiveness and safety conclusions for the drug. This robust process will continue to be the process for evaluating agents being considered for exclusion. In addition to clinical and safety data, patient-oriented outcome data relevant to the drugs being considered is a factor included in the evaluation process. The committee will be guided by specific criteria that will be used in identifying agents and selecting agents for consideration for exclusion from the benefit. These criteria will include but not be limited to ensuring the availability of alternative agents when an agent is excluded, considering agents for exclusion when safety concerns may outweigh the benefit of the drug, and when the drug is a formulation that includes a combination of drugs that are otherwise excluded. Further, in implementing this rule the committee will not only evaluate drugs for exclusion from coverage but will also include identifying branded drugs that may be moved to Tier 1 status with a lower copayment for beneficiaries. The intent of identifying agents in this manner as well as the new exclusion authority is to yield improved health, smarter spending and better patient outcomes.
As with all P&T recommendations, the Beneficiary Advisory Panel will be able to comment prior to the DHA Director making the final decision. Further, all decisions regarding the DoD Uniform Formulary are routinely monitored and updated to reflect changes in data, updated prescribing criteria, modifications in clinical usage patterns, and cost changes. Any decisions resulting from implementation of this rule will likewise be monitored and reassessed in line with this well-established DoD P&T practice.
In addition to concerns regarding formulary management, four comments representing the pharmaceutical industry and a biotechnology trade association, voiced overlapping concerns on the portion of the rule pertaining to changes in the physician add-on payment rates for medications administered as part of a medical procedure or office visit and are addressed below.
Both a pharmaceutical organization and a biotechnology trade association disagreed with DoD's assumption that the current approach of reimbursing physician administered drugs the Average Sales Price (ASP) plus a six percent add-on creates an incentive to use more expensive drugs. The commenters stated that physician prescribing habits are not driven by the “cost of drugs” or the “payment-per-drug administration”; their views were supported by a report authored by Xcenda, a consulting firm owned by a drug wholesaler. These comments were made in response to a DoD proposal that a median add-on payment for a certain class or category of drugs might be used for all drugs in the group, rather than the current drug-specific six percent
A second comment raised by the pharmaceutical organization and the biotechnology trade association was that DoD's proposal would create a situation that “incentivizes or requires” the use of products that may not be the most appropriate in that situation and that this would lead to worse health outcomes. One commenter also stated that lowering the add-on payment for some drugs could affect the prescribing patterns of some physicians who would choose not to use certain drugs “based on cost considerations alone.” We disagree for three reasons: First, DoD's proposal would allow DoD to modify the add-on to the acquisition cost of the physician administered drug (which is currently six percent of the ASP). Nothing in this proposal would require the use of inappropriate products. Second, if DoD does modify the six percent add-on, it would only be done within classes of drugs recommended by the DoD's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and with approval of the DHA Director, which will ensure that the classes of drugs which have modified add-on payments would be selected carefully. Third, because only the add-on payment, not the underlying payment for the drug would be modified, we do not believe that this proposal would provide large incentives for the use of particular drugs. Rather, we believe that it would remove the incentive to use drugs that have higher costs for no other reason than the higher add-on payment.
A third comment made by the biotechnology trade association is that modifications to the six percent add-on could limit patient access to necessary care and that this could affect patient outcomes. A particular concern raised by the commenter is that modifying the six percent add-on would exacerbate the current situation in which physicians cannot afford to purchase a drug for administration in their offices at an amount less than ASP plus the six percent add-on. We do not think that access will be adversely affected for two reasons. First, DoD is not eliminating the entire add-on; instead it may modify it so that it is set equal to the median add-on within a drug class. As a result, this approach may actually increase the add-on amounts paid for certain drugs. Second, physicians will decide which drugs are prescribed and in all cases these physicians would be reimbursed the Average Sales Price plus an add-on payment, which will be approximately equal to six percent within any drug class. As a result, DoD does not think that there will be access problems. However, DoD will monitor access carefully for any of the products that receive a modified add-on to ensure that there are not access problems for TRICARE beneficiaries.
A fourth comment made by the pharmaceutical organization stated that DoD was “considering a significant potential change, but leaves important terms and standards vague and unclear.” The commenter noted that DoD's changes to reimbursement amounts should be made through rulemaking rather than guidance. We have revised the final rule to specify that the Director should be able to adopt an add-on amount equal to six percent of the median amounts for products within a class of products. As a result, the TRICARE reimbursement amount for products within a class of products would be equal to the average sales price plus six percent of the median average sales price of products in that class.
Public comments received in response to DoD's interim final rule, resulted in a revision to the final rule to specify that the physician reimbursement add-on would be six percent of the median within a product class.
This rule finalizes Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA FY18), which does three things: (1) It updates cost-sharing requirements for outpatient pharmaceutical prescriptions filled by retail pharmacies and the TRICARE mail order pharmacy program. (2) It authorizes a new Uniform Formulary process for encouraging use of pharmaceutical agents in the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program that provide the best clinical effectiveness by excluding coverage for particular pharmaceutical agents that provide very little or no clinical effectiveness relative to similar agents and giving preferential status to agents that provide enhanced clinical effectiveness. (3) It authorizes special reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures to encourage use of high-value products and discourage use of low-value products with respect to pharmaceutical agents provided as part of medical services from authorized providers. This rule finalizes each of these three statutory changes as implemented by the interim final rule.
This final rule is under the primary authority of 10 U.S.C. 1074g, 1079 and 1086, and Section 702 of NDAA FY18. Specifically, section 702(b)(3) of NDAA FY18 authorizes DoD to “prescribe such changes to the regulations implementing the TRICARE program . . . by prescribing an interim final rule.” TRICARE program regulations (32 CFR part 199) are issued under statutory authorities including 10 U.S.C. 1074g (the Pharmacy Benefits Program) and 10 U.S.C. 1079 and 1086 (TRICARE medical benefits). Section 702 of NDAA-18 amends both section 1074g and section 1079 (the section 1079 amendment being automatically applicable to section 1086).
This rule finalizes the following major provisions:
1.
2.
3.
As a result of one public comment noting that DoD's changes to reimbursement amounts should be made through rulemaking rather than guidance the final rule has been revised to specify that the Director should be able to adopt an add-on amount equal to six percent of the median amounts for products within a class of products. As a result, the TRICARE reimbursement amount for products within a class of products would be equal to the average sales price plus six percent of the median average sales price of products in that class.
E.O. 13771 seeks to control costs associated with the government imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and to reduce regulations that impose such costs. Consistent with the analysis of transfer payments under OMB Circular A-4, this final rule does not involve regulatory costs subject to E.O. 13771. Rather, this final rule affects only health care reimbursement payments under the TRICARE program. Aside from the “housekeeping” change to the regulation to incorporate the updated copayment amounts enacted by Congress, the final rule makes two changes to the program: A new authority under the Uniform Formulary process and revised payment authority for pharmaceutical agents as part of medical services.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as a “not significant” regulatory action, and not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the requirements of these Executive Orders.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” This rule is not subject to the requirements of this Executive order because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Additionally, the economic effect of these changes is limited to government reimbursements to health care providers/suppliers that under Circular A-4 are not considered as costs imposed on the economy. The expected reduction in government payments to pharmaceutical companies is based on some predicted increase in use of higher value medications and a corresponding decrease in the use of lower value medications in drug classes where different drugs have comparable clinical effect. The expected value of this shift in use of some medications—
An initial analysis identified a sample group of candidate drugs that do not offer additional therapeutic benefit over other formulary items. By comparing the current costs to those of a lower-priced comparator and assuming similar utilization rates, the average cost avoidance was $1.5M/drug/year, with a more conservative cost avoidance of $1M/drug/year. When fully implemented, this new process could average 30 drugs per year at a conservative cost avoidance of $1M/drug/year.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The RFA requires that each Federal agency analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule is not an economically significant regulatory action, and it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of the RFA.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100M in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $140M. This final rule will not mandate any requirements for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This rulemaking does not contain a “collection of information” requirement, and will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
This final rule has been examined for its impact under E.O. 13132, and it does not contain policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. Therefore,
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Mental health, Mental health parity, Military personnel.
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 32 CFR part 199 which published at 83 FR 63574-63578 on December 11, 2018, is adopted as final with the following changes:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(xi)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay around Pier 45 due to emergency response and associated marine debris as a result of a fire on May 23, 2020. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the presence of marine debris and the inability to mark the debris. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
This temporary final rule is effective without actual notice from June 3, 2020 through June 30, 2020. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 29, 2020 through June 3, 2020.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard received notice of the need for this safety zone on May 26, 2020. It is impracticable to go through the full rulemaking process, including providing a reasonable comment period and considering those comments, because the Coast Guard must establish this temporary safety zone by May 29, 2020.
The Coast Guard previously issued a temporary final rule for an emergency safety zone effective from May 23, 2020 until May 29, 2020 (Docket number USCG-2020-0007). The Port of San Francisco has indicated that emergency cleanup and the potential presence of associated marine debris from the fire at Pier 45 will continue beyond May 29, 2020.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the emergency response and associated marine debris related to the May 23, 2020 fire and identified then as potentially dangerous, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 150-yard radius around Pier 45, San Francisco, CA. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone around Pier 45 in support of ongoing fire emergency response cleanup and associated marine debris from May 29, 2020 through June 30, 2020. The safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a 150-yard radius around Pier 45, San Francisco, CA.
This regulation is needed to keep persons and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the ongoing response efforts and marine debris to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the water encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. Additionally, the vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone established to deal with an emergency situation that will prohibit entry to the area surrounding Pier 45, which is the site of ongoing emergency response and potential associated marine debris. It is categorically excluded from further review under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of two State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from Louisiana for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submittals address how the existing SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). The i-SIP ensures that the Louisiana SIP is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA for this NAAQS.
This rule is effective on July 6, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0211. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sherry Fuerst, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214-665-6454,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our February 28, 2020, proposal (85 FR 11931). In that action we proposed to approve the State's February 7, 2019, SIP submittal, and portions of the State's November 8, 2019, SIP submittal pursuant to the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), and (H) through (M). We also proposed approving the Louisiana SIP for compliance with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Interstate Pollution Abatement (which refers to CAA section 126) and International Air Pollution (which refers to CAA section 115). We did not propose action on the remaining portions of the November 8, 2019, submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection portion), which will be addressed in separate, subsequent actions. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.
The EPA is approving the February 7, 2019, SIP submittal, and portions of the November 8, 2019, SIP submittal for Louisiana pursuant to the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (the Prevention of Significant Deterioration portion), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(E) through (H) and 110(a)(2)(J) through (M). The submission addressed how Louisiana's existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana (“State”) on May 30, 2019 that pertains to gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, West Baton Rouge, and Pointe Coupee (“the 6-Parish Area”). The SIP revision EPA is approving removes from the SIP the requirement to install Stage II vapor recovery systems and includes requirements for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment at GDFs in the 6-Parish Area.
This rule is effective on July 6, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0496. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Wendy Jacques, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214-665-7395,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our February 28, 2020 proposal (85 FR 11928). In that document, we proposed to approve the Louisiana SIP revisions submitted on May 30, 2019 by the State that (1) remove from the SIP the requirement to implement Stage II vapor recovery in the 6-Parish Area and (2) provide decommissioning procedures that existing GDFs in the 6-Parish Area shall complete within 18 months of the effective date of EPA's approval of this final rule. The removal of the Stage II requirements is possible because on-board vapor recovery is now in widespread use in the vehicle fleet. The revisions to the SIP also include a demonstration that the removal of Stage II equipment in the 6-Parish Area is consistent with section 110(l) of the Act which precludes approval of revisions to the SIP that contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Our February 28, 2020 proposal provided a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions, together with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment period for these actions closed on March 30, 2020. We received a comment of support on our proposal from a private citizen, which is posted in the docket for this action. See the docket for this rulemaking and our proposal at 85 FR 11928 for more information.
We did not receive adverse comments regarding our proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.
We are approving revisions to the Louisiana SIP that control emissions of VOCs and pertain to the removal of Stage II vapor recovery equipment submitted on May 30, 2019. Specifically, we are approving the revisions at Title 33 of the Louisiana Air Code, Part III, Chapter 21 (denoted LAC 33:III.2132), subsections B-F and J that remove from the SIP the requirement to implement Stage II from Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, and West Baton Rouge parishes and address the decommissioning of Stage II equipment. We are also approving related revisions to the Stage II SIP narrative that address the maintenance and removal of Stage II equipment, and demonstrate that the removal of, or failure to install Stage II equipment in the 6-Parish Area, meets section 110(l) of the Act.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and 13563 (76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011));
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339 (February 2, 2017)) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999));
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001));
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy is soliciting public comment to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedures for electric motors. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, this document identifies several issues concerning the current test procedures on which comment is sought and invites public comment on any relevant topic (including those that have not been specifically raised). While the issues outlined in this document focus on how to address recent industry testing standard updates and the potential clarification of definitions and test settings for electric motors, information and data regarding any additional topics relevant to potential test procedure amendments are also sought, including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the procedure's representativeness.
Written comments and information will be accepted on or before July 20, 2020.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Electric motors are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which the Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE's test procedures for electric motors are prescribed at Appendix B to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 (“Appendix B”). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for electric motors, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) If DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))
EPCA, pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992), specifies that the test procedures for electric motors subject to standards are those specified in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) Standards Publication MG1-1987 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Standard 112 Test Method B, as in effect on October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(A)). If these test procedures are amended, DOE must amend its test procedures to conform to such amended test procedure requirements, unless DOE determines by rule, published in the
EPCA also requires DOE to evaluate its test procedures at least once every 7 years for each type of covered equipment, including electric motors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct but be reasonably designed to produce test results reflecting energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle of the equipment at issue. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must propose amended test procedures (published in the
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in satisfaction of its obligations under EPCA.
DOE established test procedures for electric motors that referenced NEMA MG1-1993 and IEEE 112-1996. 64 FR 54114 (October 5, 1999) (“October 1999 final rule”). The October 1999 final rule also incorporated by reference Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) Standard C390-93,
On May 4, 2012, DOE amended the test procedures for electric motors consistent with its obligations under EPCA to incorporate the NEMA MG 1-2009 and the IEEE 112-2011 into its regulations. 77 FR 26608 (“May 2012 final rule”). The May 2012 final rule also updated the regulations to reference the most current version of CSA C390.
On December 13, 2013, DOE again amended its electric motor test procedure by clarifying the test setup requirements for certain electric motors. 78 FR 75962 (“December 2013 final rule”). DOE explained that changes brought about by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140 (December 19, 2007)) and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210, Sec. 10 (December 18, 2012)) enabled DOE to consider an expanded scope of electric motors for regulatory coverage.
DOE's test procedures for electric motors at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, Appendix B (“Appendix B”) currently incorporate by reference NEMA MG 1-2009, IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B, and CSA Standard C390-10. Appendix B also includes additional specifications necessary for testing certain types of electric motors. 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, Appendix B, Sec. 4.
On March 1, 2017, NEMA published NEMA MG 1-2016, Motors and Generators. On February 14, 2018, IEEE published IEEE 112-2017, IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators. DOE subsequently proposed to amend the current test procedure regulations for small electric motors and electric motors, which included a full review of IEEE 112-2017. 84 FR 17004 (April 23, 2019) (“April 2019 NOPR”). The relevant updates to the industry test procedures (including NEMA MG 1-2016), in addition to potential clarification of definitions and test settings for electric motors, are discussed in the following section.
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which
Further, DOE recently issued an RFI to seek more broadly information on whether its test procedures are reasonably designed, as required by EPCA, to produce results that measure the energy use or efficiency of a product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019). DOE seeks comment on this issue as it pertains to the test procedure for electric motors.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to electric motors consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
The term “electric motor” is defined as “a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power.” 10 CFR 431.12. Manufacturers are required to test those electric motors subject to energy conservation standards according to the test procedure in Appendix B.
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) Are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC)
(3) Contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) Operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;
(5) Are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) Have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) Are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) Produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and
(9) Meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor.
DOE exempted certain categories of motors from having to satisfy any standards after determining that the referenced industry test procedures do not provide a standardized test method for determining the energy efficiency of these motor configurations.
• Air-over electric motors;
• Component sets of an electric motor;
• Liquid-cooled electric motors;
• Submersible electric motors; and
• Inverter-only electric motors.
Definitions for terms related to the Federal test method for electric motors are provided at 10 CFR 431.12. A number of these definitions incorporate references to specific sections of NEMA MG 1-2009 to characterize the construction and operation of different categories of electric motors. DOE is considering revising these definitions to update its current NEMA MG 1 references to the most recent edition of that standard, NEMA MG 1-2016. These reference updates would align DOE's regulatory definitions with current industry practice and the revisions under consideration for the electric motors test procedure at Appendix B (see section II.B.1).
Twelve definitions at 10 CFR 431.12 reference the NEMA MG 1-2009 standard, of which the following five include references to sections of NEMA MG 1 that have not changed between the 2009 and 2016 publications of the standard: “electric motor with encapsulated windings,” “electric motor with moisture resistant windings,” “electric motor with sealed windings,” “general purpose electric motor (subtype I),” and “general purpose electric motor (subtype II).”
Conversely, the definitions in 10 CFR 431.12 for “definite purpose motor,” “definite purpose electric motor,” “general purpose electric motor,” “NEMA Design A motor,” “NEMA Design B motor,” “NEMA Design C motor,” and “nominal full-load efficiency” reference provisions of NEMA MG 1 that have changed between the 2009 and 2016 versions. These changes are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The definitions for “definite purpose motor,” “definite purpose electric motor,” and “general purpose electric motor” at 10 CFR 431.12 reference
The definitions for “NEMA Design A motor,” “NEMA Design B motor,” and “NEMA Design C motor” at 10 CFR 431.12 reference tables of locked-rotor current in sections 12.35.1 and 12.35.2 of NEMA MG 1-2009. NEMA MG 1-2016 revises these tables by adding a column for “Locked-Rotor kVA Code” and a footnote regarding a tolerance that may be applied to the locked-rotor current values based on the associated Locked-Rotor kVA Code.
The definition for “nominal full-load efficiency” at 10 CFR 431.12 references Table 12-10 of NEMA MG 1-2009, which provides a list of nominal efficiencies and associated minimum motor efficiencies based on a 20 percent loss difference. Table 12-10 in NEMA MG 1-2009 lists nominal efficiency ratings ranging from 50.5 to 99.0, while Table 12-10 in NEMA MG 1-2016 lists nominal efficiency ratings ranging from 34.5 to 99.0. The nominal efficiency ratings (and associated minimum efficiencies) in the range of 50.5 to 99.0 did not change between the NEMA MG1-2009 and NEMA MG1-2016 versions of the standard. The nominal full-load efficiency requirements specified by the energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25 are efficiency values ranging from 74.0 to 96.2; therefore, the addition of nominal efficiency ratings ranging from 34.5 to 50.5 in the NEMA MG 1-2016 version of Table 12-10 will not impact the applicability of test procedures or energy conservation standards for electric motors.
DOE also notes that IEC standard 60034-12, published on November 23, 2016, allows the use of a new nomenclature for certain electric motors that are already covered by DOE's current standards. As an example, IEC Design N and IEC Design H motors that meet a “premium efficiency” attribute are permitted to be designated with an “E” (
DOE has reviewed each of the industry standards that are currently incorporated by reference as test methods for determining the energy efficiency of electric motors. Since publication of the December 2013 final rule, IEEE 112-2004 and NEMA MG 1-2009 have been revised, and CSA C390-10 has been reaffirmed, as listed in Table II-1. The following is a review of the relevant revisions to IEEE 112-2004 and NEMA MG 1-2009.
In the April 2019 NOPR DOE proposed to incorporate by reference IEEE 112-2017 for both small electric motors and electric motors. 84 FR 17004. Specifically, for electric motors, DOE has proposed to incorporate IEEE 112-2017 Test Method B as an alternative to IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B, and requested comment on this proposal. 84 FR 17004, 17011-17012. DOE tentatively determined that this proposal would harmonize the permitted test methods under subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 and align measurement and instrumentation requirements with recent industry practice. 84 FR 17004, 17011-17012.
The test procedure for electric motors specified at Appendix B requires that efficiency and losses be determined in accordance with NEMA MG 1-2009, paragraph 12.58.1, “Determination of Motor Efficiency and Losses.” The text of paragraph 12.58.1 was modified in the subsequent revisions to NEMA MG 1-2009. Notably, paragraph 12.58.1 in the 2016 revision of MG 1 specifies an additional industry standard, IEC 60034-2-1, for calculating the efficiency of horizontal polyphase squirrel-cage motors rated 1 to 500 horsepower. Further discussion on IEC 60034-2-1 is provided in the following section II.B.1.c of this RFI.
In a November 2017 notice, DOE sought comment regarding petitions from NEMA and Underwriters Laboratory (“UL”) requesting that DOE incorporate IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B
DOE reviewed Method 2-1-1B from the IEC 60034-2-1:2014 standard in the April 2019 NOPR and initially concluded that the standard would provide comparable energy efficiency results to the current required test standards (IEEE 112 and CSA C390). 84 FR 17004, 17013. Accordingly, in the April 2019 NOPR DOE proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 60034-2-1:2014 Method 2-1-1B as an alternative to the currently incorporated industry testing standards IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B and CSA C390-10, and requested comment on this proposal.
The test method for measuring electric motor nominal full-load efficiency prescribed under Appendix B specifies that efficiency and losses are determined in accordance with paragraph 12.58.1 of NEMA MG1-2009, and either CSA C390-10 or IEEE 112-2004 Test Method B.
Section 7.1.3 of CSA C390-10 provides the test instructions for the heat-run test, and states that the temperature used to establish thermal equilibrium is determined using the temperature measurement devices specified in section 7.1.2 of that standard. Section 7.1.2.2 of CSA C390-10 explicitly specifies the permissible locations for installing the temperature measurement devices when conducting the heat-run test.
Section 5.8.4.4 of IEEE 112-2004 specifies how to terminate the heat-run test. These instructions provide that the motor is operated until the temperature rises are constant, but unlike CSA C390-10, IEEE 112-2004 does not explicitly indicate the locations where these temperatures must be measured. Instead, Section 5.8.4.3 of IEEE 112-2004 provides a list of locations on the motor at which temperature measurement devices must be equipped, but does not specify which temperature measurement device must be used to establish the condition of thermal equilibrium in the heat-run test. The same requirements are provided in Section 5.9.4.4 of IEEE 112-2017, the latest version of the industry standard.
Nominal full-load efficiency, the metric for energy conservation standards for electric motors, is defined as a representative value of efficiency selected from the “nominal efficiency” column of Table 12-10 of NEMA MG 1-2009, that is not greater than the average full-load efficiency of a population of motors of the same design.
Rated motor horsepower is generally not an intrinsic, observable motor property, and motors are usually capable of operating both above and below the rated motor horsepower. For example, a motor that is rated at 1 hp is also capable of delivering 0.75 hp, but likely with a different speed, torque, and efficiency than those of when it is delivering at its rated 1 hp. The output power of the motor depends on the load and the design of the motor. Therefore, the load point (or horsepower) at which the motor must be tested is not an intrinsic parameter to the motor, but rather a parameter that must be defined or specified. The test's load point (or horsepower) is relevant to efficiency testing because the efficiency of an electric motor varies according to load.
While the “nominal full-load efficiency definition” relies on the definition of “average full-load efficiency” (and in turn, “rated load”), DOE regulations do not explicitly address how to determine the rated load and rated motor horsepower of an electric motor. Accordingly, as part of the test procedure evaluation, DOE is considering whether to define the term “rated motor horsepower” and whether defining the term would provide for more accurate comparisons of similarly rated motors from different manufacturers. In addition, DOE is considering additional changes to address the relationship between the term “rated motor horsepower” to “rated load,” as discussed in section II.B.4.b of this RFI.
As with a recent proposed amendment to the test procedure for small electric motors, DOE is considering defining rated motor horsepower to be based on the breakdown torque of an electric motor, which is a directly measurable quantity. See 84 FR 17004, 17014-17015. Breakdown torque is defined in section 1.50 of NEMA MG 1-2016 as the maximum torque that the motor will develop with rated voltage and frequency applied without an abrupt drop in speed,
NEMA MG1-2016 requires that the rated horsepower be established by identifying the horsepower that corresponds to the appropriate value of breakdown torque, established in section 12.37 and section 12.39 of NEMA MG1-2016, for general-purpose polyphase 2-digit frame (
DOE is evaluating whether clarifying several other values used for testing electric motors is warranted. As noted previously, the definition of average full load efficiency at 10 CFR 431.12 specifies that the full load efficiency of a motor is determined when the motor operates at the rated frequency, rated load, and rated voltage. Additionally, industry standards refer to “rated” values, which are expected to be known or provided (
“Rated frequency” is a term commonly used by industry standards developed for testing electric motors (
Some electric motors subject to 10 CFR 431.16 are marketed as capable of operating at either of these two frequencies and could include in their marketing information data regarding motor performance at both frequencies (
The term “rated load”
The term “rated voltage” is used in industry standards to specify the voltage supplied to the motor under test (
In addition, DOE has found that some motor nameplates are labeled with a voltage rating including a range of values, such as “208-230/460 volts,” or other qualifiers, such as “230/460V, usable at 208V.” DOE is considering how rated voltage for testing should be determined in these cases.
If required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of a modified test procedure, were DOE to finalize such a change, typically would not be required until the implementation date of updated standards. Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. Moreover, were DOE to initiate a rulemaking to establish methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards, such a rulemaking would be finalized at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. See 10 CFR part 430, appendix A, subpart C, sec. 8(d)-(e).
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the current test procedures for electric motors found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart B. As noted earlier, DOE recently issued an RFI to seek more information on whether its test procedures are reasonably designed to produce results that measure the energy use or efficiency of a product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019).
DOE's established practice is to adopt industry standards as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these standards as the DOE test procedure. DOE recognizes that adopting industry standards with modifications imposes a burden on industry (
Finally, DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (September 17, 2018) (“September 2019 RFI”). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 20, 2020, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for electric motors. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for electric motors if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for this equipment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 8, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-08-01 for Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2018-08-01 requires inspecting the control rod attachment yokes (yoke) of certain main rotor rotating swashplates (swashplate). Since the FAA issued AD 2018-08-01, Airbus Helicopters has identified additional swashplate serial numbers affected by the unsafe condition and has established a life limit for the swashplates. This proposed AD would retain the inspection requirements of AD 2018-08-01, expand the applicability, establish a life limit, and add a one-time inspection of stripped yokes. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 3, 2020.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972-641-0000 or 800-232-0323; fax 972-641-3775; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments received.
The FAA issued AD 2018-08-01, Amendment 39-19254 (83 FR 17617, April 23, 2018) (“AD 2018-08-01”) for Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2018-08-01 requires, for certain serial-numbered swashplates part number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 and P/N 332A31-3074-01, a repetitive visual inspection of the five yokes for a crack and replacing the swashplate if there is a crack in any of the yokes.
AD 2018-08-01 was prompted by EASA AD No. 2017-0191R2, dated December 15, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0191R2), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA advised of a finding by Airbus Helicopters that the yoke is susceptible to cracking due to strain aging of the metal. EASA advised that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of a yoke, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
Since the FAA issued AD 2018-08-01, Airbus Helicopters revised the related service information, Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05A051, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017, to Revision 2, dated February 26, 2019 (EASB 05A051). EASB 05A051 establishes a life limit (also called a service life limit) of 12 years for the swashplate and adds a reporting requirement if there is a crack or corrosion in a yoke.
Thereafter, EASA superseded EASA AD 2017-0191R2 with EASA AD No. 2019-0074, dated March 28, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0074). EASA advises that additional analysis determined that it is necessary to introduce a new life limit for the affected swashplates. Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0074 retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0191R2 and adds the life limit and the reporting requirement.
Additionally, the FAA issued AD 2018-08-01 to address the unsafe condition of a crack in a swashplate yoke. However, AD 2018-08-01 did not require stripping certain yokes and performing a one-time inspection within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) for corrosion and a crack as specified in EASA AD 2017-0191R2, as there is sufficient time to allow for notice and comment prior to this long-term AD requirement going into effect. The FAA has determined this inspection is needed to address this unsafe condition and has proposed to require, within 100 hours TIS and for certain yokes, removing the grease and stripping certain areas of the yokes and inspecting these areas for corrosion, pitting, loss of material, and a crack in this proposed AD.
These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed one document that co-publishes two Airbus Helicopters EASB identification numbers: EASB 05A051 for Model EC225LP helicopters and EASB No. 05A046, Revision 2, dated February 26, 2019, for non-FAA type-certificated Model EC725AP helicopters. EASB 05A051 is proposed for incorporation by reference in this proposed AD. Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 05A046 is not proposed for incorporation by reference in this proposed AD.
This service information specifies inspections for swashplate P/N 332A31-3074-00 and P/N 332A31-3074-01. This service information specifies procedures for a repetitive inspection of the yokes for a crack and a one-time inspection of the stripped yokes for corrosion and a crack. If in doubt about whether there is a crack, this service information specifies performing a non-destructive inspection. This service information also specifies touching up the swashplate with varnish if there is corrosion, removing any damage within
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed one document that co-publishes two Airbus Helicopters EASB identification numbers: No. 05A051 for Model EC225LP helicopters and No. 05A046 for non-FAA type-certificated Model EC725AP helicopters, each Revision 1 and dated November 16, 2017. Revision 1 of this service information specifies the same inspections as Revision 2 of this service information. However, Revision 2 of this service information clarifies some of the inspection instructions and adds a life limit and a reporting requirement.
This proposed AD would require, before further flight, reviewing Appendix 4.A. of EASB 05A051 to determine the date of manufacture of the swashplate and establishing a life limit of 12 years since the date of manufacture. This proposed AD would retain the repetitive visual inspections of AD 2018-08-01 to inspect each yoke for a crack at intervals not to exceed 15 hours time-in-service for swashplates that have accumulated less than 7 years since the date of manufacture. For a swashplate that has accumulated 7 or more years, but less than 12 years, since the date of manufacture, this proposed AD would require removing the grease and stripping certain areas of the yokes and inspecting these areas for corrosion, pitting, loss of material, and a crack. If there are no cracks, this AD would require performing a dye penetrant inspection of the yoke for a crack.
Depending on the results of this inspection, the proposed AD would require either repairing the surface of the swashplate or removing it from service.
The EASA AD requires performing a non-destructive inspection only if there is doubt whether there is a crack. Instead, this proposed AD requires a visual inspection and if there are no cracks, requires a non-destructive inspection. The EASA AD specifies instructions for reporting inspection reports; this proposed AD does not.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 26 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Determining the date of manufacture of the swashplate would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,118 for the U.S. fleet.
Inspecting the yokes would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $546 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
Removing grease, stripping the yokes, and inspecting the stripped yokes would take about 8 work-hours, for a total estimated cost of $680 per helicopter.
Dye-penetrant inspecting a yoke for a crack would take about 6 work-hours and parts would cost about $50, for an estimated cost of $560 per yoke.
Removing any corrosion or repairing damage within the allowable limit would take about 3 work-hours, for an estimated cost of $255 per yoke.
Replacing the swashplate would take about 6 work-hours, and parts would cost about $85,661 for an estimated cost of $86,171 per instance.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a main rotor (M/R) rotating swashplate (swashplate) part number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 or P/N 332A31-3074-01 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a swashplate control rod attachment yoke (yoke). This condition could result in failure of the yoke, loss of M/R control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD replaces AD 2018-08-01, Amendment 39-19254 (83 FR 17617, April 23, 2018).
The FAA must receive comments by August 3, 2020.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the
Before further flight, review Appendix 4.A. of Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A051, Revision 2, dated February 26, 2019 (EASB 05A051) to determine the date of manufacture of the swashplate.
(1) If the swashplate has accumulated 12 or more years since the date of manufacture, remove from service the swashplate.
(2) If the swashplate has accumulated less than 12 years since the date of manufacture, create a component history card or equivalent record indicating a life limit of 12 years since the date of manufacture. Thereafter, continue to record the life limit of the swashplate on its component history card or equivalent record and remove from service any swashplate before accumulating 12 years since the date of manufacture.
(3) For each swashplate that has accumulated less than 7 years since the date of manufacture, within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS, until the swashplate accumulates 7 years since the date of manufacture, visually inspect each yoke for a crack, paying particular attention to the areas shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051.
(i) If there are no cracks, perform a dye penetrant inspection of the yoke for a crack.
(ii) If there is a crack on a yoke, before further flight, remove from service the swashplate.
(4) For each swashplate that has accumulated 7 or more years, but less than 12 years, since the date of manufacture, within 100 hours TIS:
(i) Remove the grease from areas (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), and (K) of each yoke as shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051. Using a plastic spatula, strip areas (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), and (K) of each yoke as shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051. Do not use a metal tool to strip any area of a yoke.
(ii) Inspect areas (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) and (K) of each yoke as shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051 for corrosion, pitting, and loss of material.
(A) If there is any corrosion less than 0.0078 in. (0.2 mm), before further flight, remove the corrosion and apply varnish (Vernelec 43022 or equivalent) to the surface of areas (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) and (K).
(B) If there is any pitting or loss of material of less than 0.0078 in. (0.2 mm), before further flight, remove the damage by sanding with sandpaper 200/400 or 330.
(C) If there is any corrosion, pitting, or loss of material of 0.0078 in. (0.2 mm) or greater, before further flight, remove from service the swashplate.
(iii) Visually inspect each yoke for a crack, paying particular attention to the areas shown in Details B, C, and D of Figure 1 of EASB 05A051.
(A) If there are no cracks, perform a dye penetrant inspection of the yoke for a crack.
(B) If there is a crack on a yoke, before further flight, remove from service the swashplate.
If you performed the actions in paragraph (f)(4) before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A051, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2017, you met the requirements of paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019-0074, dated March 28, 2019. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor Mast/Swashplate.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
The FAA is revising an earlier proposal for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-151, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, and PA-32-300 airplanes. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was prompted by a report of a wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in a visually inaccessible area of the lower main wing spar cap. This action revises the NPRM by adding and removing certain models of airplanes in the Applicability, proposing to require the use of service information that was issued since the NPRM, and clarifying some of the proposed actions. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan McCully, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5548; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-151, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-32-260, and PA-32-300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The NPRM was prompted by a fatal accident involving wing separation on a Piper Model PA-28R-201 airplane. An investigation revealed a fatigue crack in a visually inaccessible area of the lower main wing spar cap. The NPRM included other model airplanes with similar wing spar structures as the Model PA-28R-201. Based on airplane usage history, the FAA determined that only those airplanes with higher risk for fatigue cracks (airplanes with a significant history of operation in flight training or other high-load environments) should be subject to the inspection requirements proposed in the NPRM.
Because airplanes used in training and other high-load environments are typically operated for hire and have inspection programs that require 100-hour inspections, the FAA determined the number of 100-hour inspections an airplane has undergone would be the best indicator of the airplane's usage history. Accordingly, the FAA developed a factored service hours formula based on the number of 100-hour inspections completed on the airplane.
The NPRM proposed to require a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine the number of 100-hour inspections and the application of the factored service hours formula to identify when an airplane meets the criteria for the proposed eddy current inspection of the lower main wing spar bolt holes. The NPRM also proposed to require inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for cracks once a main wing spar exceeds the specified factored service hours and replacing any main wing spar when a crack is indicated. The maintenance records review to determine the factored service hours proposed by the NPRM would only apply when an airplane has either accumulated 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS); has had either main wing spar replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS); or has missing and/or incomplete maintenance records.
After a review of the comments received on the NPRM and further analysis, the FAA determined that some additional airplane models are likely to be affected by the unsafe condition and should be included in the applicability, while other models are not affected and should be removed from the applicability. Consequently, this SNPRM revises the applicability and the estimated cost associated with the proposed AD actions. This SNPRM also clarifies the applicability and some of the proposed actions. In addition, this supplemental NPRM no longer allows replacement of the wing spar with a used part. The FAA determined replacement of the wing spar with a part of unknown operational history would not ensure an acceptable level of safety.
Since the NPRM was issued, Piper issued a service bulletin that contains procedures for the eddy current inspection. This SNPRM proposes to require that service bulletin to do the eddy current inspection instead of the inspection procedure in the appendix to the NPRM.
Since these actions impose an additional burden over that in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on this change.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM and received approximately 168 comments. The majority of the commenters were individual maintenance personnel and operators. The remaining commenters included Piper, governmental agencies such as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). The following presents the relevant comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Fifteen comments were received in support of the NPRM. Five of these commenters specifically supported the proposed eddy current inspection method. The NTSB specifically supported the proposed requirement to report inspection results to the FAA.
Many commenters requested that the FAA provide more information about the root cause and clarify the FAA's unsafe condition determination.
Mitchell Ross requested information regarding the background of the accident airplane that prompted the NPRM, including its manufacturing and maintenance history. This commenter and Robert Cunningham also questioned the operational history of the accident airplane. Nine other commenters questioned the FAA's determination that an unsafe condition exists based on only one failure in 30 years.
The FAA agrees. All publicly available information about the accident airplane, including the information requested by the commenters, is available in the NTSB docket for accident number ERA18FA120. This information can be viewed at
David Hedley and Dana Pyle noted that Piper's steel supplier changed in the 1980s. These commenters and Robert Cunningham questioned whether inferior metal could be a factor. Tom McIntosh, Dana Pyle, and Robert Cunningham questioned whether coastal environments contributed to the corrosion and metal fatigue. Steven Rosenfield asked the FAA to confirm whether the fatigue cracking is caused by a design defect or a manufacturing error. Some commenters suggested that the problem is caused by other issues such as inadequate inspection and maintenance practices, and hard landings that go unreported.
The FAA agrees to provide additional information. The NTSB Materials Laboratory conducted hardness testing and electrical conductivity testing of the accident spar and sent spar samples to an independent laboratory for tension testing and chemical analysis. Tests results showed that the spar material conformed to type design (see NTSB report No. 18-061, Materials Laboratory Factual Report). Corrosion was not determined to be a contributing factor. Regarding the concern about inadequate inspections and maintenance practices, the NTSB report did not indicate there was any evidence of inadequate inspection and maintenance practices.
AOPA noted the absence of any specific mention of the April 4, 2018, Piper PA-28R-201 accident (NTSB Accident Number ERA18FA120) in the NPRM. The commenter stated its belief that the accident is a driving force behind the NPRM.
The FAA agrees. The preamble of this SNPRM has been revised to add information related to the accident.
Joseph Oh, The University of North Dakota (UND Aerospace), AOPA, Navid Rahimi, Benjamin Morgan, and eight other commenters requested the FAA wait for the conclusion of the NTSB investigation before issuing an AD. These commenters stated or suggested that the proposed AD is premature and that the NTSB's determinations would affect the content or necessity of the proposed AD. Piper stated that the proposed AD would likely interfere with the NTSB's investigation. Some of these commenters specifically referenced the NTSB's investigation of a Piper Model PA-28R-201 Arrow III that experienced an in-flight wing separation on April 4, 2018.
The FAA does not agree. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.5, the FAA issues airworthiness directives when an unsafe condition exists in the product, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. While the NTSB contributes critical information to accident prevention efforts, the FAA's determinations of unsafe conditions are not dependent on the outcome of NTSB investigations. The FAA, Piper, and the NTSB concurred that the subject failure was the result of an undetected fatigue crack in the wing spar. This was supported by the NTSB's release of Preliminary Report ERA18FA120 and a later Investigative Update, which disclosed additional fatigue cracks on another airplane. Although the NTSB's final report (issued after the NPRM published) provides additional details regarding the accident, it does not yield information previously unknown to the FAA that would have altered the content of the NPRM, nor did the NTSB request the FAA delay issuing the NPRM pending its final report. The NTSB reports may be found at
Dwight Schrute, Ross Carbiner, Thomas Feminella, AOPA, EAA, GAMA, Piper, and 21 other commenters stated that because the AD was issued as an interim action with a reporting requirement, the AD is inappropriate and does not address a known unsafe condition. Nine of those commenters stated that a special advisory information bulletin (SAIB), service bulletin, or other voluntary action is a more appropriate method of addressing the wing spar fatigue cracking. Four of those commenters opposed the AD generally. Michael Powell did not request to withdraw the NPRM, but suggested the FAA obtain information from DeHaviland Support, because this company has experience with a relevant wing spar fatigue monitoring scheme that has been implemented for the DeHaviland Model Chipmunk airplanes. Three other commenters suggested the FAA gather data from voluntary inspections and salvage parts before issuing an AD.
The FAA does not agree to withdraw the NPRM. The FAA may issue an AD as an interim action for several reasons, including to obtain inspection results to determine the necessity of additional action or final action, while simultaneously requiring inspections to mitigate the unsafe condition. The primary considerations in reaching the decision for an interim AD were: (1) The catastrophic failure mode resulting from this condition, and (2) the inability to detect the subject cracking during a routine inspection. The NTSB accident database shows a relatively small number of Piper Model PA-28 airplane wing failures related to fatigue cracks (three known). However, the only reported cracks were discovered after wing separations, since the cracks developed and grew in a normally concealed structural area. In addition, it can be predicted based on engineering priniciples of crack propagation that a fatigue crack in this location will grow with each load cycle and eventually result in wing spar failure. Due to the fatality rate associated with the known failures, the risk analysis protocol used by the FAA justifies mandatory corrective action. Both the NPRM and this SNPRM employ methodology to screen out the majority of lower-risk airplanes based on usage history. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on these comments.
Piper, EAA, and GAMA stated that the applicability of the proposed AD is too broad and includes models with different structural layouts and loads, or other key aspects that affect spar fatigue. Piper specifically advised the FAA to rely on Piper's analysis and limit the proposed AD to Piper Models PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, and PA-28-235 airplanes (all serial numbers), and certain serial-numbered Models PA-32-260 and PA-32-300 airplanes. Eight other commenters agreed with the comments submitted by Piper. AOPA and two individual commenters expressed concern that the FAA did not accept Piper's recommendation on the limited scope of airplanes that may be subject to the unsafe condition. The NTSB supported the inclusion of Models PA-28-235, all PA-28R-series, PA-32-260, and PA-32-300 airplanes in the proposed AD, and requested that the FAA reconsider whether the proposed AD should include all PA-28-series models (other than Model PA-28-235).
Thomas Rae identified Piper model seaplanes and airplanes that, given their similar structure, hours in service, and/or use in flight training, should be added to the Applicability section of the proposed AD. Twelve other commenters
The FAA agrees that the models listed in the Applicability of the proposed AD should be revised. The Applicability section was designed to screen out lower-risk airplanes from the inspection requirement by applying only to airplanes with 5,000 or more hours TIS, unless maintenance records are missing and/or incomplete or a wing has been replaced. The subsequent maintenance records review to calculate factored service hours was intended to eliminate an additional large number of remaining airplanes from the AD requirements. Only the airplanes at the highest risk for fatigue cracks would be required to conduct the eddy current inspection.
Piper Aircraft provided the FAA with extensive analyses of similarly structured airplanes, including comparison of factors such as structural geometry, certificated weights, design airspeeds, bending moments, and wing loading parameters including gust loads, maneuvering loads, and landing loads. Although the FAA accepted all of Piper's initial recommended models for effectivity, Piper's recommended effectivity did not include the group of airplanes addressed in Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 886, dated June 8, 1988 (Piper SB 886) (Wing Spar Inspection). Piper SB 886 includes the Model PA-28-181 airplane, which was involved in two wing separation accidents in 1987 and 1993. Both accident airplanes had fatigue cracks in the wing spar as mentioned in the NTSB Final Accident Report ERA18FA120.
Due to the inability to visually inspect the specific area of the structure once the wing has been assembled, cracks may go undetected and unreported for a significant period of time. Consequently, a reported crack at this location is more likely to come from an investigation of a wing spar failure than as the result of a routine inspection or maintenance. The FAA initially expanded on Piper's recommended effectivity to include all airplane models in the Applicability section of Piper SB 886.
Since issuing the NPRM, and partially in response to public comments, the FAA has adopted a more focused risk criteria using load data provided by Piper. This risk approach and the resulting change in applicability adds three airplane models (Models PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T) and removes five airplane models (Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, and PA-28-180) from the Applicability section of this SNPRM, for a net reduction of approximately 8,800 lower-risk aircraft. The FAA developed a more precise methodology for identifying risk. Flight loads of all similar models were compared to those of the PA-28R-201 (accident aircraft) as a baseline. Those aircraft models with calculated wing loads greater than or equal to 95 percent of baseline are considered at-risk and are included in the new effectivity. While the additional parameters included in the new screening method allowed us to remove many lower risk aircraft, it also identified three models that were not captured by the previous, broader, approach. Because this methodology considers only the potential damage to the aircraft and not the actual load history of an individual aircraft, the additional maintenance record reviews are used to determine when the AD becomes applicable to a specific aircraft.
Floris Oldenbroek, Richard Davis, and three other commenters expressed confusion at the formula and requested clarification and guidance; two of these commenters specifically asked about the divisor “17.” Many commenters noted various flaws in the proposed methodology for counting 100-hour inspections. Tom Rafferty, Kenneth Minck, Brian Christie, and approximately 19 other commenters stated maintainers often document 100-hour inspections as “annual” inspections or as “annual/100-hour” inspections. EASA, AOPA, and three individual commenters stated that the formula would cause issues with international operators because, unlike the FAA's regulations, foreign civil aviation authorities do not distinguish between 100-hour and annual inspections. Several other commenters noted that using 100-hour inspections is not an accurate way of determining high stress flight hours. GAMA and five individual commenters noted that the formula does not address operators that are on a progressive inspection program under 14 CFR 91.409(d). Outer Banks Airlines and three individual commenters stated that not all commercial operations, which will be captured by counting 100-hour inspections, are used for flight instruction. These commenters explained that charter flights operated under 14 CFR part 135 are not subject to the harsh training environment of training operations and are instead flown by highly trained pilots on longer flights with fewer landings.
Many of the commenters proposed different methodologies to use in determining the factored service hours. Chris Sobers, Thomas Downey, and three other commenters suggested using total time on the airframe (“TTAF”) as a less complex method. Floris Oldenbroek asked whether the total time of the aircraft could be used instead of the factored service hours formula if an airplane has only been utilized as a trainer. Martin Kennett and Lawrence Mangus suggested using the number of landing cycles/severe landings as a better indication of fatigue damage. Suggestions from other commenters included: Omitting 100-hour inspections performed in conjunction with an annual inspection; omitting 100-hour inspections performed voluntarily and not required by § 91.409(b); using a severity factor to indicate primary use in flight training; only including airplanes used by flights schools/excluding airplanes with no history of use in training; and adding a penalty for hard landings and major wing damage.
The FAA agrees to explain the formula based on these comments. The FAA developed the factored service hours formula to determine an approximate factored service life for any airplane, including those with mixed usage history. The formula attributes 100
This SNPRM includes guidance for determining the quantity “N” in the factored service hours formula based on the various maintenance record entry notations that may be used to indicate compliance with the 100-hour inspection requirements. As proposed in this SNPRM, the airplane maintenance records review must consider any inspection that was done to comply with the 100-hour inspection requirement under § 91.409(b), which pertains to carrying persons for hire and providing flight instruction for hire.
The FAA has considered the impact of the proposed formula on international operators and agrees with EASA that civil airworthiness authorities (CAAs) would have to develop a different approach instead of fully adopting the FAA's AD. The FAA encourages CAAs to use their equivalent inspection requirements to account for differences in terminology relative to annual versus 100-hour inspections and other unique operational requirements. The FAA is available to support any such efforts as requested by a CAA.
The FAA has also considered the alternative methods suggested by the commenters and determined that the formula in this SNPRM is the best method for allowing personal-use airplanes to defer the inspection. Using TTAF or TIS alone would not account for different types of usage history. Other commenters' proposals, while logical and valid, are not based on regulatory recordkeeping requirements and therefore would create other difficulties for owners and operators. For example, while use and history specifically in flight training, landing cycles, and hard landings are valid indicators, there is no regulatory requirement for U.S. operators to maintain such records, particularly for personal use airplane maintenance records. The FAA considered adding a penalty for any history of major repairs to the wing, but determined it would not be necessary. Any cracks, as well as other damage, would be detected and corrected during the repair to the wing, as the FAA's maintenance regulations require restoring the wing to its original or properly altered condition before approving it for return to service. In addition, any operator that believes their airplane does not fit the applicability/risk focus of this SNPRM may provide substantiating data and request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the AD action using the instructions found in paragraph (o) of this AD. The FAA will consider all AMOC requests on a case-by-case basis.
Mark Talaga requested clarification on the correct hours to require the eddy current inspection, 5,000 hours TIS or 5,000 factored service hours. Richard Davis asked the FAA to clarify why the records review would be done when the airplane has 5,000 hours TIS and not 6,000 hours TIS.
The FAA agrees to provide additional information on this proposed requirement. The applicability paragraph of the NPRM referenced a table listing the potentially affected models and serial-numbered airplanes. It also provided three criteria to determine if the AD applied to the models listed in the table: (1) The airplane has accumulated 5,000 or more hours TIS; (2) the airplane has had either main wing spar replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS); or (3) the airplane maintenance records are missing and/or incomplete.
The 5,000 hours TIS criteria in paragraph (c), Applicability, is only used to determine if the AD applies to the airplane. If the airplane does not meet any of the three criteria, then the AD does not yet apply to that airplane. Only if and when one of those three conditions exist would the proposed AD require an airplane maintenance records review to determine the factored service hours. Then, only if the resulting calculation determines that the airplane has reached 5,000
The 5,000 factored service hours compliance time is determined by taking the known factored hours at spar failure, and regressing to predict the time of crack initiation. Starting the inspection at 5,000 factored service hours provides a reasonable opportunity to detect a crack before it reaches a dangerous length. Because it is impossible for an aircraft to accumulate 5,000 factored service hours without having flown 5,000 hours TIS, there is no need to review an airplane's inspection record before 5,000 hours TIS.
John Longley requested limiting the 100-hour inspection calculation to the past 5, 7, or at most 10 years rather than since the airplane was new.
The FAA disagrees. The effect of fatigue on a structure is cumulative regardless of when it occurred. The factored service hours formula takes into account airplanes with mixed usage history and provides credit for hours TIS accrued while in “normal” usage. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on this comment.
Tom McIntosh, Dennis Mulloy, and four other commenters requested that the owner/operator be allowed to review the airplane maintenance records and calculate the factored service hours. These commenters objected to the cost associated with requiring a mechanic to do the airplane maintenance record review, when the owner/operator is capable.
The FAA agrees. The FAA does not consider an airplane maintenance records review to be a maintenance action, and the SNPRM has been clarified to state that the owner/operator (pilot) may conduct the review and calculate the factored service hours to determine if the eddy current inspection proposed by this SNPRM is necessary. The airplane maintenance records review cost estimate has been retained in this SNPRM, since owners may choose to have a mechanic perform the initial review and factored service hours calculation.
Dennis Mulloy requested clarification of what would constitute missing or incomplete maintenance records. James Layton asked for guidance where logbook entries may be missing but the airplane has verifiable hours through the original tachometer. Michael Beasley requested clarification for missing logbooks that are reconstructed by the maintenance facility that serviced the airplane.
The FAA agrees to provide clarification. The premise of calculating factored service hours to determine the risk category of an airplane is based on the accuracy and completeness of the airplane maintenance records for the entire history of the airplane. An absence of airplane maintenance records entries over an extended period (as in the case of dormant airplanes) does not constitute missing or incomplete maintenance records if tachometer/Hobbs time continuity shows the airplane did not operate during that
Michael Graziano, Duke Ball, Stephen Allen, and Olmond Hall requested that for airplanes with missing or incomplete maintenance records, operators be allowed to assume that 100-hour inspections were completed for the purposes of calculating the factored service hours, instead of being automatically required to complete the eddy current inspection. Four other commenters proposed or requested similar methods for attributing unknown hours TIS.
The FAA disagrees. While the FAA does not object in theory with an alternate method of computing factored service hours in the case of missing airplane maintenance records, there are other issues to consider. Missing airplane maintenance records may mask the replacement of a tachometer or Hobbs meter, thus invalidating the total hours TIS. Missing records may hide information on the history of the wing/wing spar on the airplane. Without airplane maintenance records for the entire airplane's history, an operator cannot determine if the airplane has the original wing(s) or a replacement wing(s). For this reason, the FAA determined that, for purposes of this proposed AD, operators with missing or incomplete records must assume that the wing history is unknown. An owner who can provide other documentation supporting the history of the airplane or wing spar and show an acceptable level of safety may request approval of an AMOC to the AD action with substantiating data using the instructions found in paragraph (o) of this SNPRM. The FAA will review all AMOC requests and may approved the requests on a case-by-case basis. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on these comments.
Thurman Bodenheimer, Christian Quitntero, and three other commenters requested that the compliance times and intervals in the NPRM be changed to match the airplane usage groups and intervals contained in Piper SB 886 and Piper SB 978A.
The FAA disagrees. Piper SB 886 and Piper SB 978A classify airplanes used in flight training as “normal usage,” which puts compliance for the initial inspection far beyond the initial (critical) inspection time specified in the NPRM. The FAA has found that this compliance time is not sufficient to address the unsafe condition. Additionally, the compliance time charts in Piper SB 886 and Piper SB 978A specify the airplane's usage class based on subjective criteria such as “significant time” flown below 1,000 feet during any part of the airplane's history. There is no regulatory requirement for operators to record or maintain hours TIS by operation at certain altitudes; thus, most operators would have no way of determining this information.
Hillel Glazer proposed a specific tiered approach for compliance with the initial airplane maintenance records review by prioritizing airplanes based on usage history, with the lowest tier requiring the airplane maintenance record review within 100 hours TIS. Michael Graziano requested changing the compliance time from 30 days to 50 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, similar the service information provided by Piper. The FAA disagrees. The usage rate of each airplane after the effective date of the AD will vary, and the use of calendar time ensures all operators review their maintenance records within a specified timeframe. Also, this SNPRM has been revised to allow the owner/operator (pilot) to do the maintenance records review. If the review of the maintenance records and the factored service hours indicate the operator must have an eddy current inspection done on the airplane, the compliance time is within 100 hours TIS after the factored service hours determination.
The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on these comments.
Daniel Stanley, Thomas Wiedenbeck, Mitchell Ross, Dana Pyle, Don Morris, Piper, and 17 other commenters stated that removal of wing attach bolts for the purpose of conducting the bolt hole inspection would create the potential of maintenance-induced damage to the airplanes that would outweigh any benefits realized from the inspection. Piper advised of reports of damaged spar bolt holes caused by removal of the bolts to perform a voluntary inspection of the fastener holes.
The FAA disagrees. Compliance with AD 87-08-08, Amendment 39-5615 (52 FR 15302, April 28, 1987) (“AD 87-08-08”) and AD 87-08-08R1, Amendment 39-5669 (52 FR 29505, August 10, 1987), which was rescinded on May 22, 1989, resulted in the dye penetrant inspection of approximately 560 airplanes and required removing and reinstalling 18 bolts per wing, or over 20,000 wing attach bolts. No known accidents have been attributed to bolt hole damage resulting from these inspections. While the FAA acknowledges the possibility of damage during any maintenance action, the relatively non-intrusive, wing-in-place inspection method proposed in the NPRM and in this SNPRM would have minimal impact to affected airplanes. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on these comments.
Forrest Benson, Charles Donnelly, James Graham, and twelve other commenters proposed using a different inspection method than an eddy current inspection, such as ultrasound, x-ray, dye/liquid penetrant, or borescope inspections. Some of these commenters proposed using a borescope because it would preclude removal of the bolts. Many commenters expressed concern about the availability of qualified inspectors to do the eddy current inspection and the need to deliver the airplane to a distant facility to have the eddy current inspection done.
The FAA disagrees. Borescope and dye penetrant methods are not generally capable of detecting cracks in the targeted range of .030 to .050 inch. Once a fatigue crack reaches a visibly detectable size, growth can accelerate at a dangerous rate. It is imperative that operators identify any cracks while within the targeted range. Also, because the lower spar cap sits on the spar carry through and its upper flanges are covered by the web doublers, the spar cap is not visually inspectable when installed. The insides of the bolt holes are not visible with a borescope inside the wing carry-through assembly without removing the bolts. While the FAA acknowledges the value of x-ray technology and ultrasound inspections in material identification and thickness determination, those methods are not considered capable of reliably detecting very small fatigue cracks. Changes made to the proposed AD in response to other comments will increase the availability of inspectors qualified to do the eddy current inspections. The FAA did not
Tony Brand submitted an eddy current inspection procedure and requested approval to use this method as an alternative method of compliance. John Longley, Jr. requested that the eddy current inspection not require specific proprietary equipment. The FAA agrees that alternate eddy current methods may be acceptable. For any owner/operator who wishes to use a different procedure, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that it would provide an acceptable level of safety, using the instructions in paragraph (o) of this AD. The FAA will consider all AMOC requests on a case-by-case basis.
Neither the NPRM, nor this SPNRM, propose to require the use of any particular model equipment. The NPRM and Piper Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 3, 2020, which this SNPRM proposes to incorporate by reference, contain optional examples of equipment that meet the requirements for conducting the eddy current inspection.
EASA requested clarification on the bolt holes to be inspected. EASA stated that Piper's service bulletins specify inspecting a larger area of the lower spar cap and asked whether inspecting only the two outboard holes, as proposed in the NPRM, is adequate. Blue Skies Flying Services requested clarification on the difference between the proposed inspection procedure in appendix 1 of the NPRM, which refers to only the two lower outboard bolt holes, and the proposed requirement to perform an eddy current inspection in paragraph (h) of the NPRM, which refers to each bolt hole on the lower main wing spar cap.
The FAA agrees to clarify and revise the proposed requirement. The FAA has determined that the requirements in the NPRM to inspect only the two lower outboard bolt holes are adequate. The FAA has not observed a pattern of cracking at other spar hole locations and has not determined the benefit of inspecting additional holes would outweigh the potential of damage from bolt removal. The FAA has revised the proposed inspection requirements in this SNPRM to specify the two lower outboard bolt holes.
Samuel Tucker, Norman Jones, and Humphrey Penney requested the proposed requirement for NAS 410 Level II or Level III qualifications to perform the eddy current inspection be expanded to include equivalent certifications.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has revised the proposed AD to allow Level II or Level III qualification standards for inspection personnel using any of the inspector criteria approved by the FAA to conduct the eddy current inspection. This proposed change would increase the availability of inspectors qualified to do the eddy current inspections.
Mark Morris, Tony Brand, Michael Graziano, and Michael Beasley requested information about recurring inspection requirements associated with the NPRM. Forrest Benson asked whether the FAA and Piper could develop a doubler repair instead of requiring replacement of the spar due to parts unavailability. William Johnson noted that the only permanent solution would be to produce a spar strap or reinforcing plate. The FAA agrees to provide additional information related to follow-on actions that may be associated with this proposed AD. As a proposed interim action, this SNPRM would require a one-time inspection for cracks and a reporting requirement. The FAA will evaluate the results of the reports to determine if mandating terminating or repetitive action is warranted. The FAA and Piper have discussed possible contingent repetitive and terminating actions and determined that a doubler repair is not a practical repair solution at this time.
Steven Ells and Pascal Robitaille expressed concern over the integrity of the aft spar attach point as a contributing factor to the fatigue cracking. These commenters requested including an inspection of the aft wing attach fitting for excessive play as a step in the NPRM and, if movement is detected, then performing the proposed eddy current inspection. John Henry described experiences with the aft spar attach and suggested criteria for a mandatory inspection.
The FAA acknowledges that the integrity of the forward and aft wing spar attach points are relevant to loads imparted into the wing spar, but the FAA disagrees with adding an inspection of the wing spar attach points to this SNPRM. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the forward or aft wing spar attach points have contributed to the unsafe condition addressed in this SNPRM. The FAA did not change this SNPRM as a result of these comments.
David Sampson and Gerald Brown expressed concern that the NPRM fails to address that holes have to be cut in the wing skin and access panels installed to access the inspection area.
The FAA disagrees. The eddy current inspection proposed by the NPRM does not require installing holes or access panels. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM as a result of this comment.
GAMA requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to require reporting inspection results to both the FAA and to Piper, the type certificate holder.
The FAA agrees and has revised this SNPRM accordingly.
Bryan Russell, Mark Maxwell, Art Sebesta, and Charles Martinak asked for credit for airplanes that have previously complied with AD 87-08-08, Piper SB 886, or Piper SB 978A, which specified removal of both wings and dye penetrant inspection of all main spar attach bolts.
The FAA disagrees. Dye penetrant inspection methods are not generally capable of detecting cracks in the targeted range of .030 to .050 inch. Additionally, the FAA is aware of one wing spar failure on an airplane after having undergone the dye penetrant inspection required by AD 87-08-08.
Barry Roberts and Mark Womack requested credit for airplanes with a wing that has been replaced with a serviceable wing (over zero hours TIS) with a documented service history. Daniel Stanley stating that the proposed AD should not be required on airplanes that had a wing replaced 40 years ago with a low time wing. (The commenter did not state whether the documented wing history was available.)
The FAA disagrees. Replacement wings (over zero hours TIS) that do not have a complete documented history raise the same considerations as missing airplane maintenance records. For a documented serviceable wing with less than 5,000 factored service hours, an owner/operator who can provide
Thomas Feminella requested that the proposed AD allow a one-time ferry flight, because eddy current inspection facilities are scarce, many owners may fly their airplanes somewhere away from their base to get the inspection done, and if the wings fail the inspection the airplane may be trapped at a location where no major repairs are available. Charles Martinak also expressed concern of being grounded after flying to a distant facility for testing, which may or may not have repair capability.
The FAA disagrees. Once a crack in the wing spar area reaches a detectable size, growth becomes rapid. The FAA does not allow ferry flights with known cracks in primary structures. However, the FAA has changed the inspector requirements, which will increase the number of available inspectors. The FAA did not make additional changes based on these comments.
AOPA and nine individual commenters stated generally that the estimated costs of the proposed AD are incorrect or too low.
Doug Morrow and two other commenters noted that the FAA's estimated labor rate is too low. Thomas Downey, Mitchell Ross, and twenty other commenters stated that the estimated cost of the proposed inspection, particularly the labor rate for an inspector qualified for eddy current, was underestimated. Piper submitted a list of estimated costs to conduct the eddy current inspection and to do any rework; nine other commenters agreed with Piper's costs. EAA, GAMA, Steven Ells, Doug Morrow, Piper, and two other commenters requested the estimated number of work-hours for the inspection be increased.
The FAA agrees to revise the estimated cost of conducting the eddy current inspection. The labor rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans for use when estimating the labor costs for complying with AD requirements. However, the FAA acknowledges the higher hourly rate associated with the specialized skills that would be required by the proposed AD. The FAA has increased the cost estimate for the eddy current inspection to $600 in this SNPRM.
The FAA observed several airplane inspections by private entities and the NTSB investigative team, which included representatives from NTSB, FAA, Piper, and Embry-Riddle. It took from 2 to 4 work-hours, inclusive of gaining access and restoring the airplane, to do the proposed inspections. However, in the NPRM the FAA did not take into account that a portion of the labor requires a second person (bolt removal and reinstallation). The FAA has revised the number of work-hours estimated to do the inspections from 3 to 5 hours.
Thomas Rae, Doug Morrow, AOPA and six other commenters raised concerns about the cost to replace a spar or requested the FAA significantly increase the cost/number of hours to replace a wing spar. Two commenters noted that replacing a spar is not possible because there are no parts available, and three commenters questioned why a replacement spar must be a new spar. Piper recommended the FAA's estimated costs include the cost of replacing the entire wing.
The FAA agrees with the comments concerning the number of labor hours and has increased the number of work-hours estimated for the wing-spar replacement from 32 to 80 hours. The FAA disagrees with adding the cost for wing replacement. The cost estimate in AD rulemaking actions include only the costs associated with complying with the AD. Although the FAA agrees that replacing the wing is an acceptable method of complying with a required spar replacement, that method is optional and not required by the AD. Although the FAA acknowledges the difficulty for some operators due to an unavailability of parts, this does not negate the need to correct the identified unsafe condition. The wing spar is critical for safe flight.
Four individual commenters noted that the FAA's cost estimate does not include labor hours sufficient for indirect costs, such as painting, crating and transportation, and the diminished value of the aircraft.
The FAA acknowledges the concerns raised by these commenters. However, the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the costs of actions actually required by the rule. Cost estimates for ADs do not include indirect costs such as hours necessary for closing actions, costs for transportation to or from facilities for maintenance, or other losses. The FAA did not make changes to this SNPRM based on these comments.
AOPA requested the FAA revise the number of hours estimated to review the maintenance records and calculate the number of factored service hours. In support of its request, AOPA noted that the age of affected aircraft may be several decades old, necessitating more than the estimated two hours.
The FAA agrees. Most general aviation airplane maintenance record entries are comprised of periodic inspections, which often include annual maintenance items, thus making such a review fairly straightforward. Flight schools and fleet operators often maintain electronic records, making data retrieval a simple matter. The FAA acknowledges that variations in record keeping styles encountered in older maintenance records may require additional time to review. Additionally, since the initial airplane maintenance records review to determine factored service hours effectivity is not considered a maintenance item, it can be accomplished by the owner/operator (certified pilot). The FAA has revised the number of hours to review the records from two hours to three hours and added language to clarify that an owner/operator may review the airplane maintenance records in this SNPRM.
Piper requested that the estimated costs be revised to include all affected airplanes worldwide instead of the 19,696 U.S.-registered airplanes identified in the NPRM. Piper further objected to the lack of an estimated fleet cost for the eddy current inspections, and stated 40,856 airplanes should be included in the cost estimate because all airplanes over 10 years of age would be potentially subject to the inspections.
The FAA disagrees. The cost analyses in AD rulemaking actions estimate the cost impact on U.S. operators. The FAA bases its estimate on the number of affected airplanes on the U.S. registry. Including all airplanes worldwide, as the commenter requested, would not
The FAA also disagrees that all 19,696 airplanes would be required to calculate the factored service hours. A small sampling of approximately 200 affected airplanes, aged 15 years and older, indicated that only 34 percent had reached the 5,000 hours TIS that would put them into the applicability of paragraph (c)(1) of the NPRM and require further calculation of the factored service hours. Therefore, the FAA estimates that a large number of the affected airplanes will not have reached 5,000 hours TIS, have missing logbooks, or have undergone a wing replacement and will therefore be able to defer further review of airplane maintenance records. The FAA did not makes changes to this SNPRM based on this comment.
Piper requested the FAA correct the statement in the NPRM that the proposed AD would have no effect on intrastate commerce in Alaska. Piper stated that the proposed AD would affect 189 U.S. registered PA-32-260 and PA-32-300 aircraft, which are widely utilized by many part 135 operators who serve the Alaska communities that rely on aviation as their only mode of transportation.
The FAA agrees and added clarifying language that the AD does affect operators in Alaska; however, it does not have a significant enough effect to make a regulatory distinction.
AOPA, EAA, GAMA, Piper, and seven individual commenters requested the FAA extend the comment period (from 45 days to 90 days) to allow additional time to comment because the NPRM was released preceding a holiday and subsequent government shutdown. Also, these commenters stated that additional time is needed for industry groups and the type certificate holder to evaluate the impact of the NPRM and to develop a solution.
The FAA partially agrees. At the time the FAA issued the NPRM, an extension of the comment period was not necessary. During the partial government shutdown of December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019, the online AD Docket at
The FAA reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020 (Piper SB No. 1345). This service bulletin contains procedures for doing an eddy current inspection and instructions to report the results of the inspection to Piper and to replace the wing, wing spar, or spar section as necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed Piper SB 886 and Piper SB 978A. These service bulletins contain procedures for determining initial and repetitive inspection times based on the aircraft's usage and visually inspecting the wing lower spar caps and the upper wing skin adjacent to the fuselage and forward of each main spar for cracks. The FAA also reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Letter No. 997, dated May 14, 1987, which contains procedures for replacing airplane wings.
The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require reviewing the airplane maintenance records to determine the number of 100-hour inspections completed on each installed main wing spar and using the number of 100-hour inspections to calculate the factored service hours for each main wing spar. This SNPRM would also require inspecting the two lower outboard main wing spar bolt holes on each wing for cracks once a main wing spar exceeds the specified factored service hours and replacing any main wing spar when a crack is indicated. This SNPRM would only apply when an airplane has either accumulated 5,000 or more hours TIS; has had either main wing spar replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS); or has missing and/or incomplete maintenance records.
This SNPRM specifies that the owner/operator (pilot) may do the aircraft maintenance records review and the factored service hours calculation. Reviewing maintenance records is not considered a maintenance action and may be done by a pilot holding at least a private pilot certificate. This action must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records to show compliance with that specific action required by the AD.
Piper SB 1345 specifies doing the eddy current inspection upon reaching 5,000 hours TIS; however, this SNPRM proposes using the factored service hours to identify the airplanes at the highest risk of developing fatigue cracks. Piper SB No. 1345 also specifies using its feedback form to report the eddy current inspection results, but this SNPRM proposes the use of a different form attached as appendix 1. In addition, this SNPRM requires replacement of the wing spar with a new (zero hours TIS) wing spar if cracks are found; however, Piper SB No. 1345 allows replacement with parts that have been previously installed on an airplane.
The FAA considers this SNPRM interim action. The inspection reports will provide the FAA additional data for determining the number of cracks present in the fleet. After analyzing the data, the FAA may take further rulemaking action.
The FAA estimates that this SNPRM affects 5,440 airplanes on U.S. registry. There are 10,881 airplanes of U.S. registry with a model and serial number shown in table 1 to paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. Based on a sample survey, the FAA estimates that 50 percent of those U.S.-registered airplanes will have reached the qualifying 5,000 hour TIS necessary to do the required logbook review.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this SNPRM:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do the eddy current inspection. Because some airplanes are only used non-commercially and will not accumulate the specified factored service hours in the life of the airplane, the FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this inspection:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) airplanes, certificated in any category, with a model and serial number shown in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, and that meet at least one of the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
An owner/operator with at least a private pilot certificate may do the aircraft maintenance records review to determine the applicability as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
(1) Has accumulated 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS); or
(2) Has had either main wing spar replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS); or
(3) Has missing and/or incomplete maintenance records.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a wing separation caused by fatigue cracking in a visually inaccessible area of the main wing lower spar cap. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the wing separating from the fuselage in flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) “TIS” has the same meaning as the definition of “time in service” in 14 CFR 1.1.
(2) For purposes of this AD, “factored service hours” refers to the calculated quantity of hours using the formula in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, which accounts for the usage history of the airplane.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, review the airplane maintenance records and determine the number of 100-hour inspections completed on the airplane since new and any record of wing spar replacement(s).
(i) For purposes of this review, count any inspection conducted to comply with the 100-hour requirement of 14 CFR 91.409(b) pertaining to carrying persons for hire, such as in-flight training environments, even if the inspection was entered in the maintenance records as an “annual” inspection or as an “annual/100-hour” inspection. If the purpose of an inspection was to comply with § 91.409(b), then it must be counted. To determine the purpose of an inspection, note the repeating intervals between inspections,
(ii) If a main wing spar has been replaced with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar, count the number of 100-hour inspections from the time of installation of the new main wing spar.
(iii) If a main wing spar has been replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS) or the airplane maintenance records are missing or incomplete, the wing history cannot be determined. Perform the eddy current inspection as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(iv) The actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4), and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) Before further flight after completing the action in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, calculate the
(3)
(4)
Within the compliance time specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this AD, as applicable, eddy current inspect the inner surface of the two lower outboard bolt holes on the lower main wing spar cap for cracks using steps 1 through 3 in the Instructions of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020. Although Piper SB No. 1345 specifies NAS 410 Level II or Level III certification to perform the inspection, this AD allows Level II or Level III qualification standards for inspection personnel using any inspector criteria approved by the FAA.
Adivsory Circular 65-31B contains FAA-approved Level II and Level III qualification standards criteria for inspection personnel doing nondestructive test (NDT) inspections.
(1) Within 100 hours TIS after complying with paragraph (h) of this AD or within 100 hours TIS after a main wing spar accumulates 5,000 factored service hours, whichever occurs later; or
(2) For airplanes with an unknown number of factored service hours on a main wing spar, within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
If a crack is found during an inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the main wing spar with a new (zero hours TIS) main wing spar.
Before further flight after completing the actions required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, install new bolts by following step 6 of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1345, dated March 27, 2020.
Within 30 days after completing an inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, using Appendix 1, “Inspection Results Form,” of this AD, report the inspection results to the FAA at the Atlanta ACO Branch and to Piper. Submit the report to the FAA and Piper using the contact information found on the form in appendix 1 of this AD.
A special flight permit may only be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the inspection requirement of paragraph (i) of this AD can be performed. This AD prohibits a special flight permit if the inspection reveals a crack in a main wing spar.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (p) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Dan McCully, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would have applied to various normal and transport category rotorcraft with certain Honeywell enhanced ground proximity warning systems (EGPWS) installed. The NPRM was prompted by a software defect that prevents the EGPWS from providing terrain warnings. The NPRM would have required updating the software version of the EGPWS. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that the unsafe condition no longer exists and has confirmed that the majority of operators have updated their software as specified in the NPRM. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
The FAA is withdrawing the proposed rule published June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25978), as of June 3, 2020.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Thanh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5304; fax: 562-627-5210; email
The FAA has issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that the unsafe condition no longer exists and has confirmed that the majority of operators have updated their software as specified in the NPRM. In addition, the FAA confirmed that the software failure related to the potential unsafe condition has occurred only during lab testing; no failures have occurred during operation of the affected helicopters. The FAA completed a new risk assessment based on this data that showed there is an acceptable level of risk. Therefore, the FAA has determined that AD action is not appropriate and the NPRM should be withdrawn.
Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action and does not preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.
Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the NPRM is unnecessary. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. This action therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2017-0492, which was published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked or completely severed lugs in the upper aft corner stop fitting assembly of the forward entry door. This proposed AD would require an inspection, a measurement, or a records check of that assembly to determine the part number, and replacement if a certain part is found. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to FAA Aerospace Engineer Michael Bumbaugh at the previously-listed contact information. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA has received reports of cracked and completely severed lugs in the stop fitting assembly of the forward entry door on Boeing Model 737 Next Generation (NG) airplanes. Analysis of the design of the stop fitting assembly revealed that undersized wall thickness of the lug made it susceptible to fatigue cracking. The FAA has determined that the failure of the door stop fitting assembly may result in the forward entry door being unable to sustain limit load. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the forward entry door and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020. The service information describes procedures for an inspection, a measurement, or a records check of the upper aft corner door stop fitting assembly to determine the part number, and applicable on-condition actions. The on-condition action is to replace the affected stop fitting assembly with a newly designed stop fitting assembly that has improved wall thickness and strength. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.
In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (
The effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020, is limited to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all existing and future Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100,
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 1,075 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected persons.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked or completely severed lugs in the stop fitting assembly of the forward entry door. The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracking or severing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the forward entry door and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes having a date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness on before the effective date of this AD: Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1180, dated January 24, 2020, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires doing the repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
For airplanes on which the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished, or for airplanes having a date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness dated after the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a stop fitting assembly with part number 141A6104-3 or a forward entry door that has a stop fitting assembly with part number 141A6104-3, on any airplane.
(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 (k)(1) 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 and AW189 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a broken extrusion rubber window seal. This proposed AD would require installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0197, dated September 5, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 helicopters and certain Leonardo S.p.A Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises of a broken extrusion rubber window seal, part number A417AF001WB. According to EASA, an investigation determined that the damage to the rubber filler wedge of the rubber window seal could have been caused by the excessive tension of the string applied during the installation of an affected emergency exit handle. EASA advises that this condition, if not corrected, could result in an excessive load to release the emergency exit window, possibly resulting in delayed evacuation of helicopter occupants during an emergency. EASA states that, due to design similarities, the same unsafe condition could exist or develop on certain Model AW189 helicopters. To correct this condition, EASA AD 2018-0197 requires installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Leonardo Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin 169-094, Revision A, dated August 13, 2018, and Alert Service Bulletin 189-170, dated July 25, 2018. This service information describes procedures for installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle. These documents are distinct since they apply to different aircraft models.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 10 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in this cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to the Leonardo S.p.A. helicopters identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category, equipped with an affected part defined as internal emergency exit handle, part number (P/N) 8G9500L00151, and external emergency exit handle, P/N 8G9500L00251.
(1) Model AW169 helicopters, all serial numbers.
(2) Model AW189 helicopters, all serial numbers, except those helicopters with emergency exit windows equipped with strap P/N A487A003A, or helicopters with bubble windows P/N 8G5620F00112.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 5600, Windows.
This AD was prompted by a report of a broken extrusion rubber window seal; an investigation determined the likely cause was excessive tension of the string applied during the installation of an affected emergency exit handle. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not addressed, could result in an excessive load required to release the emergency exit window, possibly resulting in delayed evacuation of helicopter occupants during an emergency.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 helicopters equipped with a passenger sliding door configuration, cabin main assembly P/N 6F5330A00131 or P/N
(2) For Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 helicopters equipped with a passenger hinged door configuration, cabin main assembly VIP P/N 6F5330A00831: Within 750 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, install the retro-modification P/N 6F5600P00111 on the rubber filler wedge of all affected emergency exit handles in accordance with Part II, steps 1 through 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin 169-094, Revision A, dated August 13, 2018, except you are required to replace the affected emergency exit handles and are not required to discard the filler wedges.
(3) For Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters: Within 750 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, install the retro-modification P/N 8G5600P00211 on the rubber filler wedge of all affected emergency exit handles in accordance with steps 1 through 11 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin 189-170, dated July 25, 2018, except you are required to replace the affected emergency exit handles and are not required to discard the filler wedges.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2018-0197, dated September 5, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that corrosion was found on the shock strut cylinders during unscheduled maintenance of the nose landing gear (NLG). This proposed AD would require a modification of the NLG shock strut cylinder. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2019-43, dated November 8, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc.,
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that corrosion was found on the shock strut cylinders during unscheduled maintenance of the NLG. The FAA is proposing this AD to address corrosion of the NLG, which could result in structural failure of the NLG. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-32-33, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019, and Service Bulletin 350-32-009, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019. This service information describes procedures for modification of the NLG shock strut cylinder. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 560 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 20003 through 20767 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that corrosion was found on the shock strut cylinders during unscheduled maintenance of the nose landing gear (NLG). The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion of the NLG, which could result in structural failure of the NLG.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes with S/N 20003 through 20500 inclusive: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, do the modification in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes with NLG assemblies with 96 months' or less time since new (TSN) as of the effective date of this AD: At the NLG 96-month scheduled inspection, do a modification of the NLG shock strut cylinder, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-33, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019.
(2) For airplanes with NLG assemblies with more than 96 months TSN as of the effective date of this AD: At the applicable compliance times specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of
For Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes with S/N 20501 through 20767 inclusive: At the NLG 96-month scheduled inspection, do a modification of the NLG shock strut cylinder, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a NLG shock strut assembly with part number (P/N) 40630-111, P/N 40630-113, or P/N 44630-101, unless it has been modified in accordance with paragraphs 2.B. or 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-33, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019; or paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, Revision 02, dated September 30, 2019; as applicable.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using paragraph 2.B. or 2.C., as applicable, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-33, dated October 31, 2018, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-32-33, Revision 01, July 31, 2019.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using paragraph 2.B. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, dated October 31, 2018, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, Revision 01 dated July 31, 2019, as applicable, provided that the NLG shock strut assembly with P/N 44630-101 was removed in lieu of P/N 44610-101, as specified in paragraph 2.B.(1) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, dated October 31, 2018, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-32-009, Revision 01 dated July 31, 2019.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2019-43, dated November 8, 2019, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-2, V-14, V-31, V-33, V-36, V-84, V-164, V-252, and V-510 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Buffalo, NY (BUF), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID). The Buffalo VOR provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected VOR Federal airways and is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0496; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
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 would modify the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0496; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0496; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Buffalo, NY (BUF), VOR/DME in December 2020. The Buffalo VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
With the planned decommissioning of the Buffalo VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the V-2, V-14, V-33, V-36, V-84, V-164, and V-510 airways within the affected area. As a result, the proposed amendments to V-2, V-14, V-36, and V-84 would result in the existing gaps in the airways being expanded. The proposed amendments to V-33 and V-164 would result in the airways ending (for V-33) and starting (for V-164) at the previous or next NAVAID in the airways, respectively, and the proposed amendment to V-510 would result in the airway segment located east of the existing gap in the airway being removed. The remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is sufficient to retain the continuity of the V-31 and V-252 airways and the proposed amendments to those airways would result in them remaining available for use as charted.
To overcome the proposed removal of the V-2, V-14, V-33, V-36, V-84, V-164, and V-510 airway segments, instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots could use adjacent VOR Federal airways, including V-31, V-119, V-252, and V-270, or could request air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly through or circumnavigate the affected area. IFR pilots equipped with area navigation (RNAV) PBN could also navigate point to point using the existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the air traffic services previously listed.
Additionally, to overcome the loss of the Buffalo VOR component radial in defining the last airway point (AIRCO fix) in V-31 and the first airway point (AIRCO fix) in V-252, due to the planned decommissioning of the Buffalo VOR, that radial is being changed while the existing intersecting radials that make up the AIRCO fix in each airway are being retained. The Buffalo VOR radial in the intersection definition of the AIRCO fix in the V-31 and V-252 airway descriptions is being amended to reflect the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME 024°(T)/032°(M) radial. IFR and VFR pilots who elect to navigate via the airways will be able to continue using V-31 and V-252, as charted, in the affected area.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-2, V-14, V-31, V-33, V-36, V-84, V-164, V-252, and V-510 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Buffalo, NY (BUF), VOR/DME. The proposed VOR Federal airway actions are described below.
All radials contained in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below that are unchanged are stated in True
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; to INT Nodine 122° and Waukon, IA, 053° radials. From Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.
From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052° and Tulsa, OK, 246° radials; Tulsa; Neosho, MO; Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy 067° and St. Louis, MO, 225° radials; St. Louis; Vandalia, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown 093° and Albany, NY, 270° radials; Albany; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.
From Patuxent, MD; INT Patuxent 338° and Nottingham, MD, 128° radials; to Nottingham. From Baltimore, MD; INT Baltimore 004° and Harrisburg, PA, 147° radials; Harrisburg; Selinsgrove, PA; Williamsport, PA; Elmira, NY; INT Elmira 002° and Rochester, NY, 120° radials; Rochester; to INT Rochester 279° and Jamestown, NY, 024°(T)/032°(M) radials.
From Harcum, VA; INT Harcum 003° and Nottingham, MD, 174° radials; to Nottingham. From Baltimore, MD; INT Baltimore 004° and Harrisburg, PA, 147° radials; Harrisburg; Philipsburg, PA; Keating, PA; to Bradford, PA. The airspace within R-4007A and R-4007B is excluded.
From Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Wawa, ON, Canada; Sault Ste Marie, MI; Elliot Lake, ON, Canada; Wiarton, ON, Canada; to INT Wiarton 150° and Toronto, ON, Canada, 304° radials. From Elmira, NY; INT Elmira 110° and LaGuardia, NY, 310° radials; to INT LaGuardia 310° and Stillwater, NJ, 043° radials. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Northbrook, IL; to Pullman, MI. From Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.
From Wellsville, NY; Stonyfork, PA; Williamsport, PA; INT Williamsport 129° and East Texas, PA, 315° radials; to East Texas.
From INT Jamestown, NY, 024°(T)/032°(M) and Geneseo, NY, 305° radials; Geneseo; Binghamton, NY; Huguenot, NY; INT Huguenot 196° and Robbinsville, NJ, 351° radials; Robbinsville; to Dupont, DE.
From Dickinson, ND; INT Dickinson 078° and Bismarck, ND, 290° radials; 28 miles 38 MSL, Bismarck; INT Bismarck 067° and Jamestown, ND, 279° radials; 14 miles, 65 miles 34 MSL, Jamestown; Fargo, ND; INT Fargo 110° and Alexandria, MN, 321° radials; Alexandria; INT Alexandria 110° and Gopher, MN, 321° radials; Gopher; INT Gopher 109° and Nodine, MN, 328° radials; Nodine; to Dells, WI.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-5 and V-178, and remove V-513 in the vicinity of New Hope, KY. The amendments are due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the New Hope, KY (EWO), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid
Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0497; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
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 would modify the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0497; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0497; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the New Hope, KY (EWO), VOR/DME in December 2020. The New Hope VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
The VOR Federal airway dependencies to the New Hope VOR are V-5, V-178, and V-513. With the planned decommissioning of the New Hope VOR, the proposed modifications to the dependent airways would result in the airway segments supported by the New Hope VOR being removed; creating gaps in V-5 and V-178, and removing V-513.
To overcome the gaps created in V-5 and V-178, and the removal of V-513, instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots could use adjacent VOR Federal airways, including V-51, V-52, V-140, V-310, and V-493, or could request air traffic control radar vectors to fly through or circumnavigate the affected area. IFR pilots equipped with area navigation (RNAV) PBN could also navigate point to point using the existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the airways through
Prior to this NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2020-0008 in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-5 and V-178, and remove V-513. This proposal would also correct the state location for the Choo Choo VORTAC to read Tennessee (TN). The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the New Hope, KY, VOR/DME has made this action necessary. The proposed VOR Federal airway actions are described below.
All radials contained in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; Athens, GA; INT Athens 340° and Electric City, SC, 274° radials; INT Electric City 274° and Choo Choo, TN, 127° radials; Choo Choo; to Bowling Green, KY. From Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.
From Hallsville, MO; INT Hallsville l83° and Vichy, MO, 32l° radials; Vichy; to Farmington, MO. From Lexington, KY; to Bluefield, WV.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field (formerly Guntersville Municipal Airport), Guntersville, AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures serving this airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2020-0491; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-16, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (770) 883-5664.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field, Guntersville, AL, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2020-0491 and Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-16) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0491; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field, Guntersville, AL, from a 6.3-mile radius to a 7-mile radius. In addition, the FAA proposes to update the airport's name and geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notification of Inquiry.
The United States Copyright Office is proposing to amend certain regulations governing the recordation of notices of termination. Along with a parallel rulemaking focused on modernizing document recordation in conjunction with development of the Office's online recordation system, the proposed amendments are intended to improve efficiency in the processing of such notices and to provide additional guidance to the public in this area. In addition, the Office is providing notice of changes to its examination practices for certain notices of termination that pertain to multiple grants, and soliciting public comment on two additional subjects of inquiry relating to notices of termination.
Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2020.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel, by email at
In 2017, the Office initiated a rulemaking to modernize its overall recordation process by updating regulations governing the submission of documents to the Office for recordation.
The Office is issuing this separate notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to seek public comment on proposed updates to its regulations governing recordation of notices of termination.
In enacting the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress created a process for authors to reclaim previously-granted rights in their works by terminating grants after a period of years has elapsed. To do so, authors, or their heirs or duly authorized agents, must serve a notice of
In establishing regulations under this authority, the Office has long been of the view that the “required contents of the notice must not become unduly burdensome to grantors, authors, and their successors,” who may lack knowledge of certain information, such as the applicable dates.
After a review of the current regulatory framework in light of overall modernization efforts, the Office proposes several amendments and clarifications to its regulations governing notices of termination. The Office intends for these changes to facilitate recordation and compliance with regulatory requirements.
First, the Office proposes an amendment to restore its discretion to record certain untimely notices if equitable circumstances warrant. Until recently, the relevant language said that the Office “reserves the right to refuse recordation of a notice of termination as such if, in the judgment of the Copyright Office, such notice is untimely.”
Second, the Office proposes a technical change to clarify an example provided in the regulations to illustrate when a notice may be untimely. The current regulations provide several examples of situations when a “notice will be considered untimely.” The interim rule included these examples to illustrate the types of errors that could lead to the Office refusing to record a notice on timeliness grounds. The examples were not, however, intended to outline the full range of situations where a notice would be untimely. One example of untimeliness added by the 2017 interim rule is where “the date of recordation is
The Office's regulations include a “harmless errors” exception providing that defects in a notice that “do not materially affect the adequacy of the information required to serve the purposes of 17 U.S.C. 203, 304(c), or 304(d), whichever applies, shall not render the notice invalid.”
In addition to this general “harmless errors” provision, the regulations list several specific types of errors that are considered harmless under the rule, provided “the errors were made in good faith and without any intention to deceive, mislead, or conceal relevant information.”
In contrast, failing to provide complete date and manner of service information (the “statement of service”) is a violation of Office regulations that is not currently subject to the harmless error rule. The current regulations mandate that a notice submitted for recordation “must be accompanied by a statement setting forth the date on which the notice was served and the manner of service, unless such information is contained in the notice.”
The Office believes that errors in complying with its regulations should be evaluated by the same harmless error standard as errors in complying with the statutory requirements: So long as an error does not materially affect the adequacy of the notice, it should not render the notice invalid.
The current regulations provide that service of a notice of termination upon a grantee may be accomplished by personal service or by first class mail.
Under the current regulations, remitters must clearly identify the title of each work to which the notice of termination applies. Providing a registration number is not required, but is encouraged “if possible and practicable.”
Current regulations set the date of recordation for a notice of termination as the date when “all of the elements of required for recordation, including the prescribed fee and, if required, the statement of service” are received by the Office.
Although the rule linking the date of recordation to the receipt of a complete submission has remained essentially unchanged since implemented in 1977, the Office has taken a fresh look at this requirement and determined that it should be relaxed to mitigate the harsh consequences that can result where a submission is missing certain required elements. While many types of clerical filing errors in notice submissions can be corrected without prejudice to the grantee, a change to the date of recordation resulting from the correction can have severe repercussions for the grantor. For example, if a grantor properly serves a notice on the grantee but fails to include a statement of service in the recordation submission to the Office, the grantor could correct this oversight by later submitting the statement of service. Under current regulations, however, the date of recordation would become the date the statement of service was received, not the date the Office first received the notice. Where the effective date of termination has already passed before the submission is corrected, the notice would be untimely because the statute requires that notices be recorded
Given these potentially severe consequences, current Office practice permits remitters to address certain non-material errors or omissions in notices submitted for recordation by providing information via correspondence with the Office, rather than requiring remitters to amend, re-serve, and re-file the notice.
Although this approach would differ from the method of assigning a date of recordation for other types of documents, the Office believes this distinction is appropriate in light of key differences between the recordation of notices of termination and the recordation of other documents pertaining to copyright. In the context of termination notices, it is a statutory requirement that grantees receive
In recent years, the Office began receiving notices of termination relating to multiple grants, that is, notices that seek to terminate: (a) More than one grant between the same parties (
After taking a fresh look at the issue, the Office concludes that there is nothing in the statute or current regulations barring notices covering multiple grants.
Accordingly, at this time, no additional fee will be charged for processing notices relating to multiple grants. The Office intends to track the volume of notices with multiple grants that are submitted, how many grants are included per notice, and how much longer these notices take to process, to determine whether processing time has increased due to the need to examine and index each grant in separate records. Using that information, the Office can reach an informed decision about whether or not to adopt any additional fee for notices involving multiple grants.
In addition to the foregoing proposed regulatory changes and clarification of examination practices, the Office solicits public comment on the following additional topics related to notices of termination.
The Office currently does not provide forms for use in preparing and serving notices of termination.
In light of its IT modernization efforts, the Office again invites public comment on whether it would be beneficial for the Office to develop an optional sample form or other template for notices of termination, such as an online notice builder. The Office also invites comment on any specific features that should be included in such an option. These comments will be considered in future phases of recordation development and may also be used in developing updated guidance documents for the public unconnected to IT systems, including circulars, the
As is true of many types of filings with the Copyright Office, authors sometimes entrust third-party agents to create, serve, and file notices of termination on their behalf. Although notices filed by third-party agents are generally recorded without incident, the Office understands that, in some instances, third-party agents have failed to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for recordation. If third-party agents do not timely communicate problems with recordation of notices to their clients, authors' termination rights may be jeopardized or extinguished altogether, depending on when these issues occur and are discovered relative to the five-year termination window.
The Office seeks public comment on whether these concerns could be addressed through regulatory updates, and if so, what specific changes should be considered. In addressing this issue, commenters should be mindful that the Office is generally seeking to make compliance with its regulations and practices less onerous and more flexible for remitters, and to increase efficiency in the recordation process. Commenters should consider whether imposing additional requirements to protect against errors or abuses by third-party agents is compatible with those goals. Likewise, commenters may consider the effect of any proposed change on the ability of authors to engage agents to limit the disclosure of personally identifiable information in the public record.
In furtherance of the Office's modernization efforts, the proposed amendments will facilitate recordation of notices of termination by easing compliance with requirements established by the Office. The Office invites public comment on this proposal and on the subjects of inquiry discussed above.
Copyright, General provisions.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office proposes amending 37 CFR part 201 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which requires examples of failure to make good faith efforts to comply with a small business subcontracting plan.
Interested parties should submit written comments at the address shown below on or before August 3, 2020 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2019-004 to
Ms. Malissa Jones, Procurement Analyst, at (703)605-2815, or by email at
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to implement section 1821 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (15 U.S.C 637 note, Pub. L. 114-328). Section 1821 requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to amend its regulations to provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan. SBA issued a rule at 84 FR 65647, November 29, 2019, to implement section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017. In its rule, SBA amends 13 CFR 125.3(d)(3) to provide guidance on evaluating whether the prime contractor made a good faith effort to comply with its small business subcontracting plan and a list of examples of activities reflective of a failure to make a good faith effort.
Additionally, SBA revised 13 CFR 125.3(c)(1)(iv) to require that prime contractors with commercial subcontracting plans include indirect costs in their subcontracting goals. Other than small business concerns that have a commercial subcontracting plan report on performance through a summary subcontract report (SSR). SBA's regulations currently require that contractors using a commercial subcontracting plan must include indirect costs in their SSRs, but do not require these contractors to include indirect costs in their subcontracting goals, which leads to inconsistencies when comparing the data reported in the SSR to the goals in the commercial subcontracting plan.
Small business subcontracting plans are required from large prime contractors when a contract is expected to exceed $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction) and has subcontracting possibilities. FAR 19.704 lists the elements of the plan, which include the contractor's goals for subcontracting to small business concerns and a description of the efforts the contractor will make to ensure that small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts. Failure to make a good faith effort to comply with the plan may result in the assessment of liquidated damages per FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan.
The proposed changes to the FAR are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Section 19.704, Subcontracting plan requirements, and the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, are amended to require that all indirect costs, with certain exceptions, are included in commercial plans and SSRs.
Section 19.705-7, Liquidated damages, is renamed “Compliance with the subcontracting plan” and is reorganized, with paragraph headings
This rule proposes to implement a statutory requirement to provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan. Because section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) requires subcontracting plans only for acquisitions valued above $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction contracts), the requirements of section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (15 U.S.C 637 note, Pub. L. 114-328) would not apply to contracts at or below the SAT. The FAR Council intends to apply the requirements of section 1821 to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Revisions to the clauses at FAR 52.219-9 and 52.219-16 are proposed by this rule. Discussion of these preliminary determinations is set forth below. The FAR Council will consider public feedback before making a final determination on the scope of the final rule.
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1906, acquisitions of commercial items (other than acquisitions of COTS items, which are addressed in 41 U.S.C. 1907) are exempt from a provision of law unless the law (i) contains criminal or civil penalties; (ii) specifically refers to 41 U.S.C. 1906 and states that the law applies to acquisitions of commercial items; or (iii) the FAR Council makes a written determination and finding that it would not be in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts for the procurement of commercial items from the provision of law. If none of these conditions are met, the FAR is required to include the statutory requirement(s) on a list of provisions of law that are inapplicable to the acquisition of commercial items.
The purpose of this rule is to implement section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 and SBA's implementing regulations. Section 1821 requires SBA to provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan. Both the FAR and SBA's regulations require contractors with small business subcontracting plans, including commercial plans, to make a good faith effort to comply with the plans. SBA's rule did not exempt the acquisition of commercial items.
Section 1821 furthers the Administration's goal of supporting small business. It advances the interests of small business subcontractors by promoting good faith efforts by large prime contractors to find and use small business concerns as subcontractors, thereby providing valuable opportunities for small business concerns.
For these reasons, it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the requirements of this rule to the acquisition of commercial items.
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1907, acquisitions of COTS items will be exempt from a provision of law unless the law (i) contains criminal or civil penalties; (ii) specifically refers to 41 U.S.C. 1907 and states that the law applies to acquisitions of COTS items; (iii) concerns authorities or responsibilities under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) or bid protest procedures developed under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3551
The purpose of this rule is to implement section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 and SBA's implementing regulations. Section 1821 requires SBA to provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan. Both the FAR and SBA's regulations require contractors with small business subcontracting plans, including commercial plans, to make a good faith effort to comply with the plans. SBA's rule did not exempt the acquisition of COTS items.
Section 1821 furthers the Administration's goal of supporting small business. It advances the interests of small business subcontractors by promoting good faith efforts by large prime contractors to find and use small business concerns as subcontractors, thereby providing valuable opportunities for small business concerns.
For these reasons, it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the requirements of this rule to the acquisition of COTS items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to implement section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Section 1821 amends the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C 637 note), to require SBA to provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with the goals and other elements in small business subcontracting plans. Additionally, SBA clarified in its regulations that large prime contractors with commercial subcontracting plans must
The objective of this proposed rule is to implement section 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 and SBA's implementing regulations, which provide examples of activities that would be considered a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan. SBA has amended 13 CFR 125.3(d)(3) to provide guidance on evaluating whether the prime contractor made a good faith effort to comply with its small business subcontracting plan and a list of examples of activities reflective of a failure to make a good faith effort.
Additionally, SBA has revised 13 CFR 125.3(c)(1)(iv) to require that large prime contractors with commercial subcontracting plans include indirect costs in the commercial subcontracting plan goals. Large prime contractors that have a commercial subcontracting plan report on performance through a SSR in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). SBA's regulations and the FAR currently require that a contractor using a commercial subcontracting plan include indirect costs in its SSR. However, these regulations do not require contractors to include indirect costs in their commercial subcontracting plan goals, which leads to inconsistencies when comparing the data reported in the SSR to the goals in the commercial subcontracting plan.
This rule may have a positive economic impact on any small business entity that wishes to participate in Federal procurement as a subcontractor. By providing examples of a failure to make a good faith effort to comply with small business subcontracting plans, contracting officers can determine more easily whether large prime contractors have made a good faith effort to comply with their subcontracting plans and hold large prime contractors accountable for failing to make a good faith effort to comply with their subcontracting plans. More diligence in developing and meeting subcontracting goals on the part of large prime contractors could have a positive impact of giving small business concerns more opportunity to subcontract on Federal contracts. Data from the Federal Procurement Data System indicate that in FY 2018 there were 2,397 entities with 15,758 awards that required small business subcontracting plans. According to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS), there are 19,596 unique entities who are subcontractors. Approximately 80 percent of the entities registered in the System for Award Management are small entities. Therefore, we estimate that 80 percent (15,677) of the subcontractors in FSRS are small entities. These small entities may benefit from this rule.
This proposed rule will require a large prime contractor with a commercial subcontracting plan to include indirect costs in its subcontracting goals. The benefit of requiring that indirect costs be included in subcontracting goals in commercial subcontracting plans is that it will increase the small business subcontracting goal and thus increase the amount of funds the prime contractor will subcontract to small business concerns, providing more opportunities for subcontract awards to small business concerns.
This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no known significant alternative approaches that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statute.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR case 2019-004) in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies to this rule; however, these changes to the FAR do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 9000-0007, Subcontracting Plans.
Government procurement.
Therefore, for the reasons listed in the preamble, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 19, 42, and 52 to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) A commercial plan (as defined in 19.701) is the preferred type of subcontracting plan for contractors furnishing commercial items. The subcontracting goals established for a commercial plan shall include all indirect costs with the exception of those such as the following: Employee salaries and benefits; payments for petty cash; depreciation; interest; income taxes; property taxes; lease payments; bank fees; fines, claims, and dues; original equipment manufacturer relationships during warranty periods (negotiated up front with the product); utilities and other services purchased from a municipality or an entity solely authorized by the municipality to provide those services in a particular geographical region; and philanthropic contributions. Once a contractor's commercial plan has been approved, the Government shall not require another subcontracting plan from the same contractor while the plan remains in effect, as long as the product or service being provided by the contractor continues to meet the definition of a commercial item. The contractor shall—
(g) * * *
(1) Assess whether the prime contractor made a good faith effort to comply with its small business subcontracting plan. See 19.705-7(b) for more information on the determination of good faith effort.
(h) Initiate action to assess liquidated damages in accordance with 19.705-7 upon a recommendation by the administrative contracting officer, if one is assigned, or receipt of other reliable evidence to indicate that assessing liquidated damages is warranted.
(i) Take action to enforce the terms of the contract upon receipt of a notice from the contract administration office under 19.706(f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(i) Breaking out work to be subcontracted into economically feasible units, as appropriate, to facilitate small business participation.
(ii) Conducting market research to identify potential small business subcontractors through all reasonable means, such as searching SAM, posting notices or solicitations on SBA's SUBNet, participating in business matchmaking events, and attending preproposal conferences.
(iii) Soliciting small business concerns as early in the acquisition process as practicable to allow them sufficient time to submit a timely offer for the subcontract.
(iv) Providing interested small businesses with adequate and timely information about plans, specifications, and requirements for performance of the prime contract to assist them in submitting a timely offer for the subcontract.
(v) Negotiating in good faith with interested small businesses.
(vi) Directing small businesses that need additional assistance to SBA.
(vii) Assisting interested small businesses in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, required insurance, necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or services.
(viii) Utilizing the available services of small business associations; local, state, and Federal small business assistance offices; and other organizations.
(ix) Participating in a formal mentor-protégé program with one or more small-business protégés that results in developmental assistance to the protégés.
(x) Although failing to meet the subcontracting goal in one socioeconomic category, exceeding the goal by an equal or greater amount in one or more of the other categories.
(xi) Fulfilling all of the requirements of the subcontracting plan.
(2) When considered in the context of the contractor's total effort in accordance with its plan, the contracting officer may consider any of the following, though not all inclusive, to be indicators of a failure to make a good faith effort:
(i) Failure to attempt through market research to identify, contact, solicit, or consider for contract award small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, or women-owned small business concerns, through all reasonable means including outreach, industry days, or the use of Federal systems such as SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search or SUBNet systems.
(ii) Failure to designate and maintain a company official to administer the subcontracting program and monitor and enforce compliance with the plan.
(iii) Failure to submit an acceptable ISR, or the SSR, using the eSRS, or as provided in agency regulations, by the report due dates specified in 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
(iv) Failure to maintain records or otherwise demonstrate procedures adopted to comply with the plan including subcontracting flowdown requirements.
(v) Adoption of company policies or documented procedures that have as their objectives the frustration of the objectives of the plan.
(vi) Failure to pay small business subcontractors in accordance with the terms of the contract with the prime contractor;
(vii) Failure to correct substantiated findings from Federal subcontracting compliance reviews or participate in subcontracting plan management training offered by the Government;
(viii) Failure to provide the contracting officer with a written explanation if the contractor fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services, or materials or obtain the performance of construction work as described in 19.704(a)(12).
(ix) Falsifying records of subcontract awards to small business concerns.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) The amount of damages attributable to the contractor's failure to comply shall be an amount equal to the actual dollar amount by which the contractor failed to achieve each subcontracting goal. For calculations for commercial plans see paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Liquidated damages shall be in addition to any other remedies that the Government may have.
(f)
(a) * * *
(5) Complying with the requirements of the small business subcontracting plan (see 19.705-7(b));
(b) * * *
__(17)(i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DATE) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).
__(v) Alternate IV (DATE) of 52.219-9.
__(20) 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan (DATE) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i)).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(g) * * * A Contractor authorized to use a commercial subcontracting plan shall include in its subcontracting goals and in its SSR all indirect costs, with the exception of those such as the following: Employee salaries and benefits; payments for petty cash; depreciation; interest; income taxes; property taxes; lease payments; bank fees; fines, claims, and dues; original equipment manufacturer relationships during warranty periods (negotiated up front with the product); utilities and other services purchased from a municipality or an entity solely authorized by the municipality to provide those services in a particular geographical region; and philanthropic contributions. * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted for an individual subcontracting plan; or the Offeror's total projected sales, expressed in dollars, and the total value of projected subcontracts to support the sales for a commercial plan, including all indirect costs, with the exception of those such as the following: Employee salaries and benefits; payments for petty cash; depreciation; interest; income taxes; property taxes; lease payments; bank fees; fines, claims, and dues; original equipment manufacturer relationships during warranty periods (negotiated up front with the product); utilities and other services purchased from a municipality or an entity solely authorized by the municipality to provide those services in a particular geographical region; and philanthropic contributions;
The revision reads as follows:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the designations of D.R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal) and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.
January 1, 2020.
Jacob Thein, (816) 866-2223 or
In the June 25, 2019,
The official agencies, South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA), Schaal, and NCDA, applied for designation to provide official services in the South Carolina area. SCDA applied for the entire state of South Carolina; however, withdrew its application on December 11, 2019. Schaal applied for Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Edgefield, Hampton, and Jasper Counties. NCDA applied for Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Horry, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Marion, and Marlboro Counties.
AMS evaluated each application against the designation criteria in section 7(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Schaal and NCDA are qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the
Schaal's geographic area is amended effective January 1, 2020, as follows:
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the states of Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina, is assigned to this official agency:
The entire State.
Bound on the north by the northern Kossuth County line from U.S. Route 169; the northern Winnebago, Worth, and Mitchell County lines; bound on the east by the eastern Mitchell County line; the eastern Floyd County line south to B60; B60 west to T64; T64 south to State Route 188; State Route 188 south to C33; bound on the south by C33 west to T47; T47 north to C23; C23 west to S56; S56 south to C25; C25 west to U.S. Route 65; U.S. Route 65 south to State Route 3; State Route 3 west to S41; S41 south to C55; C55 west to Interstate 35; Interstate 35 southwest to the southern Wright County line; the southern Wright County line west to U.S. Route 69; U.S. Route 69 north to C54; C54 west to State Route 17; and bound on the west by State Route 17 north to the southern Kossuth County line; the Kossuth County line west to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 north to the northern Kossuth County line.
Faribault, Freeborn, and Mower Counties.
The entire State.
The entire State, except those export port locations, which are serviced by FGIS.
Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Anderson, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Jasper, Laurens, Lexington, McCormick, Newberry, Oconee, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, and Williamsburg Counties.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company: Agvantage F.S., Chapin, Franklin County and Five Star Coop, Rockwell, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa; Maxyield Coop, Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop, Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County, Iowa.
The designation to provide official services in the specified area by Schaal remains effective from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2021.
NCDA's geographic area is amended effective January 1, 2020, as follows:
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the states of North Carolina and South Carolina, is assigned to this official agency.
The entire State.
Cherokee, Chester, Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Greenville, Horry, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Marion, Marlboro, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union, and York Counties.
The designation to provide official services in the specified area by NCDA remains effective from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2021.
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting these agencies at the following telephone numbers:
Section 7(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)).
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Office of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (TFAA), USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), in accordance with section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This notice also provides a list of other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. This notice, which covers Codex activities during the time periods from June 21, 2019 to May 31, 2020 and June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021, seeks comments on standards under consideration and recommendations for new standards.
The U.S. Codex Office (USCO) invites interested persons to submit their comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please state that your comments refer to Codex and, if your comments relate to specific Codex committees, please identify the committee(s) in your comments and submit a copy of your comments to the delegate from that particular committee.
Ms. Mary Frances Lowe, United States Manager for Codex Alimentarius, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Codex Office, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone: +1 (202) 205-7760; Fax: +1 (202) 720-3157; Email:
For information pertaining to particular committees, contact the delegate of that committee. A complete list of U.S. delegates and alternate delegates can be found in Attachment 2 of this notice. Documents pertaining to Codex and specific committee agendas are accessible via the internet at
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). United States membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Uruguay Round Agreements) was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements amended the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be “responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization” (19 U.S.C. 2578). The main international standard-setting organizations are Codex, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Office of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The Office of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office (USCO).
Codex was created in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for establishing standards for food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the food trade, and promote coordination of food standards work undertaken by
As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, the USCO publishes this notice in the
1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and
2. For each SPS standard specified:
a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard;
b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard;
c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and
d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard.
This notice also solicits public comment on standards that are currently under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The U.S. delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex.
The U.S. delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex. The U.S. delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding U.S. delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the status of each agenda item; the U.S. Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following the Codex committee sessions. In addition, the USCO makes much of the same information available through its web page at
The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex committees for the time periods from June 21, 2019 to May 31, 2020 and June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021. Attachment 2 provides a list of U.S. Codex officials (including U.S. delegates and alternate delegates). A list of forthcoming Codex sessions may be found at:
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the USCO will announce this
Done at Washington, DC.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was scheduled to convene for its 43rd Session on July 6-11, 2020 in Rome, Italy; however, it will be rescheduled to a later date and time due to ongoing concerns related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. At its 43rd Session, the Commission will consider adopting standards recommended by committees at Step 8 or
Before the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee (CCEXEC) was also scheduled to meet for its 79th Session on June 29-July 3, 2020, however this too has been postponed and will be rescheduled due to COVID-19 related issues. CCEXEC is composed of the Commission chairperson; vice-chairpersons; seven members elected by the Commission from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific; and regional coordinators from the six regional coordinating committees. The United States will participate as the member elected on a geographical basis for North America. The Executive Committee agenda for the 79th session is not yet available.
The Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (CCCPL) elaborates worldwide standards and/or Codes of Practice, as appropriate, for cereals, pulses and legumes and their products.
The committee has been reactivated to work by correspondence to draft an international Codex standard for quinoa.
The following item will be considered by the 43rd Session of the Commission:
• Inclusion of the section on grain size
No additional work is ongoing in this committee. It will again be adjourned
The Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) establishes or endorses recommended
The 14th Session of the CCCF, originally scheduled for April 20-24, 2020, in Utrecht, Netherlands, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for May 3-7, 2021.
The committee has the following item that will be considered again by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
To be considered for adoption Step 5, allowing for further consideration by the next session of CCCF:
• Draft ML for cadmium in chocolates containing or declaring <30% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis.
• Proposed draft MLs for cadmium in chocolate and chocolate products containing or declaring ≥30% to <50% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis; and cocoa powder (100% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis);
• Proposed draft code of practice for the prevention and reduction of cadmium contamination in cocoa beans;
• Proposed draft MLs for lead in selected commodities for inclusion in the
• Proposed draft revision of the
• Proposed draft MLs for total aflatoxins in certain cereals and cereal based products including foods for infants and young children;
• Proposed draft ML for total aflatoxins in ready-to-eat peanuts and associated sampling plan;
• Proposed draft MLs for total aflatoxins and ochratoxin A in nutmeg, dried chili and paprika, ginger, pepper and turmeric, and associated sampling plans;
• Discussion paper on radioactivity in feed and food (including drinking water) in normal circumstances;
• Discussion paper on MLs for cadmium and lead in quinoa;
• Discussion paper on MLs for methylmercury in additional fish species;
• Discussion papers on MLs for HCN in cassava and cassava-based products and CoP for the prevention and reduction of mycotoxin contamination in cassava and cassava-based products;
• General guidance on data analysis for ML development and for improved data collection;
• Discussion paper on approach to identify the need for revision of standards and related texts developed by CCCF;
• Forward work plan for CCCF, including:
○ Review of staple food-contaminant combinations for future work of CCCF; and
○ Project plan for the evaluation of implementation of CoPs of CCCF.
• Priority list of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for evaluation by JECFA; and
• Follow-up work to the outcome of JECFA evaluations.
The Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) establishes or endorses acceptable maximum levels (MLs) for individual food additives; prepares a priority list of food additives for risk assessment by the JECFA; assigns functional classes to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects such as the labeling of food additives when sold as such.
The 52nd Session of the CCFA, originally scheduled for March 2-6, 2020, in Lanzhou, China, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for March 8-12, 2021.
• Draft and Proposed draft food additive provisions of the
• Proposals for additions and changes to the priority list of substances proposed for evaluation by JECFA (physical Working Group (PWG) led by Canada);
• Alignment of the food additive provisions of commodity standards and relevant provisions of the GSFA (EWG led by Australia, Japan and the United States);
• Revision of the class names and the international numbering system for food additives (EWG led by Belgium);
• Provisions related to the use of sweeteners with Note 161 attached to (1) determine if sweeteners or flavor enhancers are justified in specific food categories and (2) developing wording for an alternative to Note 161 relating to the use of sweeteners or flavor enhancers in food categories where the use is technologically justified;
• Issues with the online GSFA which prevent the implementation of committee decisions and to inform the Executive Committee on this matter.
The committee also agreed to hold a one and half day PWG on the GSFA immediately preceding the 52nd Session of CCFA, to be chaired by the United States. That group will discuss:
• The recommendations of the EWG on the GSFA and new proposals and proposed revisions of food additive provisions in the GSFA.
The committee also agreed to hold a half day PWG immediately preceding the 52nd Session of CCFA on alignment of the food additive provisions of commodity standards and relevant provisions of the GSFA, to be chaired by Australia. That group will discuss the recommendations of the EWG on alignment.
The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and codes of practice, as may be appropriate, for fresh fruits and vegetables, consulting as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.
The committee convened its 21st Session in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico from October 7-11, 2019. The relevant document is REP 20/FFV.
The committee has the following items that will be considered by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Draft standard for garlic;
• Draft standard for kiwifruit;
• Draft standard for ware potatoes;
• Draft standard for yams;
• Proposed draft standard for onions and shallots;
• Proposed draft standard for berry fruits;
• Proposed draft standard for fresh dates;
• Discussion paper on glossary terms used in the layout for Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) is responsible for developing basic provisions on food hygiene, applicable to all food or to specific food types; considering and amending or endorsing provisions on food hygiene contained in Codex commodity standards and Codex of Practice developed by other committees; considering specific food hygiene problems assigned to it by the Commission; suggesting and prioritizing areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and developing questions to be addressed by the risk assessors; and considering microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene and in relation to the FAO/WHO risk assessments.
The committee convened for its 51st Session in Cleveland, Ohio, United States, November 4-8, 2019. The relevant document is REP20/FH.
The following items will be considered by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Draft revision of the
• Draft code of practice on food allergen management for food business operators.
• Proposed draft guidance for the management of biological foodborne outbreaks.
• Guidelines for the safe use and reuse of water in food production.
• Diagram/decision tree to accompany the draft revision of the
• Redrafting proposed draft guidelines for the control of Shiga toxin producing
• New work proposals/forward workplan.
The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) is responsible for developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems, with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs; developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance, where necessary, that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements; developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries; developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations, and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization; making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control; consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.
The 25th Session of the CCFICS, originally scheduled for April 27-May 1, 2020, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for March 22-26, 2021.
• Draft principles and guidelines for the assessment and use of voluntary Third Party Assurance (vTPA) programs;
• Proposed draft guidance on paperless use of electronic certificates (revision of the
• Proposed draft guidelines on recognition and maintenance of equivalence of national food control systems (NFCS);
• Proposed draft consolidated Codex guidelines related to equivalence; and
• Discussion paper on role of CCFICS with respect to tackling food fraud in the context of food safety and fair practices in food trade.
The Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends, and endorses draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice, and guidelines; and studies specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.
The Committee is scheduled to meet October 19-23, 2020, in Canada. It does not have any items that will be considered for adoption or approval by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Proposed draft guidelines on front-of-pack nutrition labeling;
• Proposed draft guidance on internet sales/e-commerce;
• Revision of the
• Discussion paper on innovation—use of technology in food labeling;
• Discussion paper on labeling of alcoholic beverages; and
• Discussion paper on future work and direction of CCFL (update).
The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin, including margarine and olive oil.
The Committee is currently scheduled to host its 27th session in early 2021 in Malaysia. It does not have any items that will be considered for adoption or approval by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Revision of the
• Revision of the
• Revision of the
• Proposals for new substances to be added to the list of acceptable previous cargo (Appendix II to RCP 36-1987).
The Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP) is responsible for procedural and general matters referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, including: (a) The review or endorsement of procedural provisions/texts forwarded by other subsidiary bodies for inclusion in the
The 32nd Session of the CCGP, originally scheduled for March 23-27, 2020, in Bordeaux, France, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
• Procedural guidance for committees working by correspondence;
• Revisions/amendments to Codex texts;
• Format and structure of the Codex
• Discussion paper on monitoring the use of Codex standards; and
• Discussion paper on monitoring Codex results in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling; serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working on methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories; specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the bodies referred to above, reference methods of analysis and sampling appropriate to Codex standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex commodity committees, except for methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives; elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required; considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its committees; and defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.
The 40th Session of the CCMAS, originally scheduled for May 11-15, 2020, in Budapest, Hungary has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for May 17-21, 2021.
• Endorsement of methods of analysis and sampling plans for provisions in Codex standards;
• Revision of the dairy methods workable package;
• Revision of the fats and oils methods workable package;
• Revision of the G
• Revision of the
• Discussion paper on criteria to select Type II methods from multiple Type III methods.
The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is responsible for studying nutrition issues referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses in cooperation with other committees where necessary; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses provisions on nutritional aspects proposed for inclusion in Codex standards, guidelines, and related texts.
The committee convened its 41st Session in Dusseldorf, Germany, November 24-29, 2019. The reference document is REP 20/NFSDU.
The following items will be considered for adoption by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Review of the
• Proposed draft guideline for ready-to-use therapeutic foods; and
• Provisions for xanthum gum (INS 415) and pectins (INS 440)(CXS 72-1981).
• Condition for a claim for “free of” trans fatty acids (TFAs) (CXG 2-1985); and
• Definition of biofortification.
• Review of the Standard for Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987): Remaining sections.
• Review of the
• Review of the
The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and related texts for all types of processed fruits and vegetables including, but not limited to canned, dried, and frozen products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices and nectars.
The committee convened by correspondence for its 29th Session, January 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020.
The committee has the following items that could continue to be discussed or that could be considered for adoption by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Conversion of the regional standard for chili sauce into an international Codex standard;
• Proposed revisions to the
• Conversion of the regional standard for gochujang to an international Codex standard;
• Proposed draft general standard for dried fruits;
• Proposed draft general standard for canned fruit salads;
• Matters for referral to CCFA; and
• Matters for referral to CCMAS.
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is responsible for establishing maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food; establishing MRLs for pesticide residues in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health; preparing priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed; considering other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues; and establishing maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides in specific food items or groups of food.
The 51st Session of the CCPR, originally scheduled for March 30-April 4, 2020, in Guangzhou, China, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for April 12-17, 2021.
• Revision of the
○ Revision of Class C, animal feed commodities, taking into account silage, fodder, and a separate group for grasses;
○ Revision of Class D, processed food commodities;
○ Transferring commodities from Class D to Class C;
○ Creating tables with representative crops for Class C and D; and
○ Edible animal tissues (including edible offal), in collaboration with the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) EWG on edible animal tissues.
• Harmonization of mammalian meat MRLs between CCPR and CCRVDF;
• Establishment of a Codex database of national registration of pesticides;
• Establishment of JMPR schedules and priority lists for evaluations of pesticides;
• Discussion paper on the review of the international estimated short-term intake (IESTI) equations (possible revision);
• Guidelines for compounds of low public health concern that could be exempted from the establishment of Codex maximum residue limits for pesticides (CXLs);
• Management of unsupported compounds in the CCPR schedules and priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the JMPR;
• Review of the
• Opportunities and challenges for JMPR participation in international review of a new compound.
The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs. The Committee also develops codes of practice, as may be required, and considers methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in food. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to any food producing animal, such as meat or milk producing animals, poultry, fish, or bees, whether used for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes, or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.
A Codex Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for residues of veterinary drugs is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. Residues of a veterinary drug include the parent compounds or their metabolites in any edible portion of the animal product and include residues of associated impurities of the veterinary drug concerned. An MRL is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxicological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. When establishing an MRL, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin or the environment. Furthermore, the MRL may be reduced to be consistent with official recommended or authorized usage, approved by national authorities, of the veterinary drugs under practical conditions.
An ADI is an estimate made by the JECFA of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, which can be ingested daily in food over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.
The 25th Session of CCRVDF, originally scheduled for May 25-29, 2020, in San Diego, California, United States, has been postponed due to ongoing concerns related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is now scheduled for January 25-29, 2021.
• Draft MRL for flumethrin (honey);
• Draft MRLs for diflubenzuron (salmon—muscle plus skin in natural proportion); halquinol (in swine—muscle, skin plus fat, liver and kidney); ivermectin (sheep, pigs and goats—fat, kidney, liver and muscle);
• Draft MRLs for zilpaterol hydrochloride (cattle fat, kidney, liver, muscle);
• Discussion paper on extrapolation of MRLs to one or more species (including apilot on extrapolation of MRLs identified in Part D of the Priority List—REP18/RVDF, App. VI);
• Discussion paper on the development of a harmonized definition for edible tissues of animal origin (including edible offal) (in coordination with CCPR);
• Discussion paper on advantages and disadvantages of a parallel approach to compound evaluation;
• Database on countries' needs for MRLs; and
• Priority List of veterinary drugs requiring evaluation or re-evaluation by JECFA.
The Codex Committee on Sugars (CCS) elaborates worldwide standards
The Committee had been re-activated electronically to work by correspondence on a draft standard for panela and/or common or vernacular name as known in each country (non-centrifuged sugar).
The 42nd Session of the Commission (July 2019) decided to discontinue work on the following draft standard and adjourned the CCS
• Draft Standard for panela and/or common or vernacular name as known in each country (non-centrifuged sugar).
The Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for spices and culinary herbs in their dried and dehydrated state in whole, ground, and cracked or crushed form. It also consults, as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.
The Committee is scheduled to meet September 21-26, 2020 and does not have items that will be considered for adoption or approval by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Draft standard for dried oregano;
• Draft standard for dried roots, rhizomes, and bulbs—dried or dehydrated ginger;
• Draft standard for dried basil;
• Draft standard for dried floral parts—dried cloves;
• Draft standard for saffron.
• Draft standard for dried and/or dehydrated chili and paprika;
• Draft standard for nutmeg; and
• Working Group (WG) on priorities and group standards.
The
The Task Force convened for its 7th Session (the 3rd Session since reactivation in 2016) in Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, December 9-13, 2019, working on draft text for the Code of Practice (CoP) and Guidelines on Integrated Surveillance (GLIS).
The Task Force has the following item to be considered by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Proposed draft revision of the
• Proposed draft guidelines on integrated surveillance of antimicrobial resistance.
Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned
The FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees define the problems and needs of the regions concerning food standards and food control; promote within the committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulate the strengthening of food control infrastructures; recommend to the Commission the development of worldwide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the committees to have an international market potential in the future; develop regional standards for food products moving exclusively or almost exclusively in intra-regional trade; draw the attention of the Commission to any aspects of the Commission's work of particular significance to the region; promote coordination of all regional food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations within each region; exercise a general coordinating role for the region and such other functions as may be entrusted to them by the Commission; and promote the use of Codex standards and related texts by members.
There are six regional coordinating committees:
• Coordinating Committee for Africa;
• Coordinating Committee for Asia;
• Coordinating Committee for Europe;
• Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean;
• Coordinating Committee for the Near East; and
• Coordinating Committee for North America and the South West Pacific.
The Committee (CCAFRICA) convened its 23rd Session in Nairobi, Kenya, September 2-6, 2019.
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters referred from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees;
• Implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019;
• Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025;
• Codex communications work plan;
• Draft standard for fermented cooked cassava-based products;
• Draft standard for
• Draft standard for dried meat;
• Discussion paper on regional harmonized food law guidelines for the CCAFRICA region;
• Discussion paper on the development of a regional standard for fermented non-alcoholic cereal-based drink (Mahewu); and
• Nomination of the coordinator;
The committee has the following item for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• CCAFRICA will nominate a new Regional Coordinator for Africa at the next session of the CAC.
The Committee (CCASIA) convened its 21st Session in Goa, India, September 23-27, 2019.
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees;
• Codex work relevant to the region;
• Implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019;
• Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025;
• Codex communications work plan;
• Discussion paper/project document on the development of a regional standard for rice-based low alcohol beverages (cloudy types);
• Discussion paper/project document on the development of a regional standard for soybean products fermented with the bacterium
• Discussion paper/project document on the development of a regional standard for quick frozen dumplings (Ziaozi);
• Discussion paper/project document on the development of a regional standard/code of practice for Zongzi;
• Nomination of coordinator; and
• Other business.
The committee has the following items for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Development of a regional standard for soybean products fermented with
• Development of a regional standard for quick frozen dumpling; and
• Development of a regional standard for cooked rice wrapped in plant leaves.
• CCASIA recommends that China be appointed for a first term as Regional Coordinator for Asia.
The Committee (CCEURO) convened its 31st Session in Almaty, Kazakhstan, September 30-October 4, 2019.
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Current and emerging issues in the region;
• The future of food safety: Outcome of the first FAO/WHO/African Union (AU) International Food Safety Conference and the International Forum on Food Safety and Trade;
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Use of the online platform for information sharing on food safety control systems; status of information and future plans/prospects;
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees;
• Codex work relevant to the region;
• Implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019;
• Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025—Roadmap to implementation;
• Codex communications workplan;
• Language policy in CCEURO; and
• Nomination of the Coordinator.
The committee has the following item for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• CCEURO recommends reappointing Kazakhstan for a second term as Regional Coordinator for Europe.
The Committee (CCLAC) scheduled its 21st Session in Santiago, Chile, from 21-25 October 2019. The meeting opened one day later than scheduled to ensure the security and safety of all delegates following demonstrations in the Metropolitan Region of Santiago that led to the declaration of a Constitutional State of Emergency. After two half days of discussions (22 and 23 October 2019), the session was discontinued due to the persisting situation in Santiago and the increasing challenge to ensure the security and safety of delegates.
• Food safety and quality in countries in the region: Current and emerging issues in the region;
• The future of food safety: Outcome of the first FAO/WHO/AU international food safety conference and the international forum on food safety and trade;
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries in the region: Use of the online platform for information sharing on food safety control systems; status of information and future plans/prospects;
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex committees;
• Codex work relevant to the region;
• Codex strategic plan 2020-2025—roadmap to implementation; and
• Codex communications work plan.
The committee has the following item for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• CCLAC recommends that Ecuador be appointed for a first term as Regional Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Committee convened its 15th Session in Port Vila, Vanuatu, September 16-20, 2019.
• Keynote address—Managing food safety in an era of accelerated climate change;
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Current and emerging issues in the region;
• The Future of Food Safety: Outcome of the First FAO/WHO/AU
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Use of the online platform for information sharing on food safety control systems; status of information and future plans/prospects;
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters referred from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex committees;
• Codex work relevant to the region;
• Implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019;
• Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025—Roadmap to Implementation; and
• Codex communications work plan.
The committee has the following items for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• Proposed draft standard for fermented noni juice; and
• Proposed draft standard for kava as a beverage when mixed with cold water.
• CCNASWP recommends that Fiji be appointed for a first term as Regional Coordinator for North America and the South West Pacific.
The Committee (CCNEA) convened its 10th Session November 18-22, 2019 in Rome, Italy.
• Keynote address and discussion: Chemicals in food—the invisible challenge, when do we need to be worried and what do we need to know?;
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Current and emerging issues in the region;
• The Future of Food Safety: Outcome of the First FAO/WHO/AU International Food Safety Conference and the International Forum on Food Safety and Trade;
• Food safety and quality situation in the countries of the region: Use of the online platform for information sharing on food safety control systems; status of information and future plans/prospects;
• Use of Codex standards in the region;
• Matters Arising from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex committees;
• Codex work relevant to the region;
• Implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019 (including Strategic plan for CCNEA 2014-2019);
• Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025—Roadmap to Implementation;
• Codex communications work plan;
• Food additive provisions for the regional standard for doogh;
• Draft regional standard for mixed zaatar;
• Discussion paper on the development of a Codex text for ready-to-eat pre-packaged salads;
• Discussion paper on development of a standard for halal products;
• Discussion paper on the development of a regional standard for maamoul;
• Nomination of the Coordinator; and
• Other business.
The committee has the following item for consideration by the 43rd Session of the Commission.
• CCNEA recommends that Saudi Arabia be appointed for a first term as Regional Coordinator for the Near East.
U.S. Codex Office, United States Department of Agriculture, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: +1 (202) 205-7760, Fax: +1 (202) 720-3157, Email:
Dr. Emilio Esteban, DVM, MBA, MPVM, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2129-South Building, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1 (202) 690-9058,
Mr. Richard Boyd, Chief, Contract Services Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 0247, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1 (202) 690-1201, Fax: +1 (202) 690-1527,
Dr. Kevin Greenlees, Ph.D., DABT, Senior Advisor for Science and Policy, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place (HFV-100), Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: +1 (240) 402-0638, Fax: +1 (240) 276-9538,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Lauren Posnick Robin, Sc.D., Branch Chief, Plant Products Branch, Division of Plant Products and Beverages, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1639,
Alternate Delegate: Mr. Terry Dutko, Laboratory Director, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Public Health Science, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4300 Goodfellow Building, 105D Federal, St. Louis, MO 63120-0005, Phone: +1 (314) 263-2680, Extension 344,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Paul S. Honigfort, Ph.D., Director, Division of Food Contact Substances, Office of Food Additive Safety, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-275), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1206, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2965,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Daniel Folmer, Ph.D., Chemist, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (Room 3017 HFS-265), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1274,
U.S. Delegate: Ms. Jenny Scott, Senior Advisor, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, HFS-300, Room 3B-014, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2166, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. William K. Shaw, Jr., Executive Associate for
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Andrew Chi Yuen Yeung, Ph.D., Branch Chief, Egg and Meat Products Branch, Division of Dairy, Egg and Meat Products, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1541, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
U.S. Delegate: Ms. Mary Stanley, Senior Advisor, Office of International Coordination, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 3151, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1 (202) 720-0287, Fax: +1 (202) 690-3856,
Alternate Delegate: Ms. Caroline Smith DeWaal, International Food Safety Policy Manager, Office of the Center Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, Room 4A011, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1242,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Douglas Balentine, Senior Science Advisor International Nutrition Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-830), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 672-7292, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2636,
Alternate Delegate: Mr. Bryce Carson, Program Analyst, Office of Policy & Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Denver Federal Center, Building 45, Entrance S-3, 695 Kipling Street, Denver, CO 80215, Phone: +1 (303) 236-9819,
U.S. Delegate: Ms. Mary Frances Lowe, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius, U.S. Codex Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1 (202) 720-2057,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Gregory Noonan, Director, Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2250, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2332,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Timothy Norden, Ph.D., Technology and Science Division, Federal Grain Inspection Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153, Phone: +1 (816) 891-0470, Fax: +1 (816) 872-1253,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Douglas Balentine, Senior Science Advisor International Nutrition Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-830), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 672-7292, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2636,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Pamela R. Pehrsson, Ph.D., Lead Scientist, Methods and Application of Food Composition Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 105, Building 005, BARC-West, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705, Phone: +1 (301) 504-0630, Fax: +1 (301) 504-0632,
U.S. Delegate: Captain David Miller, Chief, Chemistry and Exposure Branch, and Acting Chief, Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, Health Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: +1 (703) 305-5352, Fax: +1 (703) 305-5147,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. John Johnston, Ph.D., Scientific Chemist and Scientific Liaison, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building D, Room 2083, Fort Collins, CO 80526, Phone: +1 (202) 365-7175,
U.S. Delegate: Ms. Brandi Robinson, MPH, CPH, ONADE International Coordinator, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place (HFV-100), Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: +1 (240) 402-0645,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Louis Bluhm, Director, Laboratory Quality Assurance Division, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Russell Research Center, 950 College Station Road, Suite PB-4, Athens, GA 30605, Phone: +1 (706) 546-2359,
U.S. Delegate: Henry Kim, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD, USA 20740-3835, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2023,
Alternate Delegate: Mr. Patrick McCluskey, Supervisory Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Agricultural Marketing Service, Federal Grain Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153, Phone: +1 (816) 659-8403,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Paul South, Ph.D., Director, Division of Plant Products and Beverages, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1640, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Jill K. Moser, Ph.D., Lead Scientist, Functional Oil Research, Agricultural Research Service, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, IL 61604, Phone: +1 (309) 681-6390,
U.S. Delegate: Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. David T. Ingram, Ph.D., Consumer Safety Officer, Office of Food Safety, Fresh Produce Branch, Division of Produce Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, Room 3E027, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: +1 (240) 402-0335,
U.S. Delegate: Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetables Program, Specialty Crop Inspection Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW—Mail Stop 0247, Washington, DC 20250-0247, Phone: +1 (202) 690-4944, Fax: +1 (202) 690-1527,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Rhoma Johnson, Ph.D., Consumer Safety Officer, Division of Plant Products and Beverages, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2066,
U.S. Delegate: Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetables Program, Specialty Crop Inspection Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW—Mail Stop 0247, Washington, DC 20250-0247, Phone: +1 (202) 690-4944, Fax: +1 (202) 690-1527,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Aparna Tatavarthy, Microbiologist, Spices and Seasoning Mixes Team, Division of Plant Products and Beverages, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1013, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Donald A. Prater, DVM, Assistant Commissioner for Food Safety Integration, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: +1 (301) 348-3007,
Alternate Delegate: Dr. Neena Anandaraman, DVM, MPH, Veterinary Science Policy Advisor, Office of Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 339A, 1200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024, Phone: +1 (202) 260-8789,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Michelle Smith, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive (HFS-317), College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2024, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
U.S. Delegate: Dr. William R. Jones, Principal Deputy Director for Food Safety Science and Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1422,
Alternate Delegate: Mr. Steven Wilson, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, Phone: +1 (301) 427-8312,
Delegate: Vacant.
U.S. Delegate: Mr. Christopher Thompson, Chief, Dairy Standardization Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 0230, Room 2756, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1 (202) 720-9382, Fax: +1 (844) 804-4701,
Alternate Delegate: Mr. John F. Sheehan, Senior Advisor for Compliance and Enforcement, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (HFS-315), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-1488, Fax: +1 (301) 436-2632,
Delegate: Vacant.
U.S. Delegate: Dr. Chia-Pei Charlotte Liang, Chemist, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1 (240) 402-2785,
Delegate: Vacant.
Delegate: Vacant.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of availability for public comment.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States
Comments must be received in writing by July 6, 2020.
Proposed directives may be reviewed and electronic comments may be submitted electronically to
Matthew Fountain, Program Analyst, at 202-403-8959, by electronic mail to
This proposed directive would set forth direction for leasing Forest Service administrative sites. Proposed direction would implement section 8623 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115-334, and leasing provisions of the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005. The leasing provisions of these Acts provide Forest Service the authority to lease Forest Service administrative sites and up to 10 isolated, undeveloped parcels of not more than 40 acres each, for consideration equivalent to their market value.
This manual is a new addition to the 2700 Special Uses Management series, and sets forth policy, responsibilities, and programmatic direction for leasing Forest Service administrative sites. The Forest Service has determined that this manual formulates a standard, criterion, or guideline applicable to a Forest Service program and is therefore publishing the proposed manual for public comment under 36 CFR part 216.
The Forest Service is seeking public comment on all content within the proposed manual. Comment is also invited on the sufficiency of the proposed manual in meeting its stated objectives, ways to enhance the utility and clarity of information within the manual, or ways to streamline processes outlined in the text.
After the public comment period closes, the Forest Service will consider timely comments that are within the scope of the proposed directive in the development of the final directive. A notice of the final directive, including a response to timely comments, will be posted on the Forest Service's web page at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service, USDA, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of continued control of noxious, invasive, and select native plant species through the integration of manual, mechanical, biological, ground herbicide, and aerial herbicide control methods on the Bighorn National Forest (BNF). Effects analysis of these treatments will be projected over the next 10 to 20 years. The BNF is currently treating noxious weeds and invasive plants under the June 19, 1998 Decision Notice, Noxious Weed Management. There is a need to update this decision since it did not include consideration of aerial application of herbicides, the presence of new invasive plant populations, or herbicide treatments of select native plant species to achieve desired resource conditions.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 20, 2020. The draft EIS is expected November 2020 and the final EIS is expected June 2021.
Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Bighorn National Forest, 2013 Eastside Second Street, Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. Comments may also be sent via email to
Christopher D. Jones, Project Coordinator, at the above address, by phone at 307-674-2627, or via email
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
BNF ecosystems are increasingly threatened by invasive plants. These plants include several invasive annual grasses including cheatgrass (
In addition, there are select native plant species, such as sagebrush and larkspur, in need of management to meet desired conditions for wildlife and livestock forage. This analysis will consider the use of various treatments to achieve desired conditions for sagebrush including a mix of early-, mid-, and late-structural stages.
The purpose of this project is to prevent and reduce the loss of native plant communities associated with the spread of invasive plant species, to meet desired conditions for select native plant species, and to reduce the impacts from invasive plants on other resources. This purpose would be achieved by addressing the following needs:
• To meet existing law, regulation and agency policy directing the Forest Service to treat non-native and invasive plants and update existing management direction to include new invasive plant species and new treatments.
• To make cooperative treatment and control of invasive plant species more consistent and effective across land ownership boundaries.
• To help meet or maintain desired resource conditions on the BNF. This includes:
○ Limiting the spread of invasive plant species into areas with little or no infestation and reducing fuel loading and the resulting fire hazard and/or risk;
○ achieving desired conditions for select native plant species (for example, sagebrush and larkspur), through the use of herbicides and the other actions;
○ using adaptive management in the treatment of invasive and select native plant species in order to meet desired conditions as existing resource and managerial conditions change over time; and
○ safely and effectively applying herbicides, in uniform applications, on the steeper slopes that characterize critical big game winter ranges.
The Forest Service, through the application of a revised treatment strategy, proposes to continue to treat invasive and select native plant species on the BNF through a combination of control methods based on site-specific conditions and circumstances, EPA labels, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) direction, state statute requirements for herbicide application licensing, and resource protection measures to ensure that treatment methods are properly used. The proposed action would utilize a variety of tools, singularly or in combination, to implement an integrated vegetation management strategy. Proposed control methods include:
• Mechanical methods, such as hand-pulling, mowing or cutting;
• Revegetation, where competitive vegetation is seeded to reduce invasive species, possibly after other treatments;
• Grazing with livestock;
• Biological control using predators, parasites, and pathogens;
• Herbicide control using ground-based or aerial application methods;
• Prescribed fire (may be conducted in conjunction with herbicide application);
• Education programs to inform people of the effects of invasive plant infestations, methods of spread, and preventative management opportunities and practices; and
• Prevention by using practices that reduce invasive plant spread, including a weed-free forage and gravel program and washing vehicles to remove seeds and plant parts.
Potential treatment areas include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Any infestations near landownership boundaries, especially where the adjacent landowners are treating their lands; (2) crucial big game winter ranges and other species habitat areas; (3) fuels reduction project areas; (4) burned areas; (5) roads and trails; (6) power lines; (7) rights-of-ways; (8) gravel and rock quarries; (9) timber harvest areas; and (10) areas where invasive weeds already exist. It is anticipated that the Forest Service may receive requests from intermingled and adjacent landowners to be partners on projects that might be proposed to treat invasive and other plant populations that are found on multiple land ownerships that include National Forest System lands. Northeast Wyoming, specifically Sheridan, Johnson, and Campbell Counties, is the only known location in the northern Great Plains eco-region with medusahead and ventenata. The BNF would be unable to effectively perform its shared stewardship responsibilities if unable to aerially treat them.
The selection of control methods is not a choice of one tool over another, but rather a selection of a combination of tools that would be most effective on target species for a location.
The BNF would also utilize the proposed control methods listed above to manage select native plant species, including sagebrush and larkspur, in order to achieve desired ecosystem and habitat conditions. For sagebrush, the BNF has a successful history of burning and mowing with the objective of creating a diversity of early-, mid-, and late-seral stages.
The proposed action would broaden the current plant management methods and strategies by:
• Utilizing best available science to develop desired conditions for other select native plant species prior to identifying treatments;
• Treating new infestations through adaptive management tools for assessing new treatments and new sites;
• Treating new and existing invasive species in addition to those listed as noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming;
• Permitting the use of newly developed, more species-specific, EPA-registered herbicides. A Forest Service and state agency cooperator assessment team would be established to review the EPA-issued registration eligibility decision and determine the new herbicide's appropriateness for use on public lands;
• Broadening control methods to include the use of aerial application of herbicides in limited or specific circumstances;
• Broadening protection measures for ground and aerial applications of herbicides; and
• Broadening management methods to meet desired conditions by treating select native plant species to include the use of herbicides.
The Forest Service will consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no action alternative. The action alternatives could vary in the amount and location of areas considered for treatment. The BNF may consider the herbicide treatment of select native plant species, such as sagebrush and larkspur, as an alternative separate from invasive species, in order to better differentiate the environmental consequences.
The Forest Supervisor for the BNF is the Responsible Official.
Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives (including the `cost or benefit' of the no action alternative), and the environmental consequences in order to determine whether to expand current efforts to control and manage invasive species and select native plant species; what control methods and herbicides would be used; what protection and monitoring measures would be required; and whether to include an adaptive management approach to address future spread of invasive weeds or select native plant species.
National and regional policies and Forest Plan direction require consideration of effects of all projects on invasive plant spread and implementation of preventative measures where practical to limit those effects. In addition, Forest Plan direction requires consideration of achievement of desired conditions for native vegetation and habitats.
Reconsideration of other existing project-level decision or programmatically prescribing protection measures or standards for future forest management activities are beyond the scope of this document.
Issues identified by the Forest Service at this time include the effects of treatments on native vegetation, biological diversity, natural productivity, and habitat structure. Preliminary issues also include effects of herbicides on threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and their habitats; on soils, water, and aquatic resources; and on human health. The public is encouraged to identify additional issues in their comments.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the
Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent eligibility to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial review.
Commodity Credit Corporation and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice; correction.
The Commodity Credit Corporation and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA published a notice in the
Anthony Crooks: Telephone (202) 205-9322, email:
(1) In the
(2) In the
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed revision of the Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 3, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to John Dougherty, Chief, Wholesale Trade Branch, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233; (301) 763-8936; or
The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS) covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in the wholesale trade sector, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This includes distributors, manufacturers' sales branches and offices, and agents and brokers.
Firms are selected for this survey using a stratified simple random sample. For the AWTS, the strata are defined by type of operation, industry, and annual sales size. The sample is drawn from the Business Register (BR), which is the Census Bureau's master business list. The BR contains basic economic information for more than 7.4 million employer businesses and over 22.5 million nonemployer businesses; it is updated through direct data collections and administrative records from other federal agencies. In order to account for new businesses (births) and businesses that discontinue operations (deaths), the AWTS sample is updated quarterly. The sample is also updated to reflect mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, splits, and other changes to the business universe.
Data are collected electronically using Centurion, the Census Bureau's secure online reporting instrument. This system is designed to make the reporting process more flexible and convenient for respondents. The response-driven nature of the instrument also reduces respondent burden. Data are automatically stored, and the results are available immediately to the Census Bureau. If a company does not have access to the internet, the Census Bureau can arrange for the business to provide its data to an analyst via telephone.
The data items requested in the AWTS include annual sales, e-commerce sales, number of establishments, inventories, purchases, operating expenses, commissions, sales on own account, and gross selling value. In response to a request from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the 2022 AWTS will also collect detailed operating expenses and sales tax information. Respondents are only asked to provide data for these two items in years ending in 2 and 7, which coincide with the Economic Census collection. For survey year 2020, the AWTS may include additional questions related to the impact coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had on firms. A final decision has not been made yet on the inclusion of these questions.
From survey year 2016 through survey year 2019, there were five electronic form types (SA-42, SA-42A, SA-42A-MSBO, SA-42-AGBR, and SA-42A-AGBR). Starting with survey year 2020 (which will be collected in 2021), there will only be three electronic form types (SA-42A, SA-42A-MSBO, and SA-42A-AGBR). SA-42 and SA-42-AGBR are being removed to streamline data collection operations and reduce respondent burden. Each of the three remaining form types will continue to ask a different subset of the data items previously mentioned. This ensures businesses only see items that are relevant to their type of operation.
Government agencies, private businesses, and researchers often use the estimates generated from the AWTS. For example, the AWTS serves as a benchmark for the estimates produced from the Census Bureau's Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey (MWTS). BEA utilizes the data when developing its gross domestic product (GDP) estimates and the national accounts' input-output tables. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses the data as an input to its producer price indices and in developing productivity measurements. Furthermore, business and industry groups utilize the data to forecast future demand.
Estimates generated from the AWTS are released to the public approximately 14 months after the reference year has concluded. These national-level estimates are published (for the various items collected) by NAICS code and type of operation. Currently, the data are disseminated through the AWTS website. Beginning with survey year 2020, the Census Bureau also will release the data via the Census Bureau's dissemination platform,
The Census Bureau primarily collects this information via the internet. In the rare situation where a respondent does not have access to the internet, the data are collected by telephone.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Generic Clearance for Internet Panel Pretesting, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 3, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Jennifer Hunter Childs, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Center for Behavioral Science Methods, Washington, DC 20233 or (202)603-4827.
The Census Bureau is committed to conducting research in a cost-efficient manner. The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current OMB approval to conduct a series of medium-scale internet-based tests, as a cost-efficient method of testing questions and contact strategies over the internet through different types of samples. Using internet panel pretesting, we can answer some research questions more thoroughly than in the small-scale testing, but less expensively than in the large-scale field test.
This research program will be used by the Census Bureau and survey sponsors to test alternative contact methods, including emails and text messages, improve online questionnaires and procedures, reduce respondent burden, and ultimately increase the quality of data collected in the censuses and surveys. We will use the clearance to conduct experimental pretesting of decennial and demographic census and survey questionnaires prior to fielding them as well as communications and/or marketing strategies and data dissemination tools for the Census Bureau. The primary method of identifying measurement problems with the questionnaire or survey procedure is split panel tests. This will encompass both methodological and subject matter research questions that can be tested on a medium-scale internet panel.
This research program will also be used by the Census Bureau for remote usability testing of electronic interfaces and to perform other qualitative analyses such as respondent debriefings. An advantage of using remote, medium-scale testing is that participants can test products at their convenience using their own equipment, as opposed to using Census Bureau-supplied computers. A diverse participant pool (geographically, demographically, or economically) is another advantage. Remote usability testing would use click through rates and other paradata, accuracy and satisfaction scores, and written qualitative comments to determine optimal interface designs and to obtain feedback from respondents.
The public is currently offered an opportunity to participate in this research remotely, by signing up for an online research panel. If a person opts in, the Census Bureau will occasionally email (or text, if applicable) the person an invitation to complete a survey for one of our research projects. Invited respondents will be told the topic of the survey, and how long it will take to complete it. Under this clearance, we will also conduct similar-scale and similarly designed research using other email lists to validate preliminary findings and expand the research.
Split sample experiments. This involves testing alternative versions of questionnaires, invitations to questionnaires (
The number of versions tested and the number of cases per version will depend on the objectives of the test. We cannot specify with certainty a minimum panel size, although we would expect that no questionnaire versions would be administered to less than fifty respondents.
Split sample tests that incorporate methodological questionnaire design experiments will have a larger maximum sample size (up to several hundred cases per panel) than other pretest methods. This will enable the detection of statistically significant differences, and facilitate methodological experiments that can extend questionnaire design knowledge more generally for use in a variety of Census Bureau data collection instruments.
Data collection for this project is authorized under the authorizing legislation for the questionnaire being tested. This may be Title 13, Sections
Literature on and considerations about the use of internet samples for this type of work have been thoroughly covered by a Task Force commissioned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and are well documented there (Baker, et al., 2013).
The information collected in this program of developing and testing questionnaires will be used by staff from the Census Bureau and sponsoring agencies to evaluate and improve the quality of the data in the surveys and censuses that are ultimately conducted. Because the questionnaires being tested under this clearance are still in the process of development, the data that result from these collections are not considered official statistics of the Census Bureau or other Federal agencies. Data will be included in research reports prepared for sponsors inside and outside of the Census Bureau. The results may also be prepared for presentations related to survey methodology at professional meetings or publications in professional journals.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act: The Voting and Registration Supplement. This survey, conducted in conjunction with the Current Population Survey, is collected biennially from a sample of housing units identified in the monthly CPS sample.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the potential for extending data collection for the Household Pulse Survey During COVID-19 Epidemic. The Household Pulse Survey was launched on April 23, 2020 with approval from the Office of Management and Budget to continue data collection through July 31, 2020 (OMB No. 0607-1013). The Department of Commerce may determine it prudent to continue the Household Pulse Survey after July 31, 2020. This notice serves to inform the public about this possible continuance.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding the continued Household Pulse Survey information collection must be received on or before August 3, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Cassandra Logan, Survey Director, U.S. Census Bureau, by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Cassandra Logan, Survey Director, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, HQ-7H157, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 763-1087, and
The Census Bureau has developed the Household Pulse Survey as an experimental endeavor in cooperation with five other federal agencies. The survey is designed to produce near real-time data in a time of urgent and acute need. Changes in the measures over time will provide insight into individuals' experiences on social and economic dimensions during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. This survey, conducted under the auspices of the Census Bureau's Experimental Data Series (
Question domains contributed by the Census Bureau (Census), Economic Research Service (ERS), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the Department of Housing (HUD) seek to measure employment status, spending, food security, housing, health, and education disruptions. Many of the questions that will be asked on this survey have been fielded on other surveys in the past. However, some of the questions are new, designed to explore potential impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic response.
The Census Bureau will conduct this information collection online using Qualtrics as the data collection platform. Qualtrics currently is used at the Census Bureau for research and development surveys and provides the necessary agility to deploy the Household Pulse Survey quickly and securely. It operates in the Gov Cloud, is FedRAMP authorized at the moderate level, and has an Authority to Operate from the Census Bureau to collect personally identifiable and Title-protected data.
The Census Bureau will sample approximately 2,159,000 housing units, with an additional approximately 1,100,000 housing units each subsequent week of data collection. The survey will be administered over the course of 24 weeks starting April 23, 2020. Households will be contacted via email and asked to complete approximately 50 questions focused on employment, spending, food security, housing, health and educational disruption. Prior to production the survey was estimated to take 20 minutes; the actual time for survey participants to complete the survey now that it is in production is approximately 11 minutes.
Weekly survey estimates will be produced by weighting the results to various demographic controls from auxiliary sources like the Census Bureau official population estimates and the American Community Survey. Weekly source and accuracy documentation will provide details about the methods and quality of the survey estimates.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for public comments.
On May 28, 2020, in response to a petition, the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security from imports of vanadium. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce's (the “Department”) Bureau of Industry and Security by July 20, 2020. Rebuttal comments will be due by August 17, 2020. While the Department is interested in any information related to this investigation that the public can provide, this notice identifies particular issues of significance.
The due date for filing comments is July 20, 2020. The due date for rebuttal comments is August 17, 2020. Rebuttal comments may only address issues raised in comments filed on or before July 20, 2020.
Industrial Studies Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-5481,
On May 28, 2020, in response to a petition, the Secretary initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security from imports of vanadium. If the Secretary finds that vanadium is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President in his report on the findings of the investigation.
This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the Department's Office of Technology Evaluation no later than July 20, 2020. Rebuttal comments submitted in response to issues raised in comments received on or before July 20, 2020 may be filed no later than August 17, 2020.
The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security, including the following:
(i) Quantity of or other circumstances related to the importation of vanadium;
(ii) Domestic production and productive capacity needed for vanadium to meet projected national defense requirements;
(iii) Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce vanadium;
(iv) Growth requirements of the vanadium industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements for supplies and services necessary to assure such growth including investment, exploration, and development;
(v) The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the vanadium industry;
(vi) The displacement of any domestic vanadium production causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;
(vii) Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy; and
(viii) Any other relevant factors, including the use and importance of vanadium in critical infrastructure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21 (Feb. 12, 2013) (for a listing of those sectors see
The
Material submitted by members of the public that is properly marked business confidential information and accepted as such by the Department will be exempted from public disclosure as set forth in § 705.6 of the NSIBR. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission
The Bureau of Industry and Security does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view the Bureau's web page, which can be found at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 26, 2020, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the October 2019 final results of redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from the United Kingdom covering the period May 1, 2010 through April 30, 2011. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is, therefore, amending the final results with respect to Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW).
Applicable June 3, 2020.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On January 27, 2015, Commerce published the
On May 12, 2017, Commerce issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand, in accordance with the CIT's order.
The CIT's ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On appeal, the CAFC concluded that “Commerce did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient detail to allow review of whether the selected AFA rate was unduly punitive” and remanded the case.
On October 1, 2019, Commerce issued its final results of redetermination in accordance with the
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if it is appealed and upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above for all entries of subject merchandise during the period May 1, 2010 through April 30, 2011, that were produced and/or exported by BMW.
Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise are required.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until May 19, 2020, unless extended.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9 a.m.
All meeting participants and interested parties can register to join the webinar at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
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 listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 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 Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 3, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Shannon Penna, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), West Coast Region (WCR) Long Beach Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802, (562) 980-4238 or
The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on tracking catch and effort of participants as well as their history of regulatory compliance. The vessel identification requirement is essential to facilitate these objectives. The ability to link fishing or other activity to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to enforcement of the regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson-
Regulations at 50 CFR 660.704 require that all commercial fishing vessels with permits issued under authority of the National Marine Fishery Service's (NMFS) Fishery Management Plan for United States (U.S.) West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries display the vessel's official number (U.S. Coast Guard documentation number or state registration number). The numbers must be of a specific size and format and located at specified locations. The official number must be affixed to each vessel subject to this section in block Arabic numerals at least 10 inches (25.40 centimeters) in height for vessels more than 25 feet (7.62 meters) but equal to or less than 65 feet (19.81 meters) in length; and 18 inches (45.72 centimeters) in height for vessels longer than 65 feet (19.81 meters) in length. Markings must be legible and of a color that contrasts with the background. The display of the identifying number aids in fishery law enforcement.
In the domestic West Coast Region fisheries regulated under 50 CFR part 660, the vessel's official number, United State Coast Guard (USCG) documentation or state registration number, is required to be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck. The number identifies each vessel and should be visible at distances at sea and in the air. The requirements affect United States (U.S.) vessels participating in the West Coast Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fisheries and West Coast coastal pelagic fishing vessels, with the exception of HMS Charter Recreational Vessels for which an exemption was granted and became effective September 5, 2007. Charter vessels are no longer bound by the vessel marking requirements under consideration.
The identification number provides law enforcement personnel with a means to monitor fishing, at-sea processing, and other related activities, in order to ascertain whether the vessel's observed activities are in accordance with those authorized for that vessel. The identifying number is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the USCG, and other marine agencies in issuing citations, prosecutions, and other enforcement actions. Vessels that qualify for specific fisheries are easily identified, and this allows for more cost-effective enforcement. Cooperating fishermen also use this number to report suspicious activities that they observe. Regulation-compliant fishermen ultimately benefit as unauthorized and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is deterred and more burdensome regulations are avoided.
The vessels' official numbers are displayed on the vessels.
We are soliciting public comments to permit NOAA to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of NOAA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Friday, June 19, 2020 at 9 a.m.
All meeting participants and interested parties can register to join the webinar at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
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 listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 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 Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting a new information collection titled, “Start Small, Save Up Workforce Questionnaire.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 3, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
The questionnaire gives the Bureau an efficient way to measure the effectiveness of financial education and other efforts in increasing consumers' liquid savings and financial well-being. Information will be gathered from those in the Bureau workforce, which includes Federal employees as well as contractors and other job statuses. The questionnaire may also be made available for use by other Federal agencies. The questionnaire asks about the respondent's recent experiences with unexpected financial shocks, the respondent's savings cushion available for emergencies, the respondent's savings behavior and savings vehicles. It includes the five-question version of the Bureau's Financial Well-Being Scale.
The Bureau can use the information collected to connect savings and financial well-being, and to inform future development of employer-sponsored financial education materials and programs.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 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 Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347 or email
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of Public Hearing Agenda.
Public Hearing: U.S. Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors Annual Meeting.
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Eastern.
Virtual via Zoom.
The hearing is open to the public and will be livestreamed on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube Channel:
Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email:
Board members will also review FACA Board membership guidelines and policies with EAC Associate Counsel and receive a general update about the EAC from the Acting Executive Director.
The TGDC unanimously approved to recommend VVSG 2.0 Requirements on February 7, 2020, and sent the Requirements to the EAC Acting Executive Director via the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in the capacity of the Chair of the TGDC on March 9, 2020. Upon adoption, the VVSG 2.0 would become the fifth iteration of national level voting system standards. The Federal Election Commission published the first two sets of federal standards in 1990 and 2002. The EAC then adopted Version 1.0 of the VVSG on December 13, 2005. In an effort to update and improve version 1.0 of the VVSG, on March 31, 2015, the EAC commissioners unanimously approved VVSG 1.1.
The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website:
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces an online virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this online virtual meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, June 24, 2020; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; Thursday, June 25, 2020; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Online Virtual Meeting. To receive the meeting access information and call-in number, please contact the Federal Coordinator, JoLynn Garcia, at the telephone number or email listed below.
JoLynn Garcia, Federal Coordinator, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-6244; or Email:
• Potential Draft Hanford Advisory Board Advice
Consider Draft Advice on Stabilization of Disposal Structures at Risk of Failure
• Discussion Topics
Tri-Party Agreement Agencies' Updates
Hanford Advisory Board Committee Reports
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public virtual workshop.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing a public virtual workshop entitled, “Workshop on Predictive Models and High Performance Computing as Tools to Accelerate the Scaling-up of New Bio-Based Fuels.” The purpose of this virtual workshop is to determine if predictive models and high performance computing can and should be utilized to reduce biotechnology uncertainty and accelerate scaling-up of biorefinery/chemical production equipment and optimize operations.
The public virtual workshop will be held June 9 to June 11, 2020, from 10:30 a.m. ET to 4:30 p.m. ET each day. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by 4 p.m., June 5, 2020. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, DOE may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, day of registration for the public virtual workshop will be provided beginning at 8:30 a.m. ET each day of the workshop.
The public virtual workshop will be held online via webinar. To register for the public virtual workshop, please visit
Mr. Josh Messner, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (240) 562-1287; Email:
Over the past decade, federal and private investments in the scaling-up of integrated biorefineries have exceeded $2 billion. A majority of these facilities have either been shut down or are struggling to have reliable and continuous operations. Furthermore, mathematical models representing the total system of an integrated biorefinery do not exist currently. Through the use of highly instrumented bench-, pilot-,
Registration is free and available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. To register for the public virtual workshop, please visit
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please email
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 28, 2020, by Michael Berube Acting Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
DOE submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of DOE's Form FE-746R, Import and Export of Natural Gas under OMB Control Number 1901-0294. Form FE-746R collects information from import and export authorization holders that enables DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (FE) to monitor natural gas trade under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) and other trade activity falling outside the parameters of USMCA, and supports various market and regulatory analyses done by FE.
Comments on this information collection must be received no later than July 6, 2020. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Request for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Mr. Marc Talbert at (202) 586-7991, or by email
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Together with the data reported on FE-746R and the additional information required for certain types of authorization holders outlined above, DOE is able to perform market and regulatory analyses to improve the capability of industry and the government to respond to any future energy-related supply problems, and to keep the general public informed on international natural gas trade.
(4a)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 29, 2020, by Shawn Bennett, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that on May 21, 2020, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (Golden Pass LNG), 811 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application pursuant to sections 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations, for authority to amend its order issued on December 21, 2016, granting Golden Pass LNG authority (Golden Pass Export Project) to site, construct and operate facilities for the exportation of liquefied natural gas to increase the total LNG production capacity of the Golden Pass Export Project from 15.6 million metric tons per annum (MTPA) to 18.1 MTPA, and from 740 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) to 937 Bcf/yr.
Any questions regarding this application should be addressed to Blaine Yamagata, Vice President and General Counsel, Golden Pass LNG, 811 Louisiana Street, Suite 1500, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone: (713) 324-6952; or to Kevin M. Sweeney, Law Office of Kevin M. Sweeney, 1625 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, by telephone at (202) 609-7709.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 13, 2020, Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; FLNG Liquefaction, LLC; FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC; and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC (collectively, Freeport LNG), 333 Clay Street, Suite 5050, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP20-455-000 an application pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to site, construct, and operate modifications to Freeport LNG's existing Pretreatment Facility in Brazoria County, Texas to allow for the extraction of helium from the compressed boiled-off gas pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to John Tobola, Freeport LNG Development, L.P., 333 Clay Street, Suite 5050, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone (713) 980-2888 or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on March 21, 2020, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, NE 68124-1000, filed in Docket No. CP20-460-000 an application (Clifton to Palmyra A-line Abandonment Project) pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to abandon in-place approximately 96 miles Northern Natural's 24 inch-diameter A-line and approximately 19 miles of its 20-inch-diameter J-line located in Clay and Washington counties in Kansas, and in Gage, Jefferson, Lancaster and Otoe counties in Nebraska. Northern Natural further seeks authorization to construct and operate an additional natural gas-driven ISO rated 15,900-Solar Mars turbine unit compressor unit at Northern Natural 's existing Beatrice compressor station located in Gage County, Nebraska at an estimated cost of $29,730,000, all as more fully described in their application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director Certificates and External Affairs, Northern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, NE 68103-0330, by telephone at (402) 398-7103, by facsimile at (402) 398-7592, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Actions with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) concerning the Hydromex Superfund Site located in Yazoo City, Mississippi. The settlement is for the performance of a removal action.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until July 6, 2020. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using information within this notice or can be accessed on the Agency's web page
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Thursday, June 11, 2020, 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be open to the public.
The following item will be considered at the meeting: Americans with Disabilities Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Wellness.
Bernadette B. Wilson, Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.
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 can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before July 6, 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
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.
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.”
In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 34 FCC Rcd 5922(2019) (2019 Report and Order). That decision modernized the carriage election notice rules by moving the process online for most broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), but the Commission sought comment on how to apply these updated rules to certain small broadcast stations and MVPDs.
In 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that resolved the remaining issues regarding carriage election notice rules for small broadcast stations and MVPDs. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order, FCC 20-14, 2020 WL 948697 (rel. Feb. 25, 2020) (2020 Report and Order). Pursuant to that decision, the obligations of certain small broadcasters and MVPDs were slightly modified.
This information collection is being revised to reflect the changes to 47 CFR 76.64(h) as well as other new obligations adopted in the 2020 Report and Order, which require review and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
47 CFR 76.64(h)(5) is amended to require low power television stations and non-commercial educational translator stations that are qualified under 47 CFR 76.55 and retransmitted by an MVPD to, beginning no later than July 31, 2020, respond as soon as is reasonably possible to messages or calls from MVPDs that are received via the email address or phone number the station provides in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) database.
A qualified Low Power Television (LPTV) station that changes its carriage election must send an election change notice to each affected MVPD's carriage election-specific email address by the carriage election deadline. Such change notices must include, with respect to each station covered by the notice: The station's call sign, the station's community of license, the DMA where the station is located, the specific change being made in election status, and an email address and phone number for carriage-related questions. LPTV notices to cable operators need to identify specific cable systems for which a carriage election applies only if the broadcaster changes its election for some systems of the cable operator but not all. In addition, the broadcaster must carbon copy
All qualified LPTV stations, whether being carried pursuant to must carry or retransmission consent, must send an email notice to all MVPDs that are or will be carrying the station no later than the next carriage election deadline of October 1, 2020. Qualified LPTVs must do so even if they are not changing their carriage status from the current election cycle. These notifications must be sent to an MVPD's carriage election-specific email address, must be copied to
All qualified NCE translator stations must provide email notice to all MVPDs that are or will be carrying the translator no later than the next carriage election deadline of October 1, 2020. Similar to qualified LPTVs, these notifications must be sent to an MVPD's carriage election-specific email address, must be copied to
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 July 6, 2020.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. 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.
The Commission is now revising the DIRS information collection to provide for one new form tailored to satellite communications providers and to update its previous burden estimates. First, the new form has the same general scope as existing forms, already approved by OMB, but is tailored to satellite providers' networks. Since OMB's 2007 approval, satellite providers have been expressly authorized to participate in DIRS, but DIRS does not currently include a tailored form for them to do so. Collecting this information from satellite providers via DIRS is necessary to meet the Commission's goals of restoring communications quickly and ensuring that emergency and defense personnel have access to effective communications during disaster events, thus helping fulfill the Commission's public safety mandate.
Second, as a part of the Commission's response to the 2017 hurricane season, the Commission adopted the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of the FDIC's response to exception requests pursuant to the Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination rule.
In accordance with its rule regarding recordkeeping for timely deposit insurance determination, the FDIC is providing notice to covered institutions that it has granted a time-limited exception concerning the information technology system requirements and general recordkeeping requirements for certain accounts that
The FDIC's grants of exception relief were effective as of May 28, 2020.
Benjamin Schneider, Section Chief, Division of Complex Institution Supervision and Resolution;
The FDIC has granted two exception requests pursuant to the FDIC's rule entitled “Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination,” codified at 12 CFR part 370 (part 370).
These grants of relief may be rescinded or modified upon material change of circumstances or conditions related to the subject accounts, or upon failure to satisfy conditions applicable to each. These grants of relief will be subject to ongoing FDIC review, analysis, and verification during the FDIC's routine part 370 compliance tests. The following exceptions were granted by the FDIC as of May 28, 2020.
The FDIC granted a time-limited exception from the information technology requirements set forth in section 370.3 and general recordkeeping requirements set forth in section 370.4(a) of the rule to allow a covered institution to perform data cleanup, system updates, or customer outreach for certain legacy deposit accounts (including a limited number of joint accounts, formal trust accounts, informal revocable trust accounts, accounts with limited instances of erroneous or missing data, and government accounts) so that the covered institution's deposit account records and part 370-compliant IT system capabilities can be used to calculate deposit insurance for those accounts. The covered institution did not collect, or have a mechanism to collect, such account information prior to the FDIC's adoption of part 370 and anticipates that it may not be able to collect such information before its compliance date.
In connection with the FDIC's grant of relief, the covered institution has represented that it will confirm evidence of joint ownership for a limited number of joint accounts; review records and obtain the number of beneficiaries for informal revocable trusts accounts; classify formal trust accounts with the proper ownership, right and capacity code; review and update records for accounts with missing or incomplete information in limited instances; obtain official custodian information needed to calculate deposit insurance coverage for government deposit accounts; and perform system updates. The covered institution will also perform, when necessary, customer outreach to update deposit records for the subject accounts. As conditions of relief, the covered institution will ensure that holds can be placed on all deposit accounts subject to this time-limited exception in the event of its failure until sufficient information is obtained to enable calculation of deposit insurance coverage; submit a status report to the FDIC when deemed appropriate by the FDIC during the exception relief period; and immediately notify the FDIC of any change in relevant circumstances or conditions.
The FDIC granted a time-limited exception from the information technology requirements set forth in section 370.3 and general recordkeeping requirements set forth in section 370.4(a) of the rule for certain internal (work-in-process) accounts that will require an additional 24 hours (48 hours in total) post failure to obtain beneficial ownership information from internal business lines necessary to make a deposit insurance determination. The covered institution identified these internal accounts as accounts utilized for functions such as clearing, settlement, suspense, funding, transfers, escheatment, holding unclaimed property or seized assets, garnishment, work-in-process, or other functions where an institution acts as an intermediary to facilitate a transaction. Such accounts do not qualify for alternative recordkeeping and most transactions in the accounts settle more than 48 hours after initiation of the instruction.
In connection with the FDIC's grant of relief, the covered institution described the internal (work-in-process) accounts in detail, including, account titling, the number of accounts, account balances, data and trends regarding transaction settlement cycles, business-as-usual processes in place, funds above and below $250,000, and zero-balance accounts. The covered institution has represented that it will maintain the capability to place holds on the deposit accounts subject to the exception in the event of its failure until a deposit insurance determination can be made; place all such accounts into the pending file of the covered institution's part 370 output files; document procedures and processes to upload the data into the covered institution's deposit insurance calculation engine; and certify that the covered institution can obtain information from internal business lines necessary to make a deposit insurance determination within 48 hours after appointment of the FDIC as receiver. As conditions of relief, the covered institution will be capable of conducting a deposit insurance determination for
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of order.
An Order issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on May 27, 2020 revises data requirements for the Enterprise Public Use Database (PUDB) and modifies FHFA's previous Enterprise PUDB Orders issued in 2010 and 2011. The Enterprise PUDB contains data related to single-family and multifamily mortgages purchased by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises) in a calendar year. FHFA publishes the PUDB annually pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act). The Order revises the PUDB to include data elements that the Enterprises collected in 2018 from their loan sellers that are the same as those required to be reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA), and sets out the privacy protections for the HMDA data. The Order also adds geographic indicators related to the Enterprise Duty to Serve program to the Enterprise PUDB to provide greater transparency to the public about the Enterprises' Duty to Serve activities. All the data specifications set out in the Order apply to future annual PUDB releases, until further modified by FHFA. A new 2018 PUDB will be released by FHFA containing the data elements added by the Order, replacing an interim PUDB released on September 23, 2019 that does not include the new HMDA data elements or Duty to Serve geographic indicators. The revised matrices setting out the PUDB data requirements and privacy and proprietary protection modifications are available on FHFA's website at
The Order is applicable May 27, 2020.
For questions on data or methodology, contact Ian Keith, Senior Program Analyst, (202) 649-3114,
The Safety and Soundness Act, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), requires FHFA to make publicly available, by September 30 of each year, certain loan-level mortgage data elements related to single-family and multifamily mortgages purchased by the Enterprises in the previous calendar year.
The PUDB must contain the mortgage data elements required to be reported to FHFA by the Enterprises, which include the same data elements required to be reported under HMDA.
HMDA is a mortgage data disclosure statute enacted in 1975. HMDA requires that covered financial institutions annually submit to the appropriate Federal agency loan-level data related to the loans they originated or purchased in a calendar year.
FHFA interprets the HMDA data publication requirement in the Safety and Soundness Act as an obligation to use the same data definitions as HMDA for the Enterprise data published in the PUDB, where possible. The Safety and Soundness Act does not require FHFA to republish in the PUDB the same data that is in the CFPB's public dataset issued under Regulation C. Rather, the Enterprises must report to FHFA the data elements they collect that generally conform with the HMDA definitions set out in Regulation C. For example, the Enterprises must report data about their purchased loans that would not be reported for purchased loans under Regulation C,
While the Enterprises are in conservatorship, FHFA has implemented the Safety and Soundness Act to require the Enterprises to provide to FHFA only the data they collect from their loan sellers as part of their established mortgage purchasing activities.
In 2010, FHFA added HMDA data elements to the PUDB to implement the Safety and Soundness Act requirement.
The PUDB is a loan-level dataset containing data elements related to the single-family and multifamily loans acquired by the Enterprises in the previous calendar year. It includes seasoned loans originated in years prior to acquisition, and loans originated in the same year as acquisition.
The data elements for each loan are split into multiple files called National Files and Census Tract Files. The multi-file system reduces the likelihood of sensitive data elements being linked to other data elements, which could compromise borrower privacy or Enterprise proprietary interests. The National Files in the PUDB have no geographic identifiers. This reduces the likelihood of re-identification of borrowers through linking the PUDB data to other public sources containing personally identifying data that include the census tract (such as county property records). It also protects Enterprise proprietary interests by masking their regional business strategies.
For Enterprise single-family data, the PUDB comprises a Census Tract File containing loan-level data that identifies the census tract location of the mortgaged properties; a National File A containing loan-level data on owner-occupied one-unit properties without the census tract or other geographic identifier; a National File B containing unit-level data on all single-family properties without the census tract or other geographic identifier; and a National File C containing the high-cost securitized loan data required by 12 U.S.C. 4546(d)(2) without the census tract or other geographic identifier.
For Enterprise multifamily data, the PUDB comprises a Census Tract File containing loan-level data that identifies the census tract location of the mortgaged properties; and a National File that does not identify the census tract or other geographic location of the mortgaged properties but contains property-level data and unit class-level data on all multifamily properties.
All new HMDA data added to the PUDB starting in 2018 will be added to the Census Tract Files, as required by the Safety and Soundness Act. It will not be added to the National Files in order to preserve existing privacy and proprietary protections in these Files, as the data could increase the ability to link the National Files to the Census Tract Files.
The Safety and Soundness Act provides generally that Enterprise proprietary data must be protected from public disclosure.
The factors for determining proprietary protection of the Enterprise data in the PUDB are set forth in the HUD regulation which FHFA still administers. HUD applied the regulatory factors in a series of Orders determining the proprietary protections for specific data elements published in the PUDB. The HUD Orders (but not the HUD regulation) were superseded by FHFA Orders that adopted the HUD proprietary determinations for the specific data elements to be published in the PUDB and added the new data required by HERA.
FHFA protects proprietary data in the PUDB through two methods. First, data is protected through the multi-file system discussed above in Section I.B. Second, the individual data elements may be completely withheld from publication, or modified to reduce re-identification risk by disclosing in ranges or rounding.
The HUD regulation, which was issued prior to the HERA amendments to the Safety and Soundness Act, provides that private data shall be withheld from the PUDB if publication of the data would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if such data or information were released to the public.”
The Safety and Soundness Act provides that FHFA publish the PUDB “[s]ubject to privacy considerations, as described in section 304(j) of [HMDA],” which requires the CFPB to prescribe deletions that are appropriate to protect borrowers' privacy interests. FHFA interprets this provision as authorizing FHFA to follow the CFPB's intended privacy determinations. Where FHFA determines that privacy or other factors in the context of the PUDB call for different or more restrictive disclosure of HMDA data elements than the CFPB Privacy Guidance, FHFA may reasonably make such distinctions. Accordingly, FHFA is following the CFPB's intended privacy determinations for the PUDB (with one minor change to conform to FHFA's regulatory definition of small multifamily properties).
As discussed above in Section I.A., FHFA requires the Enterprises to report the HMDA data they collect from loan sellers for publication in the PUDB. Accordingly, FHFA must periodically review Enterprise data collections to ascertain whether they contain HMDA data that must be included in the PUDB.
At the same time as the HMDA expansion in Regulation C, the Enterprises updated their single-family data collection through the Uniform Mortgage Data Program (UMDP) datasets.
The Enterprises' multifamily data collections are not included in the UMDP datasets. However, some HMDA data elements are now collected by the Enterprises for multifamily loans and are available for inclusion in the PUDB Multifamily Census Tract File.
Since both HMDA and Enterprise data collections have changed substantially since FHFA last added HMDA data to the PUDB in 2010, FHFA undertook a new review of all HMDA data elements. To identify the new HMDA data eligible for inclusion in the PUDB, FHFA requested that the Enterprises map their single-family and multifamily data collections to the HMDA data definitions in the amended Regulation C. Based on the data mapping and discussions with the Enterprises, FHFA identified the new HMDA data elements collected by the Enterprises and available to be included in the PUDB Census Tract Files. FHFA also identified data elements already disclosed in the PUDB that are defined as HMDA data elements for the first time under the amended Regulation C in 2018 and, therefore, no longer qualify for proprietary protection in the PUDB.
In addition, FHFA identified groups of HMDA data elements collected by the Enterprises that will be excluded from the PUDB. One group of HMDA data elements will be excluded in conformance with the CFPB Privacy Guidance, which intends to exclude them entirely from publication in the CFPB's public dataset. Another group of HMDA data elements drawn from updated Enterprise seller data collections will be excluded because the Enterprises recently began collecting them and they require further analysis in order to ensure data quality before inclusion in the PUDB.
The new HMDA data elements, and any previous PUDB data elements that are now defined as HMDA data, are not eligible to receive proprietary protections under the Safety and Soundness Act and will, therefore, be disclosed in the PUDB Census Tract Files. They will be modified to protect borrower privacy only.
As a result of FHFA's review of the HMDA data elements, FHFA issued the appended Order, which added the appropriate HMDA data elements to the PUDB matrices and required the Enterprises to report them to FHFA. The Order modifies the 2010 and 2011 PUDB Orders previously issued by FHFA.
The new HDMA data added by the Order will be published in a dataset that replaces an interim PUDB released on
FHFA's review of each HMDA data element is detailed below in Section II.B. for single-family data and Section II.C. for multifamily data.
The HMDA single-family data elements collected by the Enterprises that are listed below will be reported to FHFA and added to the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File starting with the 2018 PUDB, as set forth in the revised PUDB matrices. Most of these data elements were new Regulation C reporting requirements in 2018. The list below indicates whether the data element was a new HMDA data element added for the first time in 2018 by Regulation C, or a pre-2018 HMDA data element that was modified in 2018 by Regulation C amendments.
FHFA identified several HMDA single-family data elements that were added, modified, or unchanged by the Regulation C amendments and are already reported by the Enterprises and disclosed in the current PUDB. The Enterprises' reporting requirements thus generally will not change for these data elements. However, the disclosure in the PUDB will change in some cases to conform with the CFPB Privacy Guidance. In addition, some of the data elements were defined as HMDA data for the first time in 2018 in Regulation C and, therefore, any proprietary protections they received in the PUDB are no longer permissible under the Safety and Soundness Act and will be removed. All of the data elements will be released in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File, with modifications as appropriate to conform with the CFPB Privacy Guidance.
The single-family data elements listed below were previously withheld from the PUDB or disclosed in the PUDB with proprietary protections, but are defined as HMDA data elements in 2018 and must be disclosed, with modifications as appropriate to conform with the CFPB Privacy Guidance. In some cases, the data element was defined as a HMDA data element for the first time in 2018 and, thus, is no longer eligible for the proprietary protections it had been receiving in the PUDB. The data elements previously disclosed only in the National Files that must now be disclosed in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File will continue to be disclosed in the National Files as well as being added to the Census Tract File.
The Property Type data element is currently disclosed in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File, aligned with the previous Regulation C definition. In addition, the PUDB Single-Family National Files A and B already publish a data element named Number of Units, which corresponds to the HMDA Total Units data element. These existing data fields will be changed in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File to conform with HMDA by adding a new Construction Method field and disclosing Number of Units in the Census Tract File. Construction Method will be disclosed without modification, in conformance with the CFPB Privacy Guidance.
The current PUDB Single-Family National File B includes a field for Date of Mortgage Note, which conforms with the HMDA Loan Originated value. Date of Mortgage Note is modified in the current PUDB to indicate whether the loan was originated in the same year it was acquired, or in any prior year. This modification conforms with the CFPB's intended withholding of the month and day from its public dataset. Accordingly, Date of Mortgage Note will be disclosed in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File in the same manner, in conformance with the CFPB Privacy Guidance.
The HMDA single-family data elements listed below are currently disclosed in the PUDB Single-Family Census Tract File and were unchanged by the Regulation C amendments or were modified in a way irrelevant to Enterprise data. Accordingly, they will continue to be disclosed in the same manner in this File. No changes in reporting or disclosure are necessary to conform with HMDA.
FHFA has identified several new HMDA single-family data elements in recently updated Enterprise single-family loan seller data collections. They include data elements drawn from the Enterprises' Uniform Closing Datasets (UCD), and new data elements added in the Uniform Loan Delivery Dataset (ULDD) Phase 3. These data elements have not been included in the Single-Family PUDB in the past, but are now subject to inclusion because they are HMDA data elements that were collected by the Enterprises in 2018. However, because these are new data collections requiring further analysis to ensure data quality before inclusion in the PUDB, FHFA is not requiring the Enterprises to report them at this time for the PUDB. The data elements are discussed below.
Based on the review of the Enterprises' data mapping submissions, FHFA concluded that the HMDA single-family data elements listed below are not collected by the Enterprises from loan sellers. All of the data elements except one relate to loan types not purchased by the Enterprises and, thus, are not available for reporting. The remaining data element, Business or Commercial Purpose, is partially represented by other data elements in the PUDB and FHFA does not require the Enterprises, while in conservatorship, to collect the rest of the data from loan sellers solely to populate the PUDB. Accordingly, these data elements are not available for inclusion in the Single-Family PUDB.
FHFA identified several new HMDA single-family data elements that will be wholly excluded from the Single-Family PUDB to protect borrower privacy, in conformance with the CFPB Privacy Guidance. In general, these data
The following multifamily data elements added or modified by the amended Regulation C will be added to the PUDB Multifamily Census Tract File.
The multifamily data elements listed below were previously withheld from the PUDB or disclosed in the PUDB with proprietary protections, but were defined by the Regulation C amendments as HMDA data elements in 2018 and must now be disclosed.
The HMDA multifamily data elements listed below are currently disclosed in the PUDB Multifamily Census Tract File and were unchanged by the Regulation C amendments, or modified in a way that is irrelevant to Enterprise data. Accordingly, they will continue to be disclosed in the same manner in this File. No changes in reporting or disclosure are necessary to conform with Regulation C.
Based on the review of the Enterprises' data mapping submissions, FHFA concluded that the HMDA multifamily data elements listed below are not collected by the Enterprises from loan sellers, or are related to loan types not purchased by the Enterprises, and are, thus, not available for reporting. FHFA does not require the Enterprises, while in conservatorship, to collect data from loan sellers solely to populate the PUDB. Accordingly, these data elements are not available for inclusion in the Multifamily PUDB.
The data elements are: Universal Loan Identifier/Legal Entity Identifier, Occupancy Type, Ethnicity/Race/Sex, Age, Reason for Denial, Total Loan Costs, Total Points and Fees, Origination Charges, Discount Points, Lender Credits, HOEPA Status, Introductory Rate Period, NMLSR ID, AUS Name, AUS Result, Reverse Mortgage, Business or Commercial Purpose,
FHFA identified three HMDA multifamily data elements that are collected by the Enterprises and will be wholly excluded from the Multifamily PUDB to protect borrower privacy, in conformance with the CFPB Privacy Guidance. These data elements, discussed below, are not currently disclosed in the Multifamily PUDB and are not required to be reported by the Enterprises to FHFA for PUDB purposes.
Under Regulation C, Preapproval, Income, Debt-to-Income, Manufactured Home Secured Property Type, and Manufactured Home Land Property Interest data are not reported for multifamily loans.
FHFA's Order revises the PUDB single-family and multifamily matrices to add in the Census Tract Files geographic indicators that correspond to regions of focus under the Duty to Serve program.
Since the geographic indicators can already be derived from the census tract disclosed in the PUDB Census Tract Files and other public data, they will not introduce any new privacy or proprietary data concerns, nor will they necessitate any additional reporting by the Enterprises.
The Safety and Soundness Act provides that the Director shall make the required PUDB data elements public in forms useful to the public.
For the convenience of the affected parties, and the public, the Order is recited below in its entirety. The Order is also available for public inspection and copying at FHFA's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Reading Room at
The text of the Orders is as follows:
1. The data fields in the single-family and multifamily matrices of the PUDB are revised as set forth in the matrices published on the FHFA website at
(a) The data elements that are the same as those required to be reported under HMDA, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4543(a)(2) and 4546(d)(1), except for certain newly collected data elements that require further analysis to ensure data quality before inclusion in the PUDB;
(b) Revised proprietary and privacy protections, including the disclosure of data elements previously withheld or modified on proprietary grounds that are no longer eligible for proprietary protection under 12 U.S.C. 4543(b)(2); and
(c) Certain Duty to Serve geographic indicators;
2. The Enterprises shall provide to FHFA the mortgage data elements required to populate the data fields described in the single-family and multifamily matrices for inclusion in the 2018 PUDB no later than four weeks from the date of this Order, pursuant to instructions issued by FHFA staff, and shall provide such data elements annually thereafter to FHFA for future PUDBs in accordance with applicable FHFA regulations and any additional instructions issued by FHFA staff;
3. This Order modifies the FHFA Order on the Public Use Database for Enterprise Mortgage Purchases, dated July 1, 2010 (75 FR 41180, 41189) (July 15, 2010), and the FHFA Order on Revisions to Enterprise Public Use Database Incorporating High-Cost Single-Family Securitized Loan Data Fields and Technical Data Field Changes, dated Sept. 21, 2011 (76 FR 60031, 60036) (Sept. 28, 2011); and
4. A new 2018 PUDB shall be released by FHFA containing the data elements for loans acquired by the Enterprises in 2018 added by this Order, replacing the interim PUDB released on September 23, 2019, which does not include the new HMDA data elements or Duty to Serve geographic indicators.
This Order is effective immediately.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Each application is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank as indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the 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 June 22, 2020.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank
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 June 17, 2020.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 3, 2020.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) seeks approval for a new information collection requesting Refugee Support Services (RSS) grantees and RSS Set Aside grantees to provide the agency name, city, state, phone number, and funding amount for each contracted sub-grantee.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget; Paperwork Reduction Project; Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
Refugee Act of 1980 [Immigration and Nationality Act, Title IV, Chapter 2 Section 412(e)] and 45 CFR 400.28.
This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 84 FR 49535-49540 dated September 20, 2019).
HRSA is making changes within both the HIV/AIDS Bureau and Office of Global Health in order to generate efficiencies in the delivery of technical assistance and global activities by better aligning staff within HRSA to maximize the impact of their focus areas.
This reorganization updates the organization, functions, and delegation of authority of the HIV/AIDS Bureau (RV) and the Office of Global Health (RAI) within the Office of the Administrator. Specifically this reorganization: (1) Transfers the functions of the Division of Domestic Programs (RVT1) to the Office of Program Support (RV3) and the Division of Policy and Data (RVA) within the HIV/AIDS Bureau; (2) abolishes the Division of Domestic Programs (RVT2); transfers the organization and functions of the Division of Global Programs (RVT2) to the Office of Global Health (RAI); (3) abolishes the Office of HIV/AIDS Training and Capacity Development (RVT); and (4) updates the functional statement for the HIV/AIDS Bureau, Office of the Associate Administrator (RV).
Delete the organization for the HIV/AIDS Bureau (RV) in its entirety and replace with the following:
The HIV/AIDS Bureau (RV) is headed by the Associate Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator, HRSA. The HIV/AIDS Bureau includes the following components:
(1) Office of the Associate Administrator (RV);
(2) Office of Operations and Management (RV2);
(2) Office of Program Support (RV3);
(3) Division of Policy and Data (RVA);
(4) Division of Metropolitan HIV/AIDS Programs (RV5);
(5) Division of State HIV/AIDS Programs (RVD); and
(6) Division of Community HIV/AIDS Programs (RV6).
Delete the functional statement for The Office of the Associate Administrator (RV), Office of Program Support (RV3) and Division of Policy and Data (RVA) in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of the Associate Administrator provides leadership and direction for the HIV/AIDS programs and activities of the Bureau and oversees its relationship with other national health programs. Specifically: (1) Promotes the implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy within the Agency and among Agency-funded programs; (2) coordinates the formulation of an overall strategy and policy for programs established by Title XXVI of the PHS Act as amended by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, Public Law 111-87; (3) coordinates internal functions of the Bureau and its relationships with other Agency Bureaus and Offices; (4) establishes HIV/AIDS program objectives, alternatives, and policy positions consistent with broad Administration guidelines; (5) provides leadership for and oversight of the Bureau's budgetary development and implementation processes; (6) provides clinical leadership to Ryan White-funded programs; (7) serves as a principal contact and advisor to the Department and other parties on matters pertaining to the planning and development of HIV/AIDS-related health delivery systems; (8) reviews HIV/AIDS related program activities to determine their consistency with established policies; (9) develops and oversees operating policies and procedures for the Bureau; (10) oversees and directs the planning, implementation, and evaluation of special studies related to HIV/AIDS and public health within the Bureau; (11) prioritizes technical assistance needs in consultation with each division/office; (12) plans, implements, and evaluates the Bureau's national technical assistance resource training center website and other distance learning modalities; (13) represents the Agency in HIV/AIDS related conferences, consultations, and meetings with other Operating Divisions, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the White House; and (14) oversees Bureau Executive Secretariat functions and coordinates HRSA responses and comments on HIV/AIDS-related reports, position papers, guidance documents, correspondence, and related issues, including Freedom of Information Act requests.
The Office of Program Support provides expertise, guidance, leadership, and support in the areas of organizational development, communications, fiscal oversight, grants policy, training and technical assistance to the Bureau staff and grant recipients, and customer service to support program implementation. Specifically, the Office of Program Support: (1) Coordinates grants management and grants policy for the Bureau, including grants liaison functions; (2) supports training and technical assistance (TA) for grant recipients through the AIDS Education and Training Centers (AETCs), TA contracts, and other TA initiatives; (3) plans, implements and evaluates HIV/AIDS Bureau staff development and education to enable employees to meet the mission of the Bureau; (4) streamlines communications, clearance activities and development of consistent, quality presentations; (5) improves the Bureau's external facing communication efforts; (6) facilitates transparency in sharing the Bureau's data using internal and external resources; (7) supports systems development to improve program efficiencies and management; (8) provides support with the implementation of staff development, organizational development and training activities; (9) plans, develops, implements and evaluates the Bureau's organizational and staff development, and staff training activities inclusive of guiding action steps addressing annual Employee Viewpoint Survey results; (10) coordinates the development and distribution of all Bureau communication activities, materials and products internally and externally; (11) supports fiscal oversight and technical assistance to grant recipients; (12) serves as the Bureau's primary liaison with the HRSA Office of Federal Assistance Management (OFAM); (13) provides statutory and programmatic coordination, guidance, and expertise on grants and fiscal compliance to funded programs and Bureau staff; (14) identifies and develops resources to sustain statutory, programmatic and fiscal compliance of funded programs (15) coordinates with HRSA's OFAM for grants processes; (16) coordinates with HRSA's OFAM for fiscal oversight and compliance; (17) as needed, coordinates grant recipient site visits and site specific consultations; (18) supports grant recipients in meeting project goals and deliverables related to fiscal compliance and grants policy; (19) develops grant recipients training and technical assistance plans related to fiscal compliance and grants policy; (20) leads distance learning opportunities; and (21) is responsible for activities associated with the planning, development, implementation, evaluation, and coordination of the HIV/AIDS Education and Training Center Program.
The Division of Policy and Data serves as the Bureau's principal source of program data collection and evaluation and the focal point for coordination of program performance activities, policy analysis, and development of policy guidance. The division coordinates policy and data related technical assistance activities for the Bureau in collaboration with each division and conducts evaluation studies on emerging health service delivery issues and their effects upon clients, providers, grant recipients, systems of care and coordinates clinical quality improvement activities. The division also manages Special Projects of National Significance funding which supports the development of innovative models of HIV care to quickly respond to the emerging needs of clients served by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, if allowed, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
Delete the organization for the Office of Global Health (RAI) in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of Global Health (RAI) is headed by the Director, who reports directly to the Administrator, HRSA. The Office of Global Health includes the following components:
(1) Office of the Director (RAI) and
(2) Division of Global Programs (RAI1).
Delete the functional statement for the Office of Global Health (RAI) in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of Global Health serves as the principal advisor to the Administrator on global health issues. Specifically, the Office of Global Health (1) provides leadership, coordination, and advancement of global health programs relating to sustainable health systems for vulnerable and at-risk populations; (2) provides leadership within HRSA for the support of global health and coordinates policy development with the HHS Office of Global Affairs, other departmental agencies, bilateral/multilateral organizations, and other international organizations and partners; (3) monitors HRSA's border health activities and investments, in partnership with HRSA's Office of Regional Operations, to promote collaboration and improve health care access to those living along the U.S. borders, such as the U.S.-Mexico border and the U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands; (4) provides management and oversight of international programs aimed at improving quality and innovation in human resources for health, health professions recruitment, education, retention, and applied research systems; (5) supports and conducts programs associated with the international migration and recruitment of health personnel, foreign, and immigrant health workers; (6) provides support for the agency's international travel and the Department of State's International Visitors Leadership Program; and (7) provides national leadership, including serving as the Deputy Principal representative and providing support to the HRSA Administrator, implements training, and systems strengthening functions of the Global HIV/AIDS Program as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
The Division of Global HIV/AIDS Program provides national leadership, implements training, and systems strengthening functions of the Global HIV/AIDS Program as part of PEPFAR. This includes strengthening health systems for delivery of prevention, care and treatment services for people with HIV/AIDS in PEPFAR-funded countries and providing management and oversight of international programs aimed at improving quality and innovation in health professions education and training. The Division will translate lessons learned from both the domestic and Global HIV/AIDS Programs grant recipient community.
The Division of Global HIV/AIDS Program provides leadership in improving care, treatment and support services for People with HIV/AIDS outside of the United States and its territories. Specifically, the Division: (1) In coordination with the Department of State's Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, plans, develops, implements, evaluates, and coordinates the activities of the clinical assessment system strengthening; (2) provides guidance and expertise to funded programs; (3) develops funding opportunity announcements and program guidance documents; (4) conducts on-site program reviews and reviews of pertinent and required reports, and activities to assess compliance with program policies and country priorities; (5) in conjunction with other division, Bureau, and agency entities, assists in the planning and implementation of priority HIV activities such as workgroups, meetings, and evaluation projects; (6) collaborates with other federal agencies and in-country partners in the implementation of the PEPFAR program, and; (7) provides management and oversight of international programs aimed at improving quality and innovation in health professions education, retention, training, faculty development and applied research systems.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, if allowed, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.
44 U.S.C. 3101.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women.
The meeting will be open to the public and held as a virtual meeting. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Details and additional information about this meeting, prior meetings, and the Task Force's 2018 Report and Recommendations can be found on the NICHD website for the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications by July 6, 2020.
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 404-679-7097 (telephone),
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
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.
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire 10.24 acres, more or less, of land in trust for the Wyandotte Nation, for gaming and other purposes on May 20, 2020.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS-3657 MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 202240, telephone (202) 219-4066.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR 151.12(c)(2)(ii) that notice of the decision to acquire land in trust be promptly provided in the
On May 20, 2020 the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to accept approximately approximately 10.24 acres of land in Park City, Sedgwick County, Kansas (Park City Parcel), into trust for the Wyandotte Nation, pursuant to Section 105(b)(1) of Public Law 98-602, An Act To Provide For The Use And Distribution Of Certain Funds Awarded The Wyandotte Tribe Of Oklahoma . . ., Public Law 98-602, 98 Stat. 3151 (1984). The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs also determined that the Tribe's request also meets the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's “settlement of a land claim” exception, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A)(i), to the general prohibition contained in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a) on gaming on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to the Park City Parcel, in the name of the United States of America in Trust for the Wyandotte Nation, upon fulfillment of Departmental requirements. The 10.24 acres, more or less, are described as follows:
A tract of land in Coliseum Center, an Addition to Park City, Sedgwick County, Kansas described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line and 50 feet West of the Southeast corner of Lot 3, Block 1, in said Coliseum Center Addition; thence along the South line of said Lot 3 bearing North 89°39′26″ West, a distance of 250.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence bearing North 90°00′00″ West across Athens Court, a distance of 70.00 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 1 in said Block 1; thence along the South line of said Lot 1 bearing North 89°40′18″ West, a distance of 180.00 feet; thence bearing South 0°00′00″ East, a distance of 917.75 feet to a point in the South line of Lot 6 in said Block 1; thence along said South line bearing South 89°42′56″ East, a distance of 500.00 feet; thence bearing North 0°00′00″ East, a distance of 917.70 feet to the point of beginning EXCEPT that portion of Athens Court (cul-desac) within the above described tract of land.
A tract of land in government Lots 1 and 2 of the NE-
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Section 4; thence S 00°12′40″ E along the East line thereof, 1319.11 feet to the Northeast corner of the S-
Survey performed Allgeier, Martin and Associates under direct supervision of Monnie Sears, LS-1284, Licensed Kansas Land Surveyor, dated August 5, 2015.
Containing 10.24 acres, (446,052 Square Feet) more or less.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the Division of Energy and Mineral Development (DEMD), Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED), is soliciting grant proposals from federally recognized Indian Tribes to build Tribal capacity for energy resource regulation and management under the Tribal Energy Development Capacity (TEDC) grant program.
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST on September 1, 2020.
Email applications to
Mr. Payton Batliner, Economic Development Specialist, Division of Energy and Mineral Development, 13922 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 200, Lakewood, CO 80401; telephone: (720) 999-1414; email:
DEMD anticipates award of approximately fifteen (15) grants under this announcement ranging in value from approximately $10,000 to $1,000,000. The program can fund projects only one year at a time. DEMD will use a competitive evaluation process based on criteria described in section X of this notice.
DEMD administers the TEDC grant program. This solicitation seeks proposals for increasing the technical capacity of federally recognized Tribes to manage and regulate their energy resources. The energy project(s) for which the applicant seeks to build Tribal capacity can be existing or planned, Tribally owned or privately owned.
Capacity developing activities include, but are not limited to:
• Establishment of organizational structure(s) and/or business entity structure(s) capable of engaging in commercial energy development or management activities, including leasing property, meeting lending requirements, entering into standard business contracts, and forming joint venture partnerships;
• Establishing Tribal business charters under Federal law; corporations formed under Federal, State or Tribal incorporation codes; and Tribal utility authorities under Federal, State or Tribal codes;
• Development or enhancement of Tribal policies; enactment of Tribal regulations for leasing of surface land for energy development pursuant to the HEARTH Act; establishment of legal infrastructure for business formation; enactment of ordinances to regulate or develop energy resources; and adoption of a secured transactions code or a memorandum of understanding, compact, or letter of intent with the State to register liens attached pursuant to such a code.
The funding periods and amounts referenced in this solicitation are subject to the availability of funds at the time of award, as well as the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Indian Affairs priorities at the time of the award. Neither DOI nor Indian Affairs will be held responsible for proposal or application preparation costs. Publication of this solicitation does not obligate DOI or Indian Affairs to award any specific grant or to obligate all or any part of available funds. Future funding is subject to the availability of appropriations and cannot be guaranteed. DOI or Indian Affairs may cancel or withdraw this solicitation at any time.
Only Indian Tribes, as defined at 25 U.S.C. 5304(e), are eligible to receive TEDC grants. Under that statutory definition, eligible entities include any Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601
The applicant determines who will conduct its study. An applicant has several choices, including but not limited to:
• Universities and colleges;
• Private consulting firms; or
• Non-academic, non-profit entities.
The applicant is subject to the procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.318, an applicant must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect Tribal laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and standards identified in Part 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
TEDC grant funding must be expended in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including 2 CFR part 200. As part of the grant application review process, DEMD may conduct a review of an applicant's prior DEMD grant award(s).
Applicants that are currently under BIA sanction Level 2 or higher resulting from non-compliance with the Single Audit Act are ineligible for a TEDC award. Applicants at Sanction Level 1 will be considered for funding.
DEMD will not usually consider funding new TEDC proposals where the applicant has open TEDC projects, granted under any previous funding cycle. The DEMD does, however, understand that delays beyond the control of the applicant sometimes occur. The DEMD will consider any explanation provided in conjunction with the new TEDC grant proposal. The explanation should describe the reasons why the previous project is delayed and successfully justify or demonstrate that the delay is at no fault of the applicant.
DEMD will accept multi-project proposals. Multi-project proposals must be submitted as one application. Multi-project proposals may contain proposals to develop and enhance both business and regulatory infrastructure. Applicants may also submit multi-project proposals in just one area, such as two separate purposes, with each proposing to develop or enhance the regulatory structure for two separate purposes. For instance, an applicant may submit a proposal for funding to form a Tribal utility authority and a separate and distinct proposal to develop a Tribal secured transactions code.
Each project in the application requires its own stand-alone proposal, budget, and designated Tribal project lead. Multi-project proposals require that the applicant submit a Tribal resolution that identifies and describes each project being proposed authorizing the Tribe to submit the proposal for a TEDC grant. Each proposal in the application will be evaluated based on
The purpose of TEDC grants is to increase Tribal technical capacity to manage and regulate energy resources only. TEDC awards may not be used for:
• Establishing or operating a Tribal office;
• Indirect costs or administrative costs as defined by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR);
• Training;
• Purchase of equipment that is used to develop the feasibility studies, such as computers, vehicles, field gear, etc. (however, leasing of this type of equipment for the purpose of developing feasibility studies is allowed);
• Purchase of software;
• Purchase of resource assessment data;
• Legal fees;
• Application fees associated with permitting;
• Training;
• Contract negotiation fees;
• Academic research projects;
• Strategic energy plan formulation;
• Weatherization activities;
• Research and development of speculative or unproven technologies;
• Payment of fees or procurement of any services associated with energy assessment or exploration or development activity;
• Payment of Tribal salaries for employees not directly involved in conducting project specific activities and payment of salaries beyond the one-year project;
• Purchase or lease of project equipment such as computers, vehicles, field gear, etc.;
• Attending conventions or travel to foreign countries;
• Conducting studies related to meeting environmental requirements for a project development;
• Feasibility studies to identify, develop, or market energy or mineral resources; establish or expand broadband projects; evaluate economic development projects, businesses, or technologies that are addressed by IEED's Energy and Mineral Development Program (EMDP), National Tribal Broadband Grant (NTBG), and Native American Business Development Institute (NABDI) annual grant programs; and
• Any other activities not authorized by the grant award letter.
All TEDC applicants must use the standard forms Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 and the Project Narrative Attachment Form. These forms can be found at
1. Go to
2. Select the “forms” tab. This will open a page with a table titled “SF-424 FAMILY FORMS.”
3. Under the column “Agency Owner,” third row down, is listed,
4. Click on the blue PDF letters to download the three-page document.
Within the Application for Federal Assistance SF-424, please complete the following sections:
• Item 8a. Applicant Information—Legal Name.
• Item 8b.
• Item 8c.
• Item 8d. Address.
• Item 8f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application.
• Item 9. Select I: Indian/Native American Tribal Government (Federally Recognized).
• Item 11. CFDA Title box-Type in the numbers: 15.148.
• Item 12. Title box-Type in: Tribal Energy Development Capacity.
• Item 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project. Type in short description of proposal.
• Item 21. Read certification statement. Check “agree” box.
• Authorized Representative section: Complete all boxes except “signature of authorized representative.” Be sure to type in the Tribal leader's information. Be sure to include the Tribal leader's preferred title (
Save the Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 and name the file using the following format:
Example for naming the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance file: Pueblo of Laguna TEDC Grant Application SF-424.
The Project Narrative must not exceed 20 pages. At a minimum, it should include:
a. An Executive Summary that is an overview and technical summary of the project, no longer than one page, that has a description of the elements of the proposed project, reasons for the project, description of the objectives and anticipated outcomes that will result if the project were to be funded, total funding amount requested, and a designated Tribal project lead authorized to make decisions on the day-to-day grant activities.
b. The Project Objective, Technical Description, and Scope of Work. Describe the Tribe's current business and/or regulatory capacity for energy development, including regulations and other measures already in place and the extent to which they are being implemented. If the proposal is related to establishing organizational business entity structures, describe the extent to which the Tribe is capable of engaging in development or management activities, and to what extent the proposed project will increase the Tribe's capacity to manage and/or regulate its energy resources. Describe which business and/or regulatory capacities need enhancement, such as: Tribal code development, regulation or ordinance development, commercial code development, financial and revenue management, land lease management (including evaluation, negotiation, and enforcement of terms), and regulatory monitoring (Federal, State, and Tribal environmental and safety regulations). Describe how the project would assist the Tribe in developing the capacity needed to maximize the economic impact of energy or mineral resource development on Indian land, and to what extent that would affect the overall economy of the Tribe. List all previous or ongoing energy or mineral resource development capacity-building projects involving the Tribe. Describe the Tribe's motivation to implement the business or regulatory framework that would be developed or enhanced through TEDC funding. Describe project goals and objectives. Include a detailed scope of work describing the project phases and timeline, method of measurement of meeting objectives of the proposed project, and expected outcomes. Describe how and why the particular
c. If the project is focused on studying the feasibility of a Tribal Utility Authority (TUA), or some other electric utility structure including micro grids, please provide a brief discussion (one page or less) that includes the following: Reason/need for chartering a TUA or micro grid formation, the relationship between the Tribe and incumbent utility, annual expenditure by the Tribe on electricity, electricity pricing ($/kWh) and/or power quality issues, utility policy issues that are hindering the Tribe from proper management of its energy assets or hindering the development of energy projects (
d. Describe all deliverable products that the proposed TEDC project is to generate, including all regulations, codes, ordinances or processes and procedures. Discuss the content of any planned status reports as well as the final TEDC project report.
e. Provide the resumes (with areas of expertise) of key consultants and personnel to be retained, if available, and the nature of their involvement, including their relationship to the applicant as Tribal staff, consultant, subcontractor, etc. This information may be included as an attachment to the application and will not be counted towards the 20-page limitation.
Please complete the SF424a and provide a budget narrative that clearly describes all major line item grant expenditures. High ranking budgets will provide a budget narrative that correlates to the project scope of work and clearly breaks the project down into defined tasks with an associated budget line item for each task. Tasks and costs should include justification in the budget narrative.
Applicants must include a critical information page that includes:
• A designated Tribal representative, who is not a consultant, (and their contact information) to oversee the project work, make authorized decisions during the course of the project, and be responsible for submitting quarterly reports and the final report, plus quarterly financial status reports;
• Verification, by statement, that the Tribe is registered in SAM.gov (
• Federal DUNS number;
• An active Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP) number (must be registered in ASAP with the
• Counties where the project is located; and
• Congressional District number where the project is located.
Applicants must include as an attachment to their application a Tribal resolution authorizing the submission of a FY 2020 TEDC grant application. It must be signed by authorized Tribal representative(s). The Tribal resolution must also include:
• A description of the proposed project; and
• An explicit reference to the Project Narrative being submitted.
Tribal Energy Development Organization applicants are required to have a Tribal resolution authorizing the Tribe participating in the organization to apply for this grant.
• Go to
• Select the “forms” tab. This will open a page within the table titled “SF-424 FAMILY FORMS.”
• Under the column “Agency Owner” three quarters down the table (52nd row), is listed, Grants.gov—Project Narrative Attachment Form.
• Click on the blue PDF letters to download the one page document.
When the applicant has successfully downloaded the Project Narrative Attachment Form, follow the next steps to upload documents:
• On the Project Narrative Attachment Form, click on the button titled “Add Project Narrative File.”
• Select the Project Narrative that you want to upload and click “open” to upload the file.
• On the same Project Narrative Attachment Form, you will find a grey button titled “Add Optional Project Narrative File.” Use this button to upload the Budget Narrative, Critical Information Page, and the Tribal Resolution as attachments.
When the applicant has completed uploading the Project Narrative and the attachments (Budget, Tribal Resolution, and Critical Information Page) to the Project Narrative Attachment Form, the applicant will save and name the file using the following format:
Example for naming the Project Narrative Attachment Form file: Pueblo of Laguna TEDC Grant Attachments.
Applicants must submit the Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 form and the Project Narrative Attachment Form in a single email to the email listed in the
• State “TEDC APPLICATION NARRATIVE AND SF-424” in the email subject line; and
• Include “Attention: Payton Batliner, Economic Development Specialist” in the first line of the email.
Applications and mandatory attachments received and date stamped after the time listed in the
Upon receiving a TEDC application, DEMD will determine whether the application is complete and that the proposed project does not duplicate or overlap previous or currently funded DEMD technical assistance projects. Any proposal that is received after the date and time in the
The DEMD Review Committee (Committee), comprised of DEMD staff, staff from other Federal agencies, and subject matter experts, will evaluate the proposals against the ranking criteria. Proposals will be evaluated using the four criteria listed below, with a
Final award selections will be approved by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs and the Associate Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. Applicants not selected for award will be notified in writing.
DEMD's obligation under this solicitation is contingent on receipt of congressionally appropriated funds. No liability on the part of the U.S. Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the awarding officer for this grant and until the recipient receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the grant officer.
All payments under this agreement will be made by electronic funds transfer through the ASAP. All award recipients are required to have a current and accurate DUNS number to receive funds. All payments will be deposited to the banking information designated by the applicant in the System for Award Management (SAM).
The applicant must deliver all products and data required by the signed Grant Agreement for the proposed TEDC feasibility study project to DEMD within 30 days of the end of each quarter and 90 days after completion of the project.
DEMD requires that deliverable products be provided in both digital format and printed hard copies. Reports can be provided in either Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format. Spreadsheet data can be provided in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, or Adobe PDF formats. All vector figures should be converted to PDF format. Raster images can be provided in PDF, JPEG, TIFF, or any of the Windows metafile formats. The contract between the grantee and the consultant conducting the TEDC-funded feasibility study must include deliverable products and require that the products be prepared in the format described above.
The contract should include budget amounts for all printed and digital copies to be delivered in accordance with the grant agreement. In addition, the contract must specify that all products generated by a consultant belong to the grantee and cannot be released to the public without the grantee's written approval. Products include, but are not limited to, all reports and technical data obtained, maps, status reports, and the final report.
In addition, this funding opportunity and financial assistance award must adhere to the following provisions:
• This section intends to ensure that non-Federal entities and their employees take appropriate steps to avoid conflicts of interest in their responsibilities under or with respect to Federal financial assistance agreements.
• In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by recipients and by sub-recipients, the conflict of interest provisions in 2 CFR 200.318 apply.
• Non-Federal entities must avoid prohibited conflicts of interest, including any significant financial interests that could cause a reasonable person to question the recipient's ability to provide impartial, technically sound, and objective performance under or with respect to a Federal financial assistance agreement.
• In addition to any other prohibitions that may apply with respect to conflicts of interest, no key official of an actual or proposed recipient or sub-recipient, who is substantially involved in the proposal or project, may have been a former Federal employee who, within the last one (1) year, participated personally and substantially in the evaluation, award, or administration of an award with respect to that recipient or sub-recipient or in development of the requirement leading to the funding announcement.
• No actual or prospective recipient or sub-recipient may solicit, obtain, or use non-public information regarding the evaluation, award, administration of an award to that recipient or sub-recipient or the development of a Federal financial assistance opportunity that may be of competitive interest to that recipient or sub-recipient.
• Non-Federal entities, including applicants for financial assistance awards, must disclose in writing any conflict of interest to the DOI awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with 2 CFR 200.112, Conflicts of Interest.
• Recipients must establish internal controls that include, at a minimum, procedures to identify, disclose, and mitigate or eliminate identified conflicts of interest. The recipient is responsible for notifying the Financial Assistance Officer in writing of any conflicts of interest that may arise during the life of the award, including those that have been reported by sub-recipients.
• Restrictions on Lobbying. Non-Federal entities are strictly prohibited from using funds under this grant or cooperative agreement for lobbying activities and must provide the required certifications and disclosures pursuant to 43 CFR part 18 and 31 U.S.C. 1352.
• Review Procedures. The Financial Assistance Officer will examine each conflict of interest disclosure on the basis of its particular facts and the nature of the proposed grant or cooperative agreement, and will determine whether a significant potential conflict exists and, if it does, develop an appropriate means for resolving it.
• Enforcement. Failure to resolve conflicts of interest in a manner that satisfies the Government may be cause for termination of the award. Failure to
• Applicability. The Department of the Interior is committed to basing its decisions on the best available science and providing the American people with enough information to thoughtfully and substantively evaluate the data, methodology, and analysis used by the Department to inform its decisions.
• Use of Data. The regulations at 2 CFR 200.315 apply to data produced under a Federal award, including the provision that the Federal Government has the right to obtain, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the data produced under a Federal award as well as authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal purposes.
• Availability of Data. The recipient shall make the data produced under this award and any subaward(s) available to the Government for public release, consistent with applicable law, to allow meaningful third party evaluation and reproduction of the following:
o The scientific data relied upon;
o The analysis relied upon; and
o The methodology, including models, used to gather and analyze data.
DEMD staff may provide technical consultation, upon written request by an applicant. The request must clearly identify the type of assistance sought. Technical consultation does not include funding to prepare a grant proposal, grant writing assistance, or pre-determinations as to the likelihood that a proposal will be awarded. The applicant is solely responsible for preparing its grant proposal. Technical consultation may include clarifying application requirements, confirming whether an applicant previously submitted the same or similar proposal, and registration information for SAM or ASAP.
The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). The OMB control number is 1076-0177. The authorization expires on October 31, 2020. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, any information collection that does not display a currently valid OMB Control Number.
TEDC grants are funded through non-recurring appropriations made by the United States Congress in the Federal budget. These funds are provided on a year-to-year basis, and may or may not be provided in future years. DEMD implements the Indian Energy Resource Development Program, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (503(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 764) to assist Indian Tribes in the development of energy resources and to further the goal of Indian self-determination. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (25 U.S.C. 3501
It also requires the Secretary to provide development grants to Indian Tribes and Tribal energy resource development organizations for use in developing or obtaining the managerial and technical capacity needed to develop energy resources on Indian land, and to properly account for resulting energy production and revenues; and to:
Additional authorizing Statutes for the program include:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (Museum) at the University of Oklahoma has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum at the address in this notice by July 6, 2020.
Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Haskell County, OK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Charles Roye Site (34Hs159) in Haskell County, OK. This site was surveyed in 1982, prior to construction of an ARKLA, Inc. gas line compressor station. During the survey, which was funded by the Bureau of Land Management, a burial was discovered. The site was excavated by the Oklahoma Archeological Survey, and the items recovered were brought to the Museum in 1984. The fragmentary human remains belong to an adult over the age of 20 of indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. The 22 associated funerary objects include three glass fragments, four glass bead fragments, one historic ceramic cup fragment, and 14 historic ceramic sherd fragments.
The Charles Roye Site dates to the late 1800s, based on the presence of European trade goods. Historic documents, including homestead deed records, show that the site lies within the region occupied by The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma during the 19th century.
Officials of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 22 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (Museum) at the University of Oklahoma has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum at the address in this notice by July 6, 2020.
Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Muskogee County, OK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of
In 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were excavated by the University of Oklahoma at site 34Ms20 in Muskogee County, OK. At an unknown date, the associated cultural materials were transferred to the Museum. The human remains include the partial skeleton of an adult male 20-35 years old that were commingled with remains of a child 7-9 years old, a young adult 18-22 years old of indeterminate sex, and a young adult 20-30 years old of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The eight associated funerary objects are faunal bone fragments.
Based on the presence of diagnostic artifacts (chipped and ground stone, ceramics, bone tools and ornaments), the human remains and associated funerary objects were most likely interred at site 34Ms20 during the Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000-1500). Furthermore, the diagnostic material is consistent with cultural distribution patterns in the Arkansas River Valley. The archeological data, together with ethnohistoric data, ethnographic data, and tribal oral histories, show that the human remains and associated funerary objects are culturally affiliated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
Officials of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the eight objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry at the address in this notice by July 6, 2020.
Dorothy Dechant, Center for Dental History and Craniofacial Study, University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 Fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-2919, telephone (415) 929-6627, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA. The human remains were removed from the SJO-91 Brown site in San Joaquin County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Center for Dental History and Craniofacial Study (CDHCS) professional staff at the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry in consultation with representatives of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; Wilton Rancheria, California; and the Northern Valley Yokut, a non-federally recognized Indian group. The Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; as well as the Southern
Sometime in 1970 or 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from CA-SJO-91 Brown Site on private property, in San Joaquin County, CA. Sometime between 1970 and 1989 these human remains were in the possession of Dr. John Stucky of Lodi, CA. Dr. Stucky had received these human remains from his neighbor who had been a construction superintendent for A. Teichert and Sons Construction. In 1989, on behalf of Dr. Stucky, these human remains were donated to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry by Dr. Kenneth Holcombe, and accessioned into the school's Spencer R. Atkinson Library of Applied Anatomy skull collection. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2004 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
In a 2011 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Based on the above findings, as well as oral and documentary evidence presented during consultations, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, San Francisco (including the Center for Dental History and Craniofacial Study) reasonably believes that the cultural affiliation of CA-SJO-91 is to the Northern Valley Yokuts and Plains Miwok.
Officials of the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California (hereafter referred to as “The Affiliated Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dorothy Dechant, University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 Fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-2919, telephone (415) 929-6627, email
The University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and Groups that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry at the address in this notice by July 6, 2020.
Dorothy Dechant, Center for Dental History and Craniofacial Study, University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 Fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-2919, telephone (415) 929-6627, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Center for Dental History and Craniofacial Study (CDHCS) professional staff at the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry in consultation with representatives of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; Wilton Rancheria, California; and the Northern Valley Yokut, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
The Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; as well as the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation and the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, California, non-federally recognized Indian groups, were invited but did not participate. Hereafter, all the above entities are referred to as “The Consulted Tribes and Groups.”
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (one adult skull) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original date, location, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on an associated handwritten note that includes the writing “Dalton 5/30/37,” and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed in 1937 from the site of Dalton. In 1963, the human remains were transferred to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (one adult skull) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original dates, locations, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on an associated handwritten label that includes the writing “1-3-37 Goethe Maidu Nisenan,” and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed in 1937 from Goethe Mound (CA-SAC-120). In 1963, the human remains were transferred to University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (one adult skull) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original date, location, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on an associated handwritten note that includes the writing “Hutchinson Mound Nishinan . . . May 35,” and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were, in 1935, possibly removed from Hutchinson Mound. The note found associated with these human remains leaves the location of the site of acquisition somewhat uncertain, as it reads, “Hutchinson Mound Nishinan not from Slough Mound Consumne River . . . May 35.” In 1963, the human remains were transferred to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (two adult skulls) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original dates, locations, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on associated handwritten labels that include the writing “Nicholaus” (on one label) and a few letters of the word “Nicolaus” (on other label), and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed from the Nicolaus Site #2 or Nicholas (CA-SAC-085). The date of removal is unknown. In 1963, the human remains were transferred to University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Based on communications with professional staff at the California State University, Sacramento, it has been determined that the handwriting on some of the associated notes and labels described here resembles Anthony Zallio's handwriting, as found on written materials associated with the human remains that he donated in 1951 to the Department of Anthropology at Sacramento State College (now California State University, Sacramento). In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (one adult cranium) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original date, location, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on an associated handwritten label that includes the writing “Nisenan Nichols 2-25-35,” and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed in 1935 from Nichols Mound (CA-SAC-007, also possibly known as Nicholls Site), which is believed to be located approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Bruceville and Desmond roads in southwest Sacramento County, CA. In 1963, the human remains were transferred to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals (four adult skulls) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original date, location, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on associated handwritten labels that include the writing “Thisle” (on three labels) and “Tistle Nisenan 7-2-35” (on fourth label), and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed sometime around 1935 from the site of Thistle. In 1963, the human remains were transferred to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2015 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (one adult skull) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer R. Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original date, exact location, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on associated written evidence, and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed in 1937 from an undetermined site in the Sacramento Valley. In 1963, the human remains were transferred to the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Sometime between 1920 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals (one adult cranium, three adult skulls) were in the possession of Dr. Spencer Atkinson. Documentation describing the excavator, original dates, locations, removal and acquisition of the human remains does not exist. However, based on associated handwritten labels that include the writing “Bennett” and “1935,” and on research conducted by CDHCS professional staff, the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry reasonably believes that these human remains were removed in 1935 from Bennett Site or Bennett Mound (CA-SAC-016). In 1963, the human remains were transferred to University of the Pacific School of Dentistry when Dr. Atkinson's private collection was donated to the school. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In a 2011 Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Officials of the University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dorothy Dechant, University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 Fifth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-2919, telephone (415) 929-6627, email
The University of the Pacific, Dugoni School of Dentistry is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and Groups and The Affiliated Tribes that this notice has been published.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
The Department of the Interior (Department) is proposing to reallocate non-Indian agricultural (NIA) priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) water in accordance with the Arizona Department of Water Resources' (ADWR) recommendation for reallocation, as provided by ADWR's letter dated January 16, 2014, to the Department. The Department is requesting public comments on the proposed decision. If the proposed decision is implemented, the Department would offer to enter into a subcontract with the entities listed in the table below, as recommended by ADWR.
Submit comments on or before July 6, 2020.
Send written comments concerning the proposed decision to Ms. Leslie Meyers, Area Manager, Phoenix Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ 85306-4001.
Ms. Leslie Meyers, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ 85306-4001; telephone 623-773-6211; facsimile 623-773-6480; email
The Department is publishing this proposed decision of the reallocation of NIA priority CAP water in accordance with the Arizona Water Settlements Act (Settlements Act) (Pub. L. 108-451, 118 Stat. 3478), and the Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary) Final Decision of CAP Water Reallocation (71 FR 50449, August 25, 2006). The following table lists the entities recommended by ADWR to receive NIA priority CAP water and the quantities proposed to be reallocated to each.
Previous notices related to CAP water were published in the
In a Record of Decision (ROD) published on March 24, 1983 (48 FR 12446), the Secretary, among other actions, superseded and replaced the 1980 ROD (45 FR 81265, December 10, 1980), reiterated the allocations to Indian tribes reflected in that 1980 ROD, allocated CAP water for non-Indian municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, and allocated the remaining amount for NIA uses. Subject to certain conditions, the CAP water for Indian uses was allocated to 12 Indian tribes for irrigation use or for maintaining tribal homelands. Also subject to certain conditions, the CAP water for M&I uses was allocated based on the State of Arizona's 1982 allocation recommendations for non-Indian entities that provided an amount of CAP water for M&I use to certain non-Indian entities, with the remaining amount of CAP water allocated for NIA use. The CAP NIA water was allocated to 23 non-Indian irrigation districts or other agricultural entities as a percentage of the NIA water supply that was available in any given year.
Two-party CAP water service contracts were executed between the United States and individual Indian tribes in 1980 pursuant to the 1980 ROD. CAP non-Indian M&I water service subcontracts and CAP NIA water service subcontracts were executed with those entities desiring to enter into subcontracts for CAP water. The CAP water service subcontracts for the non-Indian M&I water and the NIA water are three-party subcontracts among the entity, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the entities that were allocated NIA water and M&I priority water elected not to contract for the offered allocations. After completing the initial subcontracting process, 29.3 percent of the NIA water supply and 65,647 acre-feet of M&I water was not under contract.
Congress enacted the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2558) (SRPMIC Act). Pursuant to section 11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary was required to request a reallocation recommendation from ADWR for the remaining NIA water that was not under contract. The Secretary was also required to reallocate the uncontracted CAP water for NIA use and to offer new or amendatory subcontracts for such water.
By letter dated January 7, 1991, ADWR recommended an allocation to the Secretary. The Secretary published a notice on June 20, 1991 (56 FR 28404), inviting public comments on the proposed reallocation of CAP water. After considering the public comments, the Secretary published a final decision on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4470). That decision contemplated that new or amendatory CAP water service subcontracts would be offered soon thereafter.
CAP water service subcontracts for the reallocated water were not executed for several reasons, including but not limited to the following: (1) Some entities could not meet the financial feasibility requirements for receipt of CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the form of the CAP water service subcontract, and (3) financial difficulties in the CAP NIA sector.
Beginning in the early 1990s, long-term utilization of the CAP water available for reallocation under the 1992 decision and of the uncontracted CAP M&I priority water was a central issue in negotiations to resolve various operational and financial disputes between Reclamation and CAWCD. After attempts at negotiations failed, water contracting issues were included in litigation and the resulting stipulated settlement between the United States and CAWCD. To implement some of the conditions contained in the stipulated settlement, new Federal legislation was required.
After the 1992 decision but before Federal legislation was enacted, the Secretary published on June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38514), a notice of proposed modification to the 1983 decision. The 1983 decision provided that the M&I allocation can be made more firm by execution of feasible non-potable effluent exchanges with Indian tribes and the M&I allocation was subject to adoption of a pooling concept, whereby all M&I entities share in the benefits of effluent exchanges. The pooling concept provision was included in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts. The 2002 proposed modification to the 1983 decision was to delete the mandatory effluent pooling provision in M&I subcontracts with the cities of Chandler and Mesa, and from other M&I water service subcontracts upon request. That provision in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts was an impediment to effluent exchanges and effective water management in central Arizona. After review and consideration of the public comments, the final decision was published on June 18, 2003 (68 FR
The Settlements Act was enacted on December 10, 2004, and provides, among other things, for: (1) A final allocation of CAP water, with a CAP supply permanently designated for Indian uses and a CAP supply designated for non-Indian M&I or NIA uses; (2) a reallocation by the Secretary of 65,647 acre-feet of currently uncontracted CAP M&I water to 20 specific M&I entities; (3) ratification of the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement (the “Master Agreement”) among the United States, ADWR, and CAWCD, which provides a statutory-based framework to enable the CAP NIA districts to relinquish existing rights to the delivery of CAP NIA priority water under their CAP water service subcontracts, including their rights, if any, to the reallocated water; and, (4) a reallocation of the relinquished and uncontracted NIA water supply to various Arizona Indian tribes and ADWR for future M&I use.
On August 25, 2006, the Secretary published a final reallocation decision (71 FR 50449) that, among other things, reallocated the CAP NIA water and the uncontracted CAP M&I water. The August 2006 reallocation decision is summarized below:
The Secretary's decision reallocated up to 96,295 acre-feet of agricultural priority water per year to ADWR, pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(A) of the Settlements Act and subject to subparagraph 9.3 of the Master Agreement, to be held under contract in trust for further allocation pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act. Direct use of the agricultural priority water by ADWR is prohibited under the Master Agreement and this notice.
In accordance with section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act, before water may be further allocated the Director of ADWR shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior a recommendation for reallocation. After receiving the recommendation, the Secretary shall carry out all of the necessary reviews for the proposed reallocation in accordance with applicable Federal law. If the Director's recommendation is rejected, the Secretary shall request a revised recommendation from the Director of ADWR and proceed with any reviews required.
The reallocation of agricultural priority water to ADWR pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(A) and section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act is subject to the Master Agreement, including certain rights provided by the Master Agreement to water users in Pinal County, Arizona. The agricultural priority water reallocated to the ADWR shall be subject to the condition that the water retain its non-Indian agricultural delivery priority.
As required in Section 104(a)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Settlements Act and the August 25, 2006 final reallocation decision, ADWR submitted to the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation of agricultural priority water. This recommendation was transmitted by letter dated January 16, 2014, and ADWR requested the Secretary carry out all of the necessary reviews of the proposed reallocation in accordance with applicable Federal law.
Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and pursuant to Section 104 of the Settlements Act. Public scoping was initiated on November 30, 2015, with a newsletter that was sent to interested parties and published on Reclamation's website. Scoping comments were accepted via facsimile, email, U.S. mail, and in-person at the scoping meetings, which were held on December 8-10, 2015, in Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson, Arizona, respectively. Reclamation received two public responses during this initial scoping period, one of which resulted in Reclamation honoring a request for a comment period extension to January 18, 2016.
In June 2016, Reclamation mailed Notices of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to Federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, organizations, proposed recipients, and other interested stakeholders. A public meeting was held on June 22, 2016, in Casa Grande, Arizona, and the commenting period closed on July 22, 2016. Reclamation conducted in-person consultation with the Tohono O'odham Nation on February 17, 2017, and with the San Carlos Apache Tribe on June 16, 2017. The draft EA was revised in response to the comments received. A NOA for the
The Department is proposing to allocate CAP NIA water in accordance with ADWR's recommendation. The ADWR recommendation covered the initial phase, reallocating 46,629 acre-feet per year of NIA priority CAP water of the 96,295 acre-feet per year to be reallocated, as shown in the table above. The total of 46,629 acre-feet per year of CAP NIA priority water in this phase is in two pools: (1) A municipal pool of 34,629 acre-feet for M&I water providers within the CAP service area and the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, and (2) an industrial pool of 12,000 acre-feet for industrial water users within the CAP service area. The rationale for the proposed decision is based on the following:
(1) ADWR's extensive public outreach, in consultation with Reclamation, to interested parties regarding its recommendation.
(2) An EA evaluating impacts of the proposed reallocation, in accordance with NEPA, and the resulting FONSI.
The Final EA and FONSI can be found on Reclamation's website at:
We request public comments on the proposed reallocation prior to the Department making a final decision. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on June 3, 2019 (84 FR 25561) and determined on September 6, 2019 that it would conduct a full review (84 FR 49763, September 23, 2019). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on May 28, 2020. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5058 (May 2020), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Regulated persons include manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters of listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines, or persons who serve as brokers or traders for international transactions involving a listed chemical, tableting machine, or encapsulating machine. 21 CFR 1300.02(b). Both reports will be submitted electronically.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting & Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2020.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara Oudekerk, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND (2(A) or 2(B) below).
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely; AND (ii and iii below)
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; AND
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4)); AND
(3) Either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); OR
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A)); AND
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222(a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both), or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Sections 223 and 284 (19 U.S.C. 2273 and 2395) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
The certifying officer may grant an application for reconsideration under the following circumstances: (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous; (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts previously considered; or (3) If, in the opinion of the certifying officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifies reconsideration of the determination. See 29 CFR 90.18(c).
The following Applications for Reconsideration have been received and granted. See 29 CFR 90.18(d).
Revised certifications of eligibility have been issued with respect to cases where affirmative determinations and certificates of eligibility were issued initially, but a minor error was discovered after the certification was issued. The revised certifications are issued pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 223 of the Act and 29 CFR 90.16. Revised Certifications of Eligibility are final determinations for purposes of judicial review pursuant to section 284 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2395) and 29 CFR 90.19(a).
Post-initial determinations have been issued with respect to cases where affirmative determinations regarding applications for reconsideration were granted. For cases where the worker group eligibility requirements are met, Revised Certifications of Eligibility or Revised Determinations have been issued. Revised Certifications of Eligibility and Revised Determinations are final determinations for purposes of judicial review pursuant to section 284 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2395) and 29 CFR 90.19(a).
(This Notice primarily follows the language of the Trade Act. In some places however, changes such as the inclusion of subheadings, a reorganization of language, or “and,” “or,” or other words are added for clarification.)
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND (2(A) or 2(B) below).
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(A)
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely; AND (ii and iii below)
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(B) Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path OR Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path:
(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; AND
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4)); AND
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); OR
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A)); AND
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following revised certifications of eligibility to apply for TAA have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination, and the reason(s) for the determination.
The following revisions have been issued.
In the following cases, negative determinations on reconsideration have been issued because the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reason(s) specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act Section 222(a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) have not been met.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Administrator of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than June 15, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 15, 2020.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 3, 2020.
Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard (29 CFR 1910.111) specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the standard.
Paragraph (b)(3) of the Standard specifies that systems have nameplates if required, and that these nameplates “be permanently attached to the system (as specified by paragraph (b)(3)(i)) so as to be readily accessible for inspection . . . .” In addition, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) requires that markings on containers and systems covered by paragraphs (c) (“Systems utilizing stationary, non-refrigerated storage containers”), (f) (“Tank motor vehicles for the transportation of ammonia”), (g) (“Systems mounted on farm vehicles other than for the application of ammonia”), and (h) (“Systems mounted on farm vehicles for the application of ammonia”) provide information regarding nine specific characteristics of the containers and systems. Similarly, paragraph (b)(4) of the Standard specifies that refrigerated containers be marked with a nameplate on the outer covering in an accessible place that provides information regarding eight specific characteristics of the container.
The required markings ensure that employers use only properly designed and tested containers and systems to store anhydrous ammonia, thereby preventing accidental release of, and exposure of workers to, this highly toxic and corrosive substance.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard. There is a slight adjustment decrease in burden hours for this ICR. The burden hours have decreased a total of 1 hour (from 337 to 336 hours).
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of inquiry.
The U.S. Copyright Office is initiating a study to evaluate the degree to which copyright owners are experiencing infringement by state entities without adequate remedies under state law, as well as the extent to which such infringements appear to be based on intentional or reckless conduct. The Office seeks public input on this topic to assist it in preparing a report to Congress.
Written comments are due on or before August 3, 2020.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the regulations.gov system for the submission and posting of public comments in this proceeding. All comments are therefore to be submitted electronically through regulations.gov. Specific instructions for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office website at
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights,
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “a federal court generally may not hear a suit brought by any person against a nonconsenting State.”
Enacted on November 15, 1990, the CRCA amended the Copyright Act to expressly provide that states are not immune from suit for copyright infringement.
After the Office issued its report, the CRCA was introduced in Congress, and Congress held hearings on the issue of state infringement. The final legislation amended the Copyright Act to provide that “[a]ny State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment . . . or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person” for copyright infringement.
Nine years after enactment of the CRCA, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in
The Court in
This year, the Supreme Court decided
The Court further held that Congress had failed to make a sufficient showing of
At the conclusion of the opinion, the Court observed that its decision “need not prevent Congress from passing a valid copyright abrogation law in the future.”
On April 28, 2020, Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy sent a letter to the Copyright Office noting that the
Pursuant to this request, the Office is seeking public input in multiple phases. The Office is providing 60 days for written comments from interested parties on the topics outlined below. To fulfill the request from Congress and the requirements of the Court, the Office seeks factual evidence and other verifiable information to support this inquiry. For each question, to the extent available, please include empirical data or other quantitative analysis in your response. If describing a litigation matter, please include information sufficient for the Office to identify such matter, such as the relevant court, docket number, asserted claims, and dates. As applicable, the Office encourages commenters to append relevant materials, such as pleadings, opinions, or other documentary evidence, in support of their comments. If participants currently gathering empirical research and analyses find themselves unable to complete them within the 60-day period for submissions, they are encouraged to contact the Office promptly, describing the nature of the research and indicating the time required for completion. To the extent possible, the Office will seek to accommodate such submissions by providing an additional comment period limited to the provision of empirical data at a later date, but encourages all commenters to meet the noticed deadline if possible, so that the Office may fully consider the submissions in light of the congressional deadline.
After this comment period has closed, the Office intends to host one or more public roundtables to seek additional input, potentially virtually. The Office may request further written comments on particular issues discussed in response to this notice and/or at the public roundtables.
The Copyright Office invites written comments on the subjects below. A party choosing to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need not address every subject, but the Office requests that responding parties clearly identify and separately address each subject for which a response is submitted. The Office also requests that commenters explain their interest in the study and, with respect to each answer, the basis for their knowledge (
1. Please provide information regarding specific instances of infringing conduct committed by a state government entity, officer, or employee, including, where relevant:
a. The work(s) infringed;
b. The act(s) of alleged infringement;
c. When the infringement occurred;
d. The state actor(s) who committed the infringement;
e. Whether the infringement was intentional or reckless, and the basis for that conclusion;
f. Whether the infringement was committed pursuant to a state policy;
g. Whether the state was contacted by or on behalf of the copyright owner in response to the infringement, and if so, how the state responded;
h. Whether a lawsuit was filed as a result of the infringement, and if so, where the case was filed, what claim(s) were brought regarding the infringement, whether the case remains pending, and if not, how it was resolved; and
i. If a lawsuit was not filed, why the copyright owner chose not to do so, including whether it attempted to resolve the matter privately in lieu of litigation, and any relevant details with respect to those attempts.
2. To what extent does state sovereign immunity affect the licensing or sale of copies of copyrighted works to state entities? For example:
a. Do copyright owners provide different payment or licensing terms in transactions with state entities than are provided in transactions with other parties?
b. Have copyright owners changed aspects of their sales or licensing practices as a result of state sovereign immunity?
c. Do different states or state entities take different approaches to working with copyrighted material? Are there particular states that more frequently infringe?
3. What remedies are available for copyright owners when states infringe their works?
a. To what extent did copyright owners file suits under the Copyright Act against state entities prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
b. In your opinion, does the availability of injunctive relief against state officials provide an adequate remedy to address the needs of copyright owners in response to instances of state copyright infringement?
c. To what extent are there state law causes of action that may provide a remedy for copyright infringements by state entities? Are there state court cases in which a copyright owner has been awarded a judgment on such a claim?
d. To the extent state law provides a cause of action relevant to copyright infringement, how do the elements of the cause of action and/or available remedies differ from those applicable to claims under the Copyright Act?
e. In your opinion, are those remedies adequate to address the needs of copyright owners in response to instances of state copyright infringement?
4. How can Congress determine whether copyright infringement by a state is common or infrequent? What metrics should be used in making such a determination?
5. Has the prevalence of infringement by states increased in recent years?
a. What empirical evidence is available to determine whether and to what extent there has been a change over time?
b. To what extent, if any, have instances of actual or threatened infringement by states increased since the decision in
6. How do different states handle claims of infringement? Please discuss, as relevant:
a. Whether any state agencies carry insurance policies that would cover infringement by a state employee, and if so, whether those insurance policies distinguish between infringement that is intentional, reckless, or negligent;
b. Any laws, regulations, or policies that state entities have adopted to minimize the likelihood of, or to provide a remedy for, copyright infringement by a state entity;
c. How frequently copyright owners claim a state actor has infringed their rights, either privately or in litigation;
d. How state entities typically respond to credible claims of copyright infringement, including any formal or informal policies providing for negotiations with or payment to the copyright owner, as well as whether the Attorney General's office is notified of such claims;
e. What state entities are eligible to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to copyright infringement claims;
f. Whether state entities have the right to waive sovereign immunity as a defense to an infringement lawsuit in
g. Whether any states record and/or track copyright infringement claims received by state entities.
7. Please identify any pertinent issues not referenced above that the Copyright Office should consider in conducting its study.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive invention license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive invention license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in NASA Case Number MFS-33884-1, entitled “Ruggedizing a Commercial Camera for Space Flight Environments,” to Imperx, Inc., having its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than June 18, 2020 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than June 18, 2020 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to James J. McGroary, Chief Patent Counsel/LS01, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-0013. Email
Kyle Costabile, Technology Transfer, ST22, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 316-9556. Email
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive invention license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
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 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, 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 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, First-Class Package International Service & Commercial ePacket contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: June 3, 2020.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 27, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & Commercial ePacket Duty and Tax Chargeback contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: June 3, 2020.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 28, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This advance notice is submitted in connection with a proposed change to OCC's operations in the form of the replacement of a revolving credit facility that OCC maintains for a 364-day term and that it may use: (i) In anticipation of a potential default by or suspension of a Clearing Member; (ii) to meet obligations arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member; (iii) to meet reasonably anticipated liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the failure of any bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to achieve daily settlement; or (iv) to meet obligations arising out of the failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or suspension of operations. OCC has provided a summary of the terms and conditions of the proposed renewal in confidential Exhibit 3 to File No. SR-OCC-2020-804.
The advance notice is available on OCC's website at
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the advance notice and none have been received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.
This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed change in the form of the replacement of a revolving credit facility that OCC maintains for a 364-day term and that it may use: (i) In anticipation of a potential default by or suspension of a Clearing Member; (ii) to meet obligations arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member; (iii) to meet reasonably anticipated liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the failure of any bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to achieve daily settlement; or (iv) to meet obligations arising out of the failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing organization to perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or suspension of operations (“Permitted Use Circumstances”). In any such Permitted Use Circumstance, OCC has certain conditional authority under its By-Laws and Rules to borrow or otherwise obtain funds from third parties using Clearing Member margin deposits and/or Clearing Fund contributions.
OCC's existing credit facility (“Existing Facility”) was implemented as of June 26, 2019, through the execution of a credit agreement among OCC, the administrative agent, the collateral agent, and the lenders that are parties to the agreement from time to time. The Existing Facility provides short-term secured borrowings in an aggregate principal amount of $2 billion but may be increased to $3 billion if OCC so requests and sufficient commitments from lenders are received and accepted.
The conditions regarding the availability of the New Facility, which OCC anticipates will be satisfied on or about June 23, 2020, include the execution and delivery of: (i) A credit agreement between OCC and the administrative agent, collateral agent and various lenders under the New Facility; (ii) a pledge agreement between OCC and the administrative agent or collateral agent; and (iii) such other documents as may be required by the parties. The definitive documentation concerning the New Facility is expected to be consistent with the Summary of Terms and Conditions that is provided in confidential Exhibit 3, although it may include certain changes to business terms as may be necessary to obtain the agreement of lenders with sufficient funding commitments and certain changes as may be necessary regarding administrative and operational terms being finalized between the parties.
OCC does not currently expect to make changes to:
(a) The financial institution acting as lead administrative agent; or
(b) the commitment period (which would continue to be 364 calendar days unless changes are necessary to avoid the expiration of the term falling on a weekend or other day that is not a business day) in connection with Future Renewals, but OCC would treat any such change in a Future Renewal as subject to the requirement to file an advance notice pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
OCC may consider changes to:
(1) The aggregate and potential additional commitment amounts that it may seek, so long as such amounts considered:
(i) Increase by no more than $500 million in total (whether in the initial commitment amount, additional commitment amount, or both) above the amount being sought by OCC under the New Facility, or
(ii) decrease by no more than $500 million below the amount being sought by OCC under the New Facility, provided that any decrease in the initial commitment amount is replaced by other qualifying liquid resources (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14))
(2) the syndicate so long as all lenders party to future credit facilities are subject to the same credit review as those lenders that are party to the New Facility;
(3) pricing and collateral haircuts,
(4) representations, warranties, covenants, and terms of events of default,
So long as any Future Renewal adheres to the conditions specified in the Evergreen Provisions, as described above, OCC would consider such Future Renewal as being on substantially the same terms and conditions as the New Facility such that it would not need to be subject to the requirement to file an advance notice filing pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as a clearing agency performing central counterparty services. Overall, the New Facility and Future Renewals would continue to promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its Clearing Members, and the markets OCC serves in general because it would allow OCC to obtain short-term funds in the Permitted Use Circumstances. The existence of the New Facility and Future Renewals would therefore help OCC minimize losses in the event of a Permitted Use Circumstance by allowing it to obtain funds on extremely short notice to ensure clearance and settlement of transactions in options and other contracts without interruption. OCC believes that the reduced settlement risk presented by OCC resulting from the New Facility and Future Renewals would correspondingly reduce systemic risk and promote the safety and soundness of the clearing system. By drawing on the New Facility or under any Future Renewals, OCC would also be able to avoid liquidating margin deposits or Clearing Fund contributions in what would likely be volatile market conditions, which would preserve funds available to cover any losses resulting from the failure of a Clearing Member, bank, or other clearing organization.
OCC believes that the proposed change would not otherwise affect or alter the management of risk at OCC because the New Facility would generally preserve the same terms and conditions as the Existing Facility.
The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Exchange Act in furtherance of these objectives and principles.
OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
OCC believes that the New Facility and Future Renewals that adhere to the Evergreen Provisions are also consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to satisfy payment obligations owed to Clearing Members.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an
OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented. The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-804 and should be submitted on or before June 18, 2020.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The Commission believes that the proposal contained in OCC's Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. Specifically, as discussed below, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management, including in the area of liquidity risk, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk management, in particular management of liquidity risk presented to OCC. Renewing and maintaining a credit facility for this purpose and in the manner proposed by OCC would provide OCC with continued access to a stable and reliable source of committed liquidity that can be accessed in a timely manner to meet its settlement obligations, contain losses and liquidity pressures, and mitigate OCC's liquidity risk, while also helping to maintain the current diversity of liquidity resources that OCC may use to resolve a Clearing Member default.
The Commission also believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness. As described above, the New Facility would maintain OCC's access to a significant liquidity resource in the event of a Clearing Member default. The Evergreen Provisions would preserve access to this resource by ensuring that any annual renewals implemented without filing an advance notice would be substantially similar to the currently proposed credit facility, the Commission believes that any such annual renewals can be expected to promote safety and soundness for the same reasons. Further, by ensuring the continuity and consistency of any subsequent renewals, the Advance Notice would support OCC's continued access to a readily available liquidity resource that could enable OCC to continue to meet its obligations to Clearing Members in a timely fashion in the event of a Clearing Member default, thereby helping to contain losses and liquidity pressures from that default. As such, the Commission believes it is consistent with promoting safety and soundness as contemplated in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
In addition, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with reducing systemic risks and promoting the stability of the broader financial system. As mentioned above, allowing OCC to enter into the New Facility would enable OCC, which has been designated a systemically important FMU,
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) requires, in part, OCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, holding qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum liquidity resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i)
As described above, the implementation of the New Facility would provide OCC with continued access to a $2 billion revolving credit facility on substantially similar terms to the Existing Facility. As the Commission noted previously, the Existing Facility provides OCC with access to a single credit facility designed to help ensure that OCC has sufficient, readily available qualifying liquid resources to meet the cash settlement obligations of its largest family of affiliated members.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under Rule 8.900-E (Managed Portfolio Shares): Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF, Gabelli Financial Services ETF, Gabelli Small Cap Growth ETF, Gabelli Small & Mid Cap ETF, Gabelli Micro Cap ETF, Gabelli ESG ETF, Gabelli Asset ETF, Gabelli Equity Income ETF, and Gabelli Green Energy ETF. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange has added new Rule 8.900-E for the purpose of permitting the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Managed Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company.
The shares of each Fund (the “Shares”) will be issued by the Gabelli ETFs Trust (the “Trust”), a statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
Rule 8.900-E(b)(4) provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Managed Portfolio Shares is registered as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio and/or the Creation Basket.
Rule 8.900-E(5) is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to Rule 5.2-E(j)(3); however, Commentary .03(a) in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds.
In the event (a) the Adviser or any sub-adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer, or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio and/or Creation Basket. Any person related to the Adviser or the Trust who makes decisions pertaining to a Fund's portfolio composition or that has access to information regarding a Fund's portfolio composition or that has access to information regarding a Fund's portfolio or changes thereto or the Creation Basket will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio or changes thereto and the Creation Basket.
Further, Rule 8.900-E(b)(5) requires that any person or entity, including an AP Representative, custodian, Reporting Authority, distributor, or administrator, who has access to information regarding the Investment Company's portfolio composition or changes thereto or the Creation Basket, must be subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio or changes thereto or the Creation Basket. Moreover, if any such person or entity is registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, such person or entity will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the person or entity and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio or Creation Basket.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund's primary objective is to seek to provide capital appreciation, and current income is a secondary objective. The Fund will primarily invest in common stocks of companies that the Adviser believes are relevant to the Fund's investment theme of innovation, with assets invested primarily in a broad range of readily marketable equity securities consisting of common stock and preferred stock.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund seeks to provide capital appreciation. The Fund intends to invest in the securities, including common stock and preferred stock, of companies principally engaged in the group of industries comprising the financial services sector.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund seeks to provide a high level of capital appreciation. The Fund intends to invest primarily in the common stocks of companies which the Adviser believes are likely to have rapid growth in revenues and above average rates of earnings growth.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund seeks long term capital growth. The Fund intends to invest primarily in equity securities (such as common stock and preferred stock) of companies with small or medium sized market capitalizations.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund primarily seeks to provide investors with long term capital appreciation. The Fund intends to invest primarily in equity securities of micro-cap companies (as defined by the Fund). The Fund seeks to invest in equity securities including common stocks (including indirect holdings of common stock through depositary receipts) and preferred stocks.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund's investment objective is capital appreciation. The Fund seeks to invest primarily in companies that the Adviser believes meet the Fund's guidelines for social responsibility. The Fund intends to invest in common and preferred stocks that are listed on a national securities exchange or similar market.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will
The Fund primarily seeks to provide growth of capital, with a secondary goal of providing current income. The Fund intends to invest primarily in common stocks and preferred stocks and may also invest in foreign securities by investing in depositary receipts.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund seeks a high level of total return on its assets with an emphasis on income. The Fund intends to invest in income producing equity securities including common stock and preferred stock.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund seeks total return through current income and capital appreciation. The Fund intends to invest primarily in U.S. equity securities and depositary receipts issued by clean energy companies.
Each Fund's holdings will be consistent with all requirements described in the Exemptive Application and Exemptive Order.
Each Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
Creations and redemptions of Shares will take place as described in Rule 8.900-E. Specifically, in connection with the creation and redemption of Creation Units
Each AP Representative will be given, before the commencement of trading each Business Day (as defined below), the Creation Basket (as described below) for that day. This information will permit an AP that has established a Confidential Account with an AP Representative to instruct the AP Representative to buy and sell positions in the portfolio securities to permit creation and redemption of Creation Units and Redemption Units. Shares of each Fund will initially be issued and redeemed in Creation Units and Redemption Units of 5,000 or more Shares, subject to change at the Adviser's discretion. The Funds will offer and redeem Creation Units and Redemption Units on a continuous basis at the net asset value (“NAV”) per Share next determined after receipt of an order in proper form. The NAV per Share of each Fund will be determined as of the close of regular trading on the Exchange on each day that the Exchange is open (a “Business Day”). The Funds will sell and redeem Creation Units and Redemption Units only on Business Days.
In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and Redemption Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Accordingly, except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the circumstances described in the Exemptive Application, APs will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and APs redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”) through the AP Representative in their Confidential Account.
Each Fund will issue Shares through the Distributor on a continuous basis at NAV. The Exchange represents that the issuance of Shares will operate in a manner substantially similar to that of other ETFs. Each Fund will issue Shares only at the NAV per Share next determined after an order in proper form is received.
The Distributor will furnish acknowledgements to those placing
Purchases of Shares will be settled in-kind and/or cash for an amount equal to the applicable NAV per Share purchased plus applicable transaction fees.
Generally, all orders to purchase Creation Units must be received by the Distributor no later than the end of the Core Trading Session on the date such order is placed (“Transmittal Date”) in order for the purchaser to receive the NAV per Share determined on the Transmittal Date.
The Shares may be redeemed to a Fund in Redemption Unit size or multiples thereof as described below. Redemption orders of Redemption Units must be placed by or through an AP (“AP Redemption Order”). Each Fund will establish an Order Cut-Off Time for redemption orders of Redemption Units in proper form. Redemption Units of a Fund will be redeemable at their NAV per Share next determined after receipt of a request for redemption by the Trust in the manner specified below before the Order Cut-Off Time. To initiate an AP Redemption Order, an AP must submit to the Distributor an irrevocable order to redeem such Redemption Unit after the most recent prior Valuation Time, but not later than the Order Cut-Off Time.
In the case of a redemption, the AP would enter into an irrevocable redemption order, and then instruct the AP Representative to sell the underlying basket of securities that it will receive in the redemption. As with the purchase of securities, the AP Representative will use methods, such as breaking the transaction into multiple transactions and transacting in multiple marketplaces, to avoid revealing the composition of the Creation Basket.
Redemptions will occur primarily in-kind, although redemption payments may also be made partly or wholly in cash. The Participant Agreement signed by each AP will require establishment of a Confidential Account to receive distributions of securities in-kind upon redemption. Each AP will be required to open a Confidential Account with an AP Representative in order to facilitate orderly processing of redemptions.
The NAV will be calculated separately for the Shares of each Fund on each Business Day. Each Fund's NAV is determined as of the close of regular trading on the NYSE, normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The NAV of each Fund is computed by dividing the value of the applicable Fund's net assets,
Equity securities listed or traded on a national securities exchange are valued at the last quoted sale or a market's official closing price at the close of the exchange's or other market's regular trading hours, as of or prior to the time and day as of which such value is being determined. Portfolio securities traded on more than one national securities exchange or market are valued according to the broadest and most representative market as determined by the Adviser.
Information regarding a Fund's NAV and how often Shares of a Fund traded on the Exchange at a price above (
The Funds' website, which will be publicly available prior to the listing and trading of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded. The Funds' website will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV, market closing price or mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”),
Form N-PORT requires reporting of a fund's complete portfolio holdings on a position-by-position basis on a quarterly basis within 60 days after fiscal quarter end. Investors can obtain a fund's SAI, its shareholder reports, its Form N-CSR, filed twice a year, and its Form N-CEN, filed annually. Each Fund's SAI and shareholder reports are available free upon request from the Investment Company, and those documents and the Form N-PORT, Form N-CSR, and Form N-CEN may be viewed onscreen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. In addition, the Verified Intraday Indicative Value (“VIIV”), as defined in Rule 8.900-E(c)(2),
With respect to trading of the Shares, the ability of market participants to buy and sell Shares at prices near the VIIV is dependent upon their assessment that the VIIV is a reliable, indicative real-time value for a Fund's underlying holdings. Market participants are expected to accept the VIIV as a reliable, indicative real-time value because (1) the VIIV will be calculated and disseminated based on a Fund's actual portfolio holdings, (2) the securities in which a Fund plans to invest are generally highly liquid and actively traded and trade at the same time as the Funds and therefore generally have accurate real time pricing available, and (3) market participants will have a daily opportunity to evaluate whether the VIIV at or near the close of trading is indeed predictive of the actual NAV.
Information regarding the VIIV is disseminated every second throughout each trading day by the Exchange or by market data vendors or other information providers. The VIIV is based on the current market value of the securities in a Fund's portfolio that day. The methodology for calculating the VIIV is available on the Funds' website. The VIIV is intended to provide investors and other market participants with a highly correlated per Share value of the underlying portfolio that can be compared to the current market price. Therefore, under normal circumstances the VIIV is effectively a “real-time” update of a Fund's NAV, which is computed only once a day.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of a Fund.
Specifically, Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(i) provides that the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt trading in a series of Managed Portfolio Shares. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the series of Managed Portfolio Shares inadvisable. These may include: (a) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments composing the portfolio; or (b) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(ii) provides that, if the Exchange becomes aware that: (i) The Verified Intraday Indicative Value of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares is not being calculated or disseminated in one second intervals, as required; (ii) the net asset value with respect to a series of Managed Portfolio Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time; (iii) the holdings of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares are not made available on at least a quarterly basis as required under the 1940 Act; or (iv) such holdings are not made available to all market participants at the same time (except as otherwise permitted under the currently applicable exemptive order or no-action relief granted by the Commission or Commission staff to the Investment Company with respect to the series of Managed Portfolio Shares), it will halt trading in such series until such time as the Verified Intraday Indicative Value, the net asset value, or the holdings are available, as required.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the Exchange in all trading sessions in accordance with Rule 7.34-E(a). As provided in Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00, for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.900-E, as well as all terms in the Exemptive Order. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares of each Fund that the NAV per Share of each Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products. As part of these surveillance procedures and consistent with Rule 8.900-E(b)(3), the Adviser will upon request make available to the Exchange and/or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, the daily portfolio holdings of a Fund. The issuer of the Shares of each Fund will be required to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 5.5-E(m).
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the regulatory staff of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain exchange-traded instruments with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the regulatory staff of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading such securities from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain exchange-traded instruments from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares; (2) Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding the VIIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) trading information; and (6) that the portfolio holdings of the Shares are not disclosed on a daily basis.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Funds are subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Funds would meet each of the rules relating to listing and trading of Managed Portfolio Shares. To the extent that a Fund is not in compliance with such rules, the Exchange would either prevent the Fund from listing and trading on the Exchange or commence delisting procedures under Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(B). Specifically, the Exchange would consider the suspension of trading, and commence delisting proceedings under Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(B), of a Fund under any of the following circumstances: (a) If, following the initial twelve-month period after commencement of trading on the Exchange, there are fewer than 50 beneficial holders of the Fund; (b) if the Exchange has halted trading in a Fund because the VIIV is interrupted pursuant to Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(ii) and such interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred or is no longer available; (c) if the Exchange has halted trading in a Fund because the net asset value with respect to such Fund is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, the holdings of such Fund are not made available on at least a quarterly basis as required under the 1940 Act, or such holdings are not made available to all market participants at the same time pursuant to Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(ii) and such issue persists past the trading day in which it occurred; (d) if the Exchange has halted trading in Shares of a Fund pursuant to Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(i) and such issue persists past the trading day in which it occurred; (e) if a Fund has failed to file any filings required by the Commission or if the Exchange is aware that a Fund is not in compliance with the conditions of any currently applicable exemptive order or no-action relief granted by the Commission or Commission staff with respect to the Fund; (f) if any of the continued listing requirements set forth in Rule 8.900-E are not continuously maintained; (g) if any of the statements of representations regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules as specified herein to permit the listing and trading of a Fund, are not continuously maintained; or (h) if such other event shall occur or condition exists which, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable.
As discussed above, the Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such affiliate broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a Fund's portfolio and Creation Basket. In the event that (a) the Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, the Adviser will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio and/or Creation Basket. Any person related to the Adviser or the Trust who makes decisions pertaining to a Fund's portfolio composition or that has access to information regarding a Fund's portfolio or changes thereto or the Creation Basket will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio or changes thereto and the Creation Basket.
In addition, Rule 8.900-E(b)(5) requires that any person or entity, including an AP Representative, custodian, Reporting Authority, distributor, or administrator, who has access to non-public information regarding the Investment Company's portfolio composition or changes thereto or the Creation Basket, must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio or changes thereto or the Creation Basket. Moreover, if any such person or entity is registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, such person or entity will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the person or entity and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio or Creation Basket. Any person or entity who has access to information regarding a Fund's portfolio composition or changes thereto or the Creation Basket will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the portfolio or changes thereto or the Creation Basket.
The Exchange further believes that Rule 8.900-E is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices related to the listing and trading of Shares of the Funds because it provides meaningful requirements about both the data that will be made publicly available about the Shares, as well as the information that will only be available to certain parties and the controls on such information. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the requirements related to information protection set forth in Rule 8.900-E(b)(5) will act as a safeguard against misuse and improper dissemination of information related to a Fund's portfolio composition, the Creation Basket, or changes thereto. The requirement that any person or entity implement procedures to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the portfolio or Creation Basket will act to prevent any individual or entity from sharing such information externally and the internal “fire wall” requirements applicable where an entity is a registered broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer will act to make sure that no entity will be able to misuse the data for their own purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that this proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices related to the listing and trading of Shares of the Funds and to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest because the Exchange would halt trading under certain circumstances under which trading in the Shares of a Fund may be inadvisable. Specifically, trading in the Shares will be subject to Rule 8.900-E(d)(2)(C)(i), which provides that the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt trading in a Fund. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or
With respect to the proposed listing and trading of Shares of the Funds, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Rule 8.900-E.
With respect to trading of Shares of the Funds, the ability of market participants to buy and sell Shares at prices near the VIIV is dependent upon their assessment that the VIIV is a reliable, indicative real-time value for a Fund's underlying holdings. Market participants are expected to accept the VIIV as a reliable, indicative real-time value because (1) the VIIV will be calculated and disseminated based on a Fund's actual portfolio holdings, (2) the securities in which the Funds plan to invest are generally highly liquid and actively traded and trade at the same time as the Funds and therefore generally have accurate real time pricing available, and (3) market participants will have a daily opportunity to evaluate whether the VIIV at or near the close of trading is indeed predictive of the actual NAV.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation that the NAV per Share of the Funds will be calculated daily and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Investors can also obtain a Fund's SAI, its shareholder reports, its Form N-CSR (filed twice a year), and its Form N-CEN (filed annually). A Fund's SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the applicable Fund, and those documents and the Form N-PORT, Form N-CSR, and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to the VIIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.900-E. Each Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the VIIV and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would permit the listing and trading of additional actively-managed exchange-traded products, thereby promoting competition among exchange-traded products to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend Exchange Rule 14.11(d) (“Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies)”) to accommodate Exchange listing and trading of Options-Linked Securities. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange Rule 14.11(d) provides for Exchange listing and trading of Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies) (“Linked Securities”).
The proposed amendment would include Options-Linked Securities in the list of Linked-Securities set forth in paragraph (d) of Rule 14.11. Additionally, the proposal would provide that the payment at maturity with respect to Options-Linked Securities is based on the performance of U.S. exchange-traded options on any one or combination of the following: (a) Index Fund Shares; (b) Managed Fund Shares, (c) Exchange-Traded Fund Shares; (d) Linked Securities; (e) securities defined in Rule 14.11; (f) the S&P 100 Index, the S&P 500 Index, the Nasdaq 100 Index, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the MSCI EAFE Index, the MSCI Emerging Markets
The proposal would move existing Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v) (Multifactor Index-Linked Securities Listings Standards) to Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(vi), and would set forth the Option-Linked Securities Listing Standards in Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v). Proposed Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v)(a) provides that Option-Linked Securities must meet both of the following initial listing criteria: (1) The value of the Options Reference Asset must be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; and (2) in the case of Options-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the subject Options Linked Securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session. Proposed Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v)(b) provides that Option-Linked Securities must meet the following continued listing criteria: (1) The Exchange will consider the suspension of trading in, and will initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule 14.12 if any of the initial listing criteria described above are not continuously maintained; and (2) the Exchange will consider the suspension of trading in, and will initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule 14.12 under any of the following circumstances: (A) If the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Options-Linked Securities publicly held is less than $400,000; (B) if an interruption to the dissemination of the value of the Options Reference Asset persists past the trading day in which it occurred or is no longer calculated or available and a new Options Reference Asset is substituted, unless the new Options Reference Asset meets the requirements of this Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K); or (C) if such other event shall occur or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable.
With respect to equity securities underlying Options Reference Assets, the Exchange notes that Index Fund Shares,
Finally, all Options-Linked Securities listed pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(d) would be included within the definition of securities as such terms are used in the Exchange's rules and, as such, are subject to Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Linked Securities. The Exchange also believes that the standards for listing and trading Options-Linked Securities are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such securities. The proposed addition of Options Reference Assets, as described above, would also work in conjunction with the initial and continued listing criteria related to surveillance procedures and trading guidelines for Linked Securities.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Options-Linked Securities in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange Rules. The issuer of a series of Options-Linked Securities will be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act
Quotation and last sale information for Options-Linked Securities, Index Fund Shares, Managed Fund Shares, Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Linked Securities, and securities defined in Rule 14.11 are available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such securities also will be available from the exchange on which they are listed. Quotation and last sale information for options on Index Fund Shares, Managed Fund Shares, Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Linked Securities, securities defined in Rule 14.11 and the Indexes will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority and major market data vendors. Information regarding values of the Indexes is available from major market data vendors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with the ability to better diversify and hedge their portfolios using an exchange-listed security without having to trade directly in the underlying options contracts, and will facilitate the listing and trading of additional Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
With respect to equity securities underlying Options Reference Assets, the Exchange notes that Index Fund Shares, Managed Fund Shares, Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, Linked Securities and securities defined in Rule 14.11 are subject to Exchange initial and continued listing criteria under applicable Exchange rules as approved by the Commission. In addition, the Commission has approved or issued a notice of effectiveness to permit listing on a national securities exchange of securities based on certain Indexes.
Any Options-Linked Securities would be required to meet the following initial listing criteria in proposed Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v)(a): (1) The value of the Options Reference Asset must be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; and (2) in the case of Options-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the subject Options Linked Securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session. Options-Linked Securities also will be subject to the continued listing criteria in proposed Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(v)(b) as described above. Finally, all Options-Linked Securities listed pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(d) would be included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Exchange's rules and, as such, are subject to Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Linked Securities. The Exchange also believes that the standards for listing and trading Options-Linked Securities are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such securities. The proposed addition of Options Reference Assets, as described above, would also work in conjunction with the initial and continued listing criteria related to surveillance procedures and trading guidelines for Linked Securities. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Options Linked Securities in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Trading in the securities may be halted under the conditions specified in Exchange Rule 14.11(d)(2)(H).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with the ability to better diversify and hedge their portfolios using an exchange listed security without having to trade directly in the underlying options contracts, and will facilitate the listing and trading of additional Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of additional Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The [sic] Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to July 6, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Form DS-10, Birth Affidavit, is submitted in conjunction with an application for a U.S. passport, and is used by Passport Services to collect information for the purpose of establishing the U.S. nationality of a passport applicant who has not submitted an acceptable United States birth certificate with his/her passport application. The Secretary of State is authorized to issue U.S. passports under 22 U.S.C. 211a
When needed by an applicant for a passport, a Birth Affidavit is either provided by the Department or downloaded from the Department's website and filled out by the affiant. It must be signed in the presence of a passport agent, acceptance agent, or notary public.
Iowa Northern Railway Company (Iowa Northern), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from D&W Railroad, LLC (D&W) approximately 23.40 miles of rail line, as follows: (i) The rail line from milepost 332.0 at Dewar, Iowa, to milepost 354.5 (end of line), including the most easterly rail line and right of way, known as the Main Line, which is located adjacent to the Oelwein Yard in Oelwein, Iowa, (ii) the rail line from milepost 245.58 to milepost 245.0 at Oelwein, and (iii) the rail line that comprises 0.32 miles of wye track at Oelwein that connects the so-called “East Leg” track to the Main Line track (collectively, the Line).
The verified notice states that Iowa Northern has been serving as the operator on the Line since September 2003.
Iowa Northern certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million annually. Iowa Northern further certifies that the acquisition does not involve an interchange commitment.
The transaction may be consummated on or after June 17, 2020, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than June 10, 2020 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36404, 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 Iowa Northern's representative: T. Scott Bannister, Iowa Northern Railway Company, 201 Tower Park Drive, Suite 300, Waterloo, IA 50701.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from The North Carolina Soybean Producers Association (WB20-23—5/28/20) for permission to use select data from the Board's 1990-2018 Unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB20-23.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments.
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $34 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated the exclusion process in July 2018 and has granted multiple sets of exclusions. He granted the seventh set of exclusions in September 2019, which are scheduled to expire on September 20, 2020. The U.S. Trade Representative has decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted in September 2019. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) invites public comment on whether to extend particular exclusions.
You must submit all comments through the online portal:
Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Benjamin Allen at (202) 395-5725.
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see prior notices including 82 FR 40213 (August 23, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 33608 (July 17, 2018) 83 FR 38760 (August 7, 2018), 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018), 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018), 83 FR 65198 (December 19, 2018), 84 FR 67463 (December 28, 2018), 84 FR 7966 (March 5, 2019), 84 FR 11152 (March 25, 2019), 84 FR 16310 (April 18, 2019), 84 FR 21389 (May 14, 2019), 84 FR 25895 (June 4, 2019), 84 FR 32821 (July 9, 2019), 84 FR 49564 (September 20, 2019), 84 FR 52567 (October 2, 2019), 84 FR 69016 (December 17, 2019), 84 FR 70616 (December 23, 2019), 85 FR 7816 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 15849 (March 19, 2020), 85 FR 20332 (April 10, 2020), 85 FR 28692 (May 13, 2020), and 85 FR 29503 (May 15, 2020).
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional 25 percent duties on goods of China classified in 818 eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), with an approximate annual trade value of $34 billion.
The July 11 notice required submission of requests for exclusion from the $34 billion action no later than October 9, 2018, and noted that the U.S. Trade Representative periodically would announce decisions. The U.S. Trade Representative has granted multiple sets of exclusions. He granted the seventh set of exclusions in September 2019, which are scheduled to expire on September 20, 2020.
The U.S. Trade Representative has decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted in the September 2019 notice. Accordingly, USTR invites public comments on whether to extend particular exclusions granted in the September 2019 notice. For exclusions amended or corrected by a later issued notice of product exclusions, parties should provide their extension comments on the docket corresponding to the initial notice of product exclusions.
USTR will evaluate the possible extension of each exclusion on a case-by-case basis. The focus of the evaluation will be whether, despite the first imposition of these additional duties in July 2018, the particular product remains available only from China. In addressing this factor, commenters should address specifically:
• Whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries.
• Any changes in the global supply chain since July 2018 with respect to the particular product or any other relevant industry developments.
• The efforts, if any, the importers or U.S. purchasers have undertaken since July 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
In addition, USTR will continue to consider whether the imposition of additional duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests.
To submit a comment regarding the extension of a particular exclusion granted in the September 2019 notice, commenters first must register on the portal at
Fields on the comment form marked with an asterisk (*) are required fields. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be publicly available. Additionally, parties will be able to upload documents and indicate whether the documents are BCI or public. Commenters will be able to review the public version of their comments before they are posted.
In order to facilitate the preparation of comments prior to the June 8 opening of the public docket, a facsimile of the exclusion extension comment form parties will use on the portal is annexed to this notice. Please note that the color-coding of public fields and BCI fields is not visible on the attached facsimile, but will be apparent on the actual comment form used on the portal.
Set out below is a summary of the information to be entered on the exclusion extension comment form.
• Contact information, including the full legal name of the organization making the comment, whether the commenter is a third party (
• The number for the exclusion on which you are commenting as provided in the Annex of the
• Whether the product or products covered by the exclusion are subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Whether you support or oppose extending the exclusion and an explanation of your rationale. Commenters must provide a public version of their rationale, even if the commenter also intends to submit a more detailed business confidential rationale.
• Whether the products covered by the exclusion or comparable products are available from sources in the U.S. or in third countries. Please include information concerning any changes in the global supply chain since July 2018 with respect to the particular product.
• The efforts you have undertaken since July 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
• The value and quantity of the Chinese-origin product covered by the specific exclusion request purchased in 2018 and 2019. Whether these purchases are from a related company, and if so, the name of and relationship to the related company.
• Whether Chinese suppliers have lowered their prices for products covered by the exclusion following the imposition of duties.
• The value and quantity of the product covered by the exclusion purchased from domestic and third country sources in 2018 and 2019.
• If applicable, the commenter's gross revenue for 2018 and 2019.
• Whether the Chinese-origin product of concern is sold as a final product or as an input.
• Whether the imposition of duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests.
• Any additional information in support of or in opposition to extending the exclusion.
Commenters also may provide any other information or data that they consider relevant.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit your comment between the opening of the public docket on the portal on June 8, 2020, and the July 7, 2020 submission deadline. Parties seeking to comment on two or more exclusions must submit a separate comment for each exclusion.
By submitting a comment, the commenter certifies that the information provided is complete and correct to the best of their knowledge.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Office of Management and Budget assigned control number 0350-0015, which expires January 31, 2023.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments.
Effective September 24, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $200 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated an exclusion process for the $200 billion action in June 2019 and issued 14 product exclusion notices under this action. The product exclusions granted under these notices are scheduled to expire on August 7, 2020. The U.S. Trade Representative previously decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted under the initial 11 product exclusion notices and has now decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted under the remaining product exclusion notices. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) invites public comment on whether to extend particular exclusions.
June 8, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. ET: The public docket on the web portal at
July 7, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. ET: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments on the public docket by this deadline.
You must submit all comments through the online portal:
Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Benjamin Allen at (202) 395-5725.
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see prior notices including 82 FR 40213 (August 24, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 33608 (July 17, 2018), 83 FR 38760 (August 7, 2018), 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018), 83 FR 49153 (September 28, 2018), 83 FR 65198 (December 19, 2018), 84 FR 7966 (March 5, 2019), 84 FR 20459 (May 9, 2019), 84 FR 29576 (June 24, 2019), 84 FRN 38717 (August 7, 2019), 84 FR 46212 (September 3, 2019), 84 FR 49591 (September 20, 2019), 84 FR 57803 (October 28, 2019), 84 FR 61674 (November 13, 2019), 84 FR 65882 (November 29, 2019), 84 FR 69012 (December 17, 2019), 85 FR 549 (January 6, 2020), 85 FR 6674 (February 5, 2020), 85 FR 9921 (February 20, 2020), 85 FR 15015 (March 16, 2020), 85 FR 17158 (March 26, 2020), 85 FR 23122 (April 24, 2020), 85 FR 27489 (May 8, 2020), and 85 FR 32094 (May 28, 2020).
Effective September 24, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional 10 percent duties on goods of China classified in 5,757 full and partial subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) with an approximate annual trade value of $200 billion.
The June 24 notice required submission of requests for exclusion from the $200 billion action no later than September 30, 2019, and noted that the U.S. Trade Representative periodically would announce decisions. As of May 28, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative has issued 14 notices of product exclusions under the $200 billion action. These exclusions are scheduled to expire on August 7, 2020.
On May 6, 2020, USTR requested comments concerning the possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted under the initial 11 product exclusion notices under the $200 billion action.
USTR will evaluate the possible extension of each exclusion on a case-by-case basis. The focus of the evaluation will be whether, despite the first imposition of these additional duties in September 2018, the particular product remains available only from China. In addressing this factor, commenters should address specifically:
• Whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries.
• Any changes in the global supply chain since September 2018 with respect to the particular product or any other relevant industry developments.
• The efforts, if any, the importers or U.S. purchasers have undertaken since September 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
In addition, USTR will continue to consider whether the imposition of additional duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests.
To submit a comment regarding the extension of a particular exclusion granted under the above referenced product exclusion notices under the $200 billion action, commenters first must register on the portal at
Fields on the comment form marked with an asterisk (*) are required fields. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for business confidential information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Fields with a green (public) notation will be publicly
In order to facilitate the preparation of comments prior to the June 8 opening of the public docket, a facsimile of the exclusion extension comment form to be used on the portal is annexed to this notice. Please note that the color-coding of the public and BCI fields is not visible on the annex, but will be apparent on the actual comment form used on the portal.
Set out below is a summary of the information to be entered on the exclusion extension comment form.
• Contact information, including the full legal name of the organization making the comment, whether the commenter is a third party (
• The number for the exclusion on which you are commenting as provided in the annex of the
• Whether the product or products covered by the exclusion are subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Whether you support or oppose extending the exclusion and an explanation of your rationale. Commenters must provide a public version of their rationale, even if the commenter also intends to submit a more detailed BCI rationale.
• Whether the products covered by the exclusion or comparable products are available from sources in the U.S. or in third countries. Please include information concerning any changes in the global supply chain since September 2018 with respect to the particular product.
• The efforts you have undertaken since September 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
• The value and quantity of the Chinese-origin product covered by the specific exclusion request purchased in 2018 and 2019. Whether these purchases are from a related company, and if so, the name of and relationship to the related company.
• Whether Chinese suppliers have lowered their prices for products covered by the exclusion following the imposition of duties.
• The value and quantity of the product covered by the exclusion purchased from domestic and third country sources in 2018 and 2019.
• If applicable, the commenter's gross revenue for 2018 and 2019.
• Whether the Chinese-origin product of concern is sold as a final product or as an input.
• Whether the imposition of duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests.
• Any additional information in support of or in opposition to extending the exclusion.
Commenters also may provide any other information or data that they consider relevant.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit your comment between the opening of the public docket on the portal on June 08, 2020 and the July 07, 2020 submission deadline. Parties seeking to comment on more than one exclusion must submit a separate comment for each exclusion.
By submitting a comment, the commenter certifies that the information provided is complete and correct to the best of their knowledge.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Office of Management and Budget has assigned control number 0350-0015, which expires January 31, 2023.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; revisions to the listing of designated and restricted routes for hazardous materials.
This notice makes revisions to the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (NHMRR) reported to the FMCSA from April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020. The NHMRR is a listing, as reported by States and Tribal governments, of all designated and restricted roads and preferred highway routes for transportation of highway route controlled quantities of Class 7 (radioactive materials) (HRCQ/RAM) and non-radioactive hazardous materials (NRHM).
Effective date: June 3, 2020.
Ms. Melissa Williams, Hazardous Materials Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4163,
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section 5112 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), permit States and Tribal governments to designate and limit highway routes over which hazardous materials (HM) may be transported, provided the State or Tribal government complies with standards prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) and meets publication requirements in section 5112(c). To establish standards under paragraph (b), the Secretary must consult with the States, and, under section 5112(c), coordinate with the States to “update and publish periodically” a list of currently effective HM highway routing designations and restrictions. The requirements that States and Tribal governments must follow to establish, maintain, or enforce routing designations for the transport of placardable quantities of NRHM are set forth in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C. Subpart D of part 397 sets out the requirements for designating preferred routes for highway route controlled quantities of HRCQ/RAM shipments as an alternative, or in addition, to Interstate System highways. For HRCQ/RAM shipments, § 397.101 defines a preferred route as an Interstate Highway for which no alternative route is designated by the State; a route specifically designated by the State; or both. (See § 397.65 for the definition of “NRHM” and “routing designations.”)
Under a delegation from the Secretary,
Currently, § 397.73 establishes public information and reporting requirements for NRHM. States or Tribal governments are required to furnish information to FMCSA regarding any new or changed routes within 60 days after establishment. Under § 397.103, a State routing designation for HRCQ/RAM routes (preferred routes) as an alternative, or in addition, to an Interstate System highway, is effective when the authorized routing agency provides FMCSA with written notification, FMCSA acknowledges receipt in writing, and the route is published in FMCSA's NHMRR. The Office of Management and Budget has approved these collections of information under control number 2126-0014, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing.
In this notice, FMCSA is merely performing the ministerial function of updating and publishing the NHMRR based on input from its State and Tribal partners under 49 U.S.C. 5112(c)(1). Accordingly, this notice serves only to provide the most recent revisions to the NHMRR; it does not establish any new public information and reporting requirements.
FMCSA published the full NHMRR in a
This notice makes revisions to the NHMRR, reported to the FMCSA from April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020. The revisions to the NHMRR listings in this notice supersede and replace corresponding NHMRR listings published in the April 29, 2015 notice and corresponding revisions to the NHMRR listings published in the August 8, 2016, August 9, 2018, and September 24, 2019 notices. Please continue to refer to the April 29, 2015 notice for additional background on the NHMRR and the August 8, 2016 notice for the procedures for State and Tribal government routing agencies to update their Route Registry listings and contact information.
The full current NHMRR for each State is posted on FMCSA's website at:
In accordance with the requirements of §§ 397.73 and 397.103, the NHMRR is revised as follows:
The existing Route Order Designator “A1” is revised to remove the “I” designation.
A new additional Route Order Designator “A1” is added and assigned an “I” designation.
Route Order Designator “A2” with the “I” designation is revised.
Route Order Designator “A4A-3.0B” with the “I” designation is revised to remove the QA comment.
Route Order Designator “A4A-3.0-D” is revised to remove the “B” designation.
Route Order Designator “A5A-3.0-C1” is revised and the QA comment is removed.
Route Order Designator “A5A-3.0-C2” is revised and the QA comment is removed.
A new Route Order Designator “A5A-3.0-C3” is added.
Route Order Designator “A5A-3.0-D” is revised and the QA comment is removed.
Route Order Designator “A10Q-2.0” is revised.
A new Route Order Designator “A11P-1.0-A1” is added.
Each listing in the NHMRR includes codes to identify each route designation and each route restriction reported by the State. Designation codes identify the routes along which a driver may or must transport specified HM. Among the designation codes is one for preferred routes, which apply to the transportation of a highway route controlled quantity of Class 7 (radioactive) material. Restriction codes identify the routes along which a driver may not transport specified HM shipments.
End of Revisions to the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice provides priorities for programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, announces the full-year apportionments and allocations for grant programs, provides contract authority, and describes plans for several competitive programs.
For general information about this notice, contact Kimberly Sledge, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Program Management, at (202) 366-2053. Please contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office for any specific requests for information or technical assistance. FTA Regional Office contact information is available on FTA's website:
This document provides notice to stakeholders that FTA is apportioning the full Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 authorized contract authority through September 30, 2020 for FTA formula and competitive programs pursuant to Division H of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94). In addition, this document contains important information about FTA programs, statutory requirements, and policy priorities.
For each FTA program, FTA has provided information on the FY 2020 authorized funding levels, funding availability and the period of availability of funds. A separate section provides information on pre-award authority as well as other requirements applicable to FTA programs and grant administration. Finally, the notice includes a reference to tables on FTA's website that show new contract authority apportioned and made available through September 30, 2020.
Information in this document includes references to existing FTA program guidance and circulars. Some information in FTA's guidance documents and circulars may have been superseded by new provisions in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94), but these guidance documents and circulars remain a resource for program management in most areas.
Division H of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) (“Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020”) makes $12.8 billion in funding available for FTA programs in FY 2020. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 provides $10.15 billion in funding from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund at the amounts authorized by the FAST Act for FY 2020, along with $2.64 billion in general funds including $1.978 billion for Capital Investment Grants, $150 million in additional general contract authority for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and $510 million for transit infrastructure grants including: $168 million for Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities formula grants, $170 million for Buses and Bus Facilities competitive grants, $75 million for Low or No Emissions Grants, $40 million for Formula Grants for Rural Areas, $40 million for the Section 5340 High Density States Apportionments, $5.5 million for Section 5312 Public Transportation Innovation, and $3 million for low and no emission vehicle testing facilities. Also included is $8.5 million for new competitive grants in areas of persistent poverty. Current funding availability for each program is identified in section IV of this notice and in Table 1 located on FTA's FY 2020 Apportionment web page:
Section 5338(f) of title 49, United States Code (all subsequent statutory references are to title 49, United States Code unless otherwise noted) provides for the following oversight takedowns of FTA programs: 0.5 percent of Metropolitan and Statewide Planning funds, 0.75 percent of Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds, 1 percent of Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants funds, 0.5 percent of Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities funds, 0.5 percent of Formula Grants for Rural Areas funds, 1 percent of State of Good Repair Formula Grants funds, 0.75 percent of Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities funds, and 1 percent of funds for Capital and Preventive Maintenance Projects for grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. FTA uses the funds to provide necessary oversight activities, such as oversight of the construction of any major capital project receiving Federal public transportation assistance; to conduct State Safety Oversight, drug and alcohol, civil rights, procurement systems, management, planning certification, and financial management reviews and audits; evaluations and analyses of grantee-specific problems and issues; and to generally provide technical assistance and correct deficiencies identified in compliance reviews and audits.
FTA publishes apportionment tables on its website for each program that reflects the funding level in the full-year appropriations act less oversight take-downs, as applicable. FTA has posted tables displaying the funds available to eligible states, tribes, and urbanized areas to
Consistent with past practices, the apportionments calculations for Sections 5307, 5311 (including 5311(c)(1)), 5329, 5337, and 5339 rely on the most-recent transit service data reported to the NTD, which for FY 2020 is the 2018 report year. In some cases, where an apportionment is based on the age of the system, the age is calculated as of September 30, 2019, the last day before FY 2020 began. Recipients or beneficiaries of either Section 5307 or 5311 funds are required to report to the NTD. Additionally, several transit
The 2010 Census data is used to determine population and population density for Sections 5303, 5305, 5307 and 5339 as well as rural population and rural land area for the 5311 program. The formulas for Sections 5307, 5311, and 5311(c)(1) include tiers where funding is allocated based on the number of persons living in poverty, and the Section 5310 formula program allocates funding based on the population of older adults and people with disabilities. The Census Bureau no longer publishes decennial census data on persons living in poverty and persons with disabilities. As a result, since FY 2013, FTA has used the data for these populations available via the Census' American Community Survey (ACS). The NTD and Census data that FTA used to calculate the apportionments associated with this notice can be found on FTA's website:
The FY 2020 apportionments use data on low-income persons, persons with disabilities, and older adults from the 2013-2017 ACS five-year data set, which was published in December 2018. This data represents the most recent five-year ACS estimates that are available as of October 1 for the year being apportioned. As was the case in prior years, data on low-income persons comes from ACS Table B17024, “Age by Ratio of Income to Poverty in the Last Twelve Months,” and data on people with disabilities under 65 years old comes from ACS Table S1810, “Disability Characteristics.” Data on older adults (over 65 years old) comes from ACS Table B01001, “Sex by Age.”
The Bureau of the Census will carry out the next decennial census in 2020. Data collected during the decennial census impacts the type and amount of funding that FTA recipients are eligible to receive. The Bureau of the Census will issue a list of Urbanized Areas and population statistics based on 2020 Census data. Changes to an area's designation as an urban or rural area will change the grant programs for which recipients in that area are eligible. Changes to the size and population of an area may mean that the area will receive more or less formula funding than it received based on 2010 Census data, or may change whether a recipient receives funding directly from FTA or indirectly from a pass-through entity. It is expected that 2020 Census data will be utilized for FTA funding beginning in FY 2023, after careful processing of the data by the Bureau of the Census, followed by review and evaluation of the data by FTA.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 601.42, on January 15, 2020 FTA announced the establishment of an Emergency Relief Docket for calendar year 2020. See
As FTA implements its programs, it is particularly focused on the following policy priority areas in FY 2020.
FTA is launching the Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) Initiative to significantly advance the adoption of innovative technologies, practices or service models to improve mobility and the customer experience. Furthermore, the AIM initiative seeks to ensure these new technologies or practices permit interoperability across transit systems.
On March 18, 2020, FTA announced an $11 million Notice of Funding Opportunity under the AIM Initiative to support and advance innovation in the transit industry. AIM challenge grants will help transit agencies explore new service models that provide more efficient and frequent service, which will help retain riders. As a funding partner, FTA will help alleviate the potential risks involved in adopting new technologies and practices.
FTA's Fiscal Year 2020 competitive capital grant programs, which total $615 million, will highlight innovation as part of their selection criteria. This will provide applicants with an opportunity to showcase how they can incorporate new approaches to improve the rider experience. FTA's Technical Assistance Centers will provide targeted technical assistance to deploy successful innovative models and develop case studies and hands-on resources. The centers will hold workshops focused on bringing together transit agencies to discuss best practices, identify barriers, and advance the adoption of new technologies and practices while ensuring safety for riders. More information on the AIM initiative is available at:
The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) regulation at 49 CFR part 673 requires certain operators of public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (ASP) by July 20, 2020. On April 22, 2020, FTA issued a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to alert transit agencies that, until December 31, 2020, FTA will refrain from taking enforcement action against any FTA recipient or subrecipient subject to the PTASP regulation that is unable to certify that it has established an Agency Safety Plan that complies with the regulation by the July 20 compliance deadline. During this time, the PTASP Technical Assistance Center will remain available to meet grantees' PTASP technical assistance needs.
The PTASP regulation applies to all operators of public transportation systems that are recipients and sub-recipients of federal financial assistance under the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5307) and rail transit agencies that are subject to FTA's State Safety Oversight Program. FTA has deferred applicability of Part 673 for operators that only receive funds through FTA's Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program under 49 U.S.C. 5310 and/or Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program under 49 U.S.C. 5311. In addition, Part 673 does not apply to certain modes of transit service that are subject to the safety jurisdiction of another Federal agency, including passenger ferry operations that are regulated by the United States Coast Guard and commuter rail operations that are regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration.
In addition, States must draft and certify ASPs on behalf of small public transportation providers within a State, unless a small provider opts to draft and certify their own ASP and notifies the
• Is a recipient or sub-recipient of FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program,
• Operates 100 or fewer vehicles in peak revenue service across all fixed route modes and any each non-fixed route mode, and
• Does not operate rail fixed-guideway public transportation.
Regardless of who drafts and certifies an ASP, each transit operator is required to carry out and implement its own ASP.
State Safety Oversight Agencies must review and approve the ASP of each rail transit agency that they oversee.
Applicants for Urbanized Area Formula Program funds, rail transit agencies that are subject to FTA's State Safety Oversight Program, and States that are required to draft and certify an ASP on behalf of a small public transportation provider must certify that they have met the requirements of the PTASP regulation no later than July 20, 2020. The certification requirement does not apply to any applicant that receives financial assistance from FTA exclusively under the Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors Program (49 U.S.C. 5310), the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. 5311), or combination of these two programs.
Applicants that receive awards prior to fulfilling their requirements under the PTASP regulation and prior to July 20, 2020, will execute all other relevant certifications and then execute the PTASP certification after the requirements are met, but no later than July 20, 2020. After July 20, 2020, FTA will not process a grant application without the PTASP certification.
For more information on the requirements, please visit the PTASP Technical Assistance Center at
FTA encourages grantees to consider options to utilize value capture in planning and financing capital projects. Per 49 U.S.C. 5302(24), value capture is the process by which a public agency leverages or recovers a portion of the increased value of properties located near public transportation. Extensive research has shown that public transportation investments can lead to significant increases in land values located close to transit systems due to the increased access to that location. While these increased values typically accrue to private landowners, the public investment leading to these increases may depend upon the return of a portion of that value to finance the project or fund the continuing upkeep and maintenance of the associated transit system infrastructure. This recaptured revenue may reduce the amount of public funding required from Federal, state and local government sources and increase the amount of total funding available for urgent infrastructure projects.
There are many mechanisms available for transit agencies and local governments to recover or leverage the increased value that transit creates to generate revenues to fund current transit operations or future capital investments. Examples include tax increment financing, impact fees, joint development, sale of air rights or naming rights, special assessment districts, and others. Value capture revenues are also eligible to be used as local match for Federal grants (49 U.S.C. 5323(s)).
Recognizing that value capture can help to promote transit-supportive land uses and can optimize the benefits of transit investments, FTA intends to solicit comment from transit agencies, local governments, land developers and other stakeholders on how FTA can support and better assess the use of value capture for public transportation projects. The upcoming call for public comment will include several questions regarding how FTA identifies, supports and assesses value capture through its funding programs and related policies.
The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) is an interagency partnership established by Executive Order 13330 to coordinate the efforts of the Federal agencies that fund transportation services for transportation disadvantaged populations. The CCAM met on October 29, 2019 and adopted a new Strategic Plan. To facilitate coordination the CCAM has clarified the ability to use federal funds as match and the applicability of FTA's Charter Service Regulations.
Federal fund braiding refers to funding arrangements in which funds from one federal program are used to meet the local match requirements of another. FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. 5307), Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. 5310), Formula Grants for Rural Areas (49 U.S.C. 5311) and Tribal Transit Program Formula Grants (49 U.S.C. 5311(c)(1)(B)) allow federal funds from outside the Department of Transportation (DOT) to be used as local match. In 2019, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) partner agencies developed the CCAM Program Inventory which identifies 130 Federal programs that may fund transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, and/or individuals of low income. For instance, sixty-six programs from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are eligible to be used as local match for Section 5307, 5310, 5311 and 5311(c)(1)(B) grants.
FTA's Charter Service Regulations (49 CFR part 604), which implement 49 U.S.C. 5323(d), have limited exceptions when an FTA grantee may provide charter service, including services provided by Qualified Human Service Organizations (QHSO) serving elderly, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. The Charter Rule exception for QHSOs applies to organizations that are either registered on the FTA website on a bi-annual basis, or receive funding from one of the sources listed in
Rural transportation infrastructure faces significant challenges. Over 70 percent of America's road miles are in rural areas. While one-fifth of Americans live in rural areas, rural America's traffic fatalities are disproportionately high, totaling 46 percent of fatalities in 2018. Further, of the nation's bridges that are posted for weight limits, 90 percent are in rural areas.
The new ROUTES Initiative will address these challenges by assisting rural stakeholders in understanding how to access DOT grants and financing products, and developing data-driven approaches to better assess needs and benefits of rural transportation projects. This builds on DOT's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan Program's Rural Project
Consistent with the ROUTES Initiative, FTA will encourage applicants to FY 2020 competitive funding opportunities to consider how their proposed projects will address the challenges faced by rural areas.
DOT also formed a rural transportation infrastructure council, the ROUTES Council, to lead the way on this initiative. This new internal deliberative body at DOT will identify critical rural transportation concerns and coordinate efforts among DOT's different modal administrations. The Council will initially review public comments and create a rural resources handbook. The first meeting was held in November 2019. To learn more, visit the ROUTES Initiative website:
Despite the growing national economy, economically distressed communities are located in every corner of the United States and its territories. These communities have high levels of poverty, failing schools, job scarcity, and a lack of investment. A new tax incentive, Opportunity Zones, was created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to spur economic development and job creation by encouraging long-term investment in low-income communities nationwide.
The Opportunity Zone designation encourages investment in communities by granting investors extensive Federal tax advantages for using their capital gains to finance new projects and enterprises. There are more than 8,700 designated Qualified Opportunity Zones located in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and five United States territories. Of the Qualified Opportunity Zones 40 percent are in rural census tracts, 38 percent are in urban tracts, and 22 percent are in suburban tracts.
In determining the allocation of competitive program funds, FTA may prioritize projects located in or that support public transportation service in a qualified Opportunity Zone.
FTA's competitive grants programs and the FY 2020 appropriated funding levels are identified in the chart below. FTA selects projects for funding after issuance of a Notice of Funding Opportunity. Additional information about each competitive program is in Section III of this notice.
Section 7613 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 (NDAA) amends 49 U.S.C. 5323 to add subsections (u) Limitation on Certain Rail Rolling Stock Procurements and (v) Cybersecurity Certification for Rail Rolling Stock and Operations. FTA issued guidance to help transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturers understand and comply with the prohibitions on FTA-funded rolling stock procurements contained in the FY2020 NDAA found at
Section 5305(d) authorizes Federal funding to support a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive planning program for transportation investment decision-making at the metropolitan area level. The specific requirements of metropolitan transportation planning are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and further explained in 23 CFR part 450, as incorporated by reference in 49 CFR part 613, Planning Assistance and Standards. The State DOTs are the designated recipients of Metropolitan Planning Programs (MPP) and State Planning and Research Program (SPRP) funds allocated by FTA, which are then sub-allocated to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for planning activities that support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area. The Secretary has the discretion to award MPP and SPRP assistance to States, authorities of States, MPOs, and local governmental authorities.
Each MPO must establish specific performance targets against system performance measures issued by DOT, and use these in tracking progress towards attaining critical outcomes. The MPO must coordinate with States and transit providers in setting these targets. MPOs must provide a system performance report that evaluates progress in meeting the performance targets in comparison with the system performance identified in prior reports. MPP funding must support work resulting in balanced and comprehensive intermodal transportation planning for the movement of people and goods in the metropolitan area. Comprehensive transportation planning is not limited to transit planning or surface transportation planning, but also encompasses the relationships among
Federal public transportation law authorizes $142,036,417 to carry out section 5305. Of the amounts authorized for Section 5305, 82.72 percent, or $117,492,524, is made available to the Metropolitan Planning Program in FY 2020 to provide financial assistance for metropolitan planning needs under Section 5303.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $117,492,524 is available to the Metropolitan Planning Program (Section 5305(d)) to support metropolitan transportation planning activities set forth in Section 5303. The total amount apportioned for the Metropolitan Planning Program to States for use by MPOs in urbanized areas (UZAs) is $123,181,798 as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by Section 5338) and the addition of reapportioned funds.
The Metropolitan Planning program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus three additional fiscal years. Funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2023. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2023, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Metropolitan Planning Program.
This program provides financial assistance to States for statewide transportation planning and other technical assistance activities, including supplementing the technical assistance program provided through the Metropolitan Planning program and planning support for non-urbanized areas. The specific requirements of Statewide transportation planning are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5304 and further explained in 23 CFR part 450 as referenced in 49 CFR part 613, Planning Assistance and Standards. State DOTs are required to reference performance measures and performance targets within the Statewide Planning process. This funding must support work resulting in balanced and comprehensive intermodal transportation planning for the movement of people and goods and has the same eligibilities as MPP funds.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $24,543,893 in FY 2020, to provide financial assistance for statewide planning and other technical assistance activities under Section 5305. As specified in law, this represents the 17.28 percent of the amounts available for Section 5305 that are allocated to the Statewide Planning and Research program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $24,543,893 is available for the State Planning and Research Program (Section 5305(e)). The total amount apportioned for the State Planning and Research Program (SPRP) is $24,421,174 as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by Section 5338).
The State Planning and Research program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus three additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2023. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain
The Urbanized Area Formula Program provides financial assistance to designated recipients in urbanized areas (UZAs) for capital investments in public transportation systems, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and, in some cases, operating assistance. FTA apportions funds for this program through a statutory formula. Of the amount authorized for Section 5307 each year, $30 million is set aside for the competitive Passenger Ferry Grant Program (Ferry program), as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5307(h). The Ferry program offers financial assistance to public ferry systems in urbanized areas for capital projects. Projects are selected annually through a funding competition. Additionally, 0.5 percent will be apportioned to eligible States for State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program grants, and 0.75 percent will be set aside for program oversight. Further information on the 0.5 percent apportionment to States for the State Safety Oversight Program is provided in section IV.M. of this notice.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $4,929,452,499 in FY 2020 to provide financial assistance for urbanized areas under Section 5307.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $4,929,452,499 is available for the Urbanized Area Formula program. The total amount apportioned is $5,371,536,821, which includes the addition of reapportioned funds and amounts apportioned to UZAs pursuant to the Section 5340 Growing States and High-Density States Formula factors. This amount to UZAs excludes the set-aside of $30 million for the Ferry program, apportionments under the State Safety Oversight Program, and oversight (authorized by Section 5338), as shown in the table below:
Funds made available under the Urbanized Area Formula Program are available for obligation during the year of apportionment plus five additional years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated by September 30, 2025. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2025 will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Urbanized Area Formula Program.
Funds allocated under the Ferry program have the same period of availability as Section 5307. Accordingly, funds allocated in FY 2020 must be obligated by September 30, 2025. Any of the funds allocated in FY 2020 that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2025 will revert to FTA for reallocation under the Ferry program. Competitive Ferry program funds are available for obligation during the FY in which funds are allocated/awarded to projects plus five additional years.
The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program includes four types of eligible projects: New Starts projects, Small Starts projects, Core Capacity Improvement projects, and Programs of Inter-related Projects. Funding is provided for construction of: (1) New fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems such as rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, light rail, trolleybus (using overhead catenary), cable car, passenger ferries, and bus rapid transit operating on an exclusive transit lane for the majority of the corridor length during peak periods that also includes features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway, including defined stations, traffic signal priority for public transit vehicles, and short headway bi-directional service for a substantial part of weekdays and weekends; (2) corridor-based bus rapid transit service that does not operate on an exclusive transit lane but includes features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway, including defined stations, traffic signal priority for public transit vehicles, and short headway bi-directional services for a substantial part of weekdays; (3) projects that expand the capacity by at least 10 percent in an existing fixed guideway corridor that is at capacity today or will be in five years; and (4) programs of two or more interrelated projects as described above that have logical connectivity with one another and will all begin construction in a reasonable timeframe. FAST Act Section 3005(b) authorizes an Expedited Project Delivery for the CIG Pilot Program.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $2,301,785,760 in FY 2020, to provide financial assistance for Capital Investment Grants under Section 5309 and Section 3005(b) of the FAST Act.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $1,978,000,000 is available for Capital Investment Grants for the Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Program and the FAST Act Section 3005(b) Expedited Project Delivery for CIG Pilot Program. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 requires that $1,681,300,000 of the amount available must be allocated by December 31, 2021. The funds are available to be allocated in the following amounts: $1,458,000,000 for New Starts projects; $300,000,000 for Core Capacity projects; $100,000,000 for Small Starts projects; $100,000,000 for FAST Act Section 3005(b) Expedited Project Delivery for CIG Pilot Program projects and $19,780,000 for Oversight. The total amount available for projects is $1,958,220,000 as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by Section 5338).
Capital Investment Grant program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus three additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2023.
Section 143 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-94, eliminated the requirement for a portion of FY 2018 CIG funds to be obligated by December 31, 2019 and a portion of FY 2019 funds to be obligated by December 31, 2020. All FY 2018 CIG funds must now be obligated by September 30, 2021 and must be disbursed by the recipient by September 30, 2026. All FY 2019 CIG funds must now be obligated by September 30, 2022 and must be disbursed by the recipient by September 30, 2027.
The Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program provides formula funding to states and urbanized areas for meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when the public transportation service provided is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meet these needs. The program aims to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities by removing barriers to transportation service and expanding transportation mobility options. The Pilot Program for Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Program (Pilot Program) was established by Section 3006(b) of the FAST Act. The purpose of the program is to assist in financing innovative projects for the transportation disadvantaged that improve the coordination of transportation services and non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services, including, for example, the deployment of coordination technology, and projects that create or increase access to community One-Call/One-Click Centers.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $285,574,688 in FY 2020 to provide formula funding to designated recipients and states for meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities. The law also authorizes $3.50 million for the competitive Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Pilot Program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $285,574,688 is available for the Section 5310 formula program. The total amount apportioned is $288,155,908 after the oversight deduction and the addition of reapportioned funds as shown in the table below. A total of $3,500,000 is available for the competitive Pilot Program.
The Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus two additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2022. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2022, will revert to FTA for reapportionment among the States and urbanized areas.
The Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program provides formula funding to States and Indian tribes for supporting public transportation in areas with a population of less than 50,000. Funding may be used for capital, operating, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and State administration expenses. Eligible subrecipients include State and local governmental authorities, Indian Tribes, private non-profit organizations, and
Federal public transportation law authorizes $673,299,658 for FY 2020 to provide financial assistance for rural areas under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program. This amount includes $35 million for the Tribal Transit Program; $20 million for the Appalachian Program; $13,465,993 for the Rural Transit Assistance Program; and $604,833,664 for the Rural Formula Program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $644,033,664 is available for the Rural Area Formula Program. The total amount apportioned to the program is $727,197,332 as shown in the table below, after the addition of reapportioned funds, the addition of Section 5340(c) Growing States funds, and the oversight deduction authorized by Section 5338.
The Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus two additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2022. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2022, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program.
This program provides funding to assist in the design and implementation of training and technical assistance projects, research, and other support services tailored to meet the needs of transit operators in rural areas.
Federal public transportation law authorized $13,465,993, or two percent of the funds made available for the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program, to be made available for the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP). Of the two percent takedown, 15 percent is reserved for the National Rural Transit Assistance Program (NRTAP). The remainder is available for allocation to the States.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $14,265,993 is available for the RTAP. The total amount apportioned for RTAP is $12,126,094 as shown in the table below, after the deduction for NRTAP.
The RTAP funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus two additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2022.
This program is a take-down under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program to provide additional funding to support public transportation in the Appalachian region. There are thirteen eligible States that receive an allocation under this provision. The State allocations are shown in the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program table posted on FTA's website on the FY 2020 Apportionments page.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $20 million in FY 2020 as a take-down under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas program to support public transportation in the Appalachian region.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $20 million is available.
The Appalachian program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus two additional fiscal years, consistent with that established for the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program.
The Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program, or Tribal Transit Program (TTP), totals $35 million, of which $30 million is for a formula program and $5 million is for a competitive grant program. It is funded as a takedown from funds made available for the Formula Grants for Rural Areas program. Formula factors include vehicle revenue miles and the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands (defined as American Indian Areas and Alaska Native Areas). Eligible direct recipients are Federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages providing public transportation in rural areas. The TTP funds are allocated for grants to eligible recipients for any purpose eligible under Formula Grants for Rural Areas program, which includes capital, operating, planning, and job access and reverse commute projects.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $35 million in FY 2020 to provide assistance to tribes through the Public Transportation on Indian Reservations formula and competitive programs.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $30 million is available for the formula program and $5 million for the competitive program. The total apportioned for the formula program is $32,604,193 after the addition of reapportioned funds.
The TTP formula program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus two additional fiscal years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2022. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2022, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the TTP formula program. Competitive TTP funds are available for obligation during the FY in which funds are awarded to projects plus two additional years.
Public Transportation Innovation is FTA's research program with the overarching statutory goal to improve public transportation. The law specifies research focus areas, including providing more effective and efficient public transportation service; mobility management; system capacity; advanced vehicle design; asset maintenance; construction and project management; environment and energy efficiency; and safety improvements. FTA may make grants, enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, and other agreements to carry out the research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects, including research and technology of national significance to public transportation.
Within this section are three distinct programs: (a) A Research, Development, Demonstration, Deployment, and Evaluation program (49 U.S.C. 5312(b-e)); (b) a Low or No Emission Vehicle Component Assessment Program (LoNo-CAP) (49 U.S.C. 5312(h)); and (c) a Transit Cooperative Research Program (49 U.S.C. 5312(i)). Eligible recipients can be departments, agencies, and governmental agencies, including Federal Laboratories; state and local entities; providers of public transportation; private or non-profit organizations; institutions of higher education; and technical community colleges. Each program area has specific requirements relating to the type of organization that may receive a grant or enter an agreement.
The types of research eligible for funding are broad and include: Opportunities to enhance public transportation operational effectiveness and efficiency; improve services; leverage new types of vehicle technologies; utilize transformative technologies to improve public transportation; field new mobility models; and support increased safety.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $28 million in FY 2020 funding for the Public Transportation Innovation program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $36,500,000 is available for the Public Transportation Innovation program. The total amounts apportioned to each subcomponent of the program is shown below in the table.
Funding is available until expended.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $9 million in contract authority for the Technical Assistance and Workforce Development Program, of which $5 million is authorized for NTI. An additional $5 million is authorized to be appropriated from the general fund.
In FY 2020 under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $14 million is available for the Technical Assistance and Workforce Development program, as shown in the table below. Of the available amounts $5 million is available for the NTI.
FTA establishes the period in which the funds must be obligated to each project. If the funds are not obligated within that time, they revert to FTA for reallocation under the program.
The State Safety Oversight Formula Program provides funding to support States with rail fixed guideway public transportation systems (rail transit systems) to develop and carry out State Safety Oversight (SSO) Programs consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $24,647,263 in FY 2020 to provide funding to support States in developing and carrying out the SSO Program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $24,647,263 is available for the State Safety Oversight (SSO) Formula program as shown in the table below.
SSO Formula Grant Program funds are available for the year of apportionment plus, two additional years. Any FY 2020 funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2022 will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the SSO Formula Grant Program.
The State of Good Repair Program provides financial assistance to designated recipients in Urbanized Areas (UZAs) with fixed guideway and high-intensity motorbus systems for capital investments that maintain, rehabilitate, and replace aging transit assets and bring fixed guideway and high intensity motorbus systems into a state of good repair. FTA apportions funds for this program through a statutory formula using data reported to the National Transit Database (NTD).
Federal public transportation law authorizes $2,683,798,369 in FY 2020 for the State of Good Repair Program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $2,683,798,369 is available for the State of Good Repair Program. The total amount apportioned is $2,656,960,385
The State of Good Repair Program funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus three additional years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2023. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2023 will revert to FTA for reappointment under the State of Good Repair Program.
The Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program provides financial assistance to states, local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and designated recipients for capital investments in public transportation systems to replace, rehabilitate, lease, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through Section 5339(a) formula allocations, Section 5339(b) competitive grants, and Section 5339(c) low or no emission grants.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $808,653,915 in FY 2020 to provide financial assistance for Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities. Of this amount, $464,609,736 is authorized for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Formula program and $344,044,179 for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive program, of which $55,000,000 is available for the Low or No Emissions program.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $1,221,653,915 is available for Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities. Of this amount $627,865,163 is available for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Formula Program, $454,626,348 is available for the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Program, and $130,000,000 is available for the Low or No Emission Grants Program after the takedown for oversight.
The Buses and Bus Facilities Program formula funds apportioned in this notice are available for obligation during FY 2020 plus three additional years. Accordingly, funds apportioned in FY 2020 must be obligated in grants by September 30, 2023. Any FY 2020 apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2023 will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Buses and Bus Facilities Formula Program. Competitive 5339(b) and 5339(c) funds are available for obligation during the
Federal public transportation law authorizes the use of formula factors to distribute additional funds to the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula program and Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas program for growing states and high-density states. FTA will continue to publish single urbanized and rural apportionments that show the total amount for Section 5307 and 5311 programs that includes Section 5340 apportionments for these programs.
Federal public transportation law authorizes $570,032,917 for apportionment in FY 2020 for the Growing States and High-Density States Formula factors.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $610,032,917 is available for the Growing States and High-Density States formula.
Under the Growing States portion of the Section 5340 formula, FTA projects each State's 2025 population by comparing each State's apportionment year population (as determined by the Census Bureau) to the State's 2010 Census population and extrapolating to 2025 based on each State's rate of population growth between 2010 and the apportionment year. Each State receives a share of Growing States funds based on its projected 2025 population relative to the nationwide projected 2025 population.
Once each State's share is calculated, funds attributable to that State are divided into an urbanized area allocation and a non-urbanized area allocation based on the percentage of each State's 2010 Census population that resides in urbanized and non-urbanized areas. Urbanized Areas receive portions of their State's urbanized area allocation based on the 2010 Census population in that urbanized area relative to the total 2010 Census population in all urbanized areas in the State. These amounts are added to the Urbanized Area's Section 5307 apportionment. The States' rural area allocation is added to the allocation that each State receives under the Formula Grants for Rural Areas program.
The High-Density States portion of the Section 5340 formula are allocated to urbanized areas in States with a population density equal to or greater than 370 persons per square mile. Based on this threshold and 2010 Census data, the States that qualify are Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey. The amount of funds provided to each of these seven States is allocated based on the population density of the individual State relative to the population density of all seven States. Once funds are allocated to each State, funds are then allocated to urbanized areas within the States based on an individual urbanized area's population relative to the population of all urbanized areas in that State.
Section 601 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) authorized an aggregate amount of $1.5 billion to be available in increments over 10 fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 2009 to assist the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) in implementing its Capital Improvement Program and preventive maintenance projects. The funds authorized under PRIIA were fully appropriated after FY 2019. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 provides funding for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Grants for an additional year in the amount of $150,000,000.
Under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, $150,000,000 is available. The total amount available is $148,500,000 after the deduction for oversight as shown in the table below.
Funds appropriated for WMATA under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 shall remain available until expended.
While FTA provides pre-award authority to incur expenses before grant award for formula programs, it recommends that first-time grant recipients NOT utilize this automatic pre-award authority without verifying with the appropriate FTA Regional Office that all pre-requisite requirements have been met. Commonly, a new grantee may misunderstand pre-award authority
FTA provides pre-award authority to incur expenses before grant award for certain program areas described below. This pre-award authority allows grantees to incur certain project costs before grant approval and retain the eligibility of those costs for subsequent reimbursement after grant approval. The grantee assumes all risk and is responsible for ensuring that all conditions are met to retain eligibility. This pre-award spending authority permits an eligible grantee to incur costs on an eligible transit capital, operating, planning, or administrative project without prejudice to possible future Federal participation in the cost of the project.
In this notice, FTA provides pre-award authority through the authorization period of the FAST Act, plus an additional year (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2021) for capital assistance under all formula programs, so long as the conditions described below are met.
FTA provides pre-award authority for planning and operating assistance under the formula programs without regard to the period of the authorization. All pre-award authority is subject to conditions and triggers stated below: The actual items of cost associated with the use of pre-award authority are documented in the initial FFR that is required to be completed prior to the recipient executing the award.
For projects funded out of competitive programs, pre-award authority may be granted at the time of project selection.
FTA does not impose additional conditions on pre-award authority for operating, planning, or administrative assistance under the formula grant programs. Grantees may be reimbursed for expenses incurred before grant award so long as funds have been expended in accordance with all Federal requirements, would have been allowable if incurred after the date of award, and the grantee is otherwise eligible to receive the funding. In addition to cross-cutting Federal grant requirements, program specific requirements must be met. Designated recipients for Section 5310 have pre-award authority for the ten percent of the apportionment they may use for program administration.
For transit capital projects, the date that costs may be incurred varies depending on the type of activity and its potential to have a significant impact on the human and natural environment as described under conditions in section 3 below.
Unless provided for in an announcement of project selections, pre-award authority does not apply to Section 5312 Public Transportation Innovation projects or Section 5314 Technical Assistance and Workforce Development projects. Before an applicant may incur costs for activities under these programs, it must first obtain a written LONP from FTA. Information about LONP procedures may be obtained from the appropriate headquarters office.
The conditions under which pre-award authority may be utilized are specified below:
All Federal environmental requirements must be met at the appropriate time for a project to remain eligible for Federal funding. Designated recipients may incur costs for design and environmental review activities for all formula funded projects from the date of the authorization of the formula funds or for discretionary funded projects other than those funded by the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program from the date of the announcement of the competitive allocation of funds for the project.
For projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE) pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c), designated recipients may start activities and incur costs under pre-award authority for property acquisition, demolition, construction, and acquisition of vehicles, equipment, or construction materials from the date of the authorization of formula funds or the date of the announcement of competitive allocations for the project.
FTA recommends that a grant applicant considering a CE pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c) contact FTA's Regional Office for assistance in determining the appropriate environmental review process and level of documentation necessary before incurring the above-mentioned costs, especially when the grant applicant believes a c-list CE with construction activities, such as 23 CFR 771.118(c)(8), (9), (10), (12), or (13), applies to its project. If FTA subsequently finds that a project does not qualify for a CE under 23 CFR 771.118(c) and the sponsor has already undertaken activities under pre-award authority, the project will be ineligible for FTA assistance.
For all other non-CIG projects that do not qualify for a CE under 23 CFR 771.118(c), grant applicants may take action and incur costs for property acquisition, demolition, construction, and acquisition of vehicles, equipment, or construction materials from the date that FTA completes the environmental review process required by NEPA and its implementing regulations, 23 U.S.C. 139, and other environmental laws, by its issuance of a 23 CFR 771.118(d) CE determination, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), a combined final environmental impact statement (FEIS)/record of decision (ROD), or a ROD.
Formula funds must be authorized or appropriated and competitive project allocations published or announced before pre-award authority can be considered. The requirements that a capital project be included in a locally adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the metropolitan transportation improvement program, and the federally approved statewide transportation improvement program (23 CFR part 450) must be satisfied before the grantee may advance the project beyond planning and preliminary design with non-federal funds under pre-award authority. If the project is located within an EPA-designated non-attainment or maintenance area for air quality, the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR part 93, must also be met before the project may be advanced into implementation-related activities under pre-award authority triggered by the completion of the NEPA process. For a planning project to have pre-award authority, the planning project must be included in a MPO-approved UPWP that has been coordinated with the State.
Projects proposed for Section 5309 CIG program funds are required to follow a multi-step, multi-year process defined in law. For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, this process includes three phases: Project development (PD), engineering, and construction. For Small Starts projects, this process includes two phases: PD and construction. After receiving a letter from the project sponsor requesting entry into the PD phase, FTA must respond in writing within 45 days whether the information was sufficient for entry. If FTA's correspondence indicates the information was sufficient and the New Starts, Small Starts or Core Capacity project enters PD, FTA extends pre-award authority at that time to the project sponsor to incur costs for PD activities. PD activities include the work necessary to complete the environmental review process and as much engineering and design activities as the project sponsor believes are necessary to support the environmental review process. Upon completion of the environmental review process with a combined FEIS/ROD, ROD, FONSI, or CE determination by FTA for a New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity Improvement project, FTA extends pre-award authority to the project sponsor to incur costs for as much engineering and design as needed to develop a reasonable cost estimate and financial plan for the project, utility relocation, and real property acquisition and associated relocations for any property acquisitions not already accomplished as a separate project for hardship or protective purposes or right-of-way under 49 U.S.C. 5323(q).
For Small Starts projects, upon completion of the environmental review process and confirmation from FTA that the overall project rating is at least a Medium, FTA extends pre-award authority for vehicle purchases. Upon receipt of a letter notifying a New Starts or Core Capacity project sponsor of the project's approval into the engineering phase, FTA extends pre-award authority for vehicle purchases as well as any remaining engineering and design, demolition, and procurement of long lead items for which market conditions play a significant role in the acquisition price. The long lead items include, but are not limited to, procurement of rails, ties, and other specialized equipment, and commodities.
Please contact the FTA Regional Office for a determination of activities not listed here, but which meet the intent described above. FTA provides this pre-award authority in recognition of the long-lead time and complexity involved with purchasing vehicles as well as their relationship to the “critical path” project schedule. FTA cautions grantees that do not currently operate the type of vehicle proposed in the project about exercising this pre-award authority. FTA encourages these sponsors to wait until later in the process when project plans are more fully developed. FTA reminds project sponsors that the procurement of vehicles must comply with all Federal requirements, including, but not limited to, competitive procurement practices, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program requirements and Buy America. FTA encourages project sponsors to discuss the procurement of vehicles with FTA in regard to Federal requirements before exercising pre-award authority. Because there is not a formal engineering phase for Small Starts projects, FTA does not extend pre-award authority for demolition and procurement of long lead items. Instead, this work must await receipt of a construction grant award or an expedited grant agreement.
As stated above, FTA extends pre-award authority for the acquisition of real property and real property rights for CIG projects (New or Small Starts or Core Capacity) upon completion of the environmental review process for that project. The environmental review process is completed when FTA signs a combined FEIS/ROD, ROD, FONSI, or makes a CE determination. With the limitations and caveats described below, real estate acquisition may commence, at the project sponsor's risk. To maintain eligibility for a possible future FTA grant award, any acquisition of real property or real property rights must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) and its implementing regulations, 49 CFR part 24. This pre-award authority is strictly limited to costs incurred: (i) To acquire real property and real property rights in accordance with the URA regulation; and (ii) to provide relocation assistance in accordance with the URA regulation. This pre-award authority is limited to the acquisition of real property and real property rights that are explicitly
Although FTA provides pre-award authority for property acquisition, long lead items, demolition, utility relocation, and vehicle purchases upon completion of the environmental review process, FTA does not award Federal funding for these activities conducted under pre-award authority until the project receives a CIG program construction grant. This is to ensure that Federal funds are not risked on a project whose advancement into construction is not yet assured.
NEPA requires that certain projects proposed for FTA funding assistance be subjected to a public and interagency review of the need for the project, its environmental and community impacts, and alternatives to avoid and reduce adverse impacts. Projects of more limited scope also need a level of environmental review to determine whether there are significant environmental impacts or confirmation that a CE applies. FTA's regulation titled “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,” at 23 CFR part 771 states that the costs incurred by a grant applicant for the preparation of environmental documents requested by FTA are eligible for FTA financial assistance (23 CFR 771.105(f)). Accordingly, FTA extends pre-award authority for costs incurred to comply with NEPA regulations and to conduct NEPA-related activities, effective as of the earlier of the following two dates: (1) The date of the Federal approval of the relevant STIP or STIP amendment that includes the project or any phase of the project, or that includes a project grouping under 23 CFR 450.216(j) that includes the project; or (2) the date that FTA approves the project into the project development phase of the CIG program. The grant applicant must notify the FTA Regional Office to initiate the Federal environmental review process consistent with 23 CFR 771.111. NEPA-related activities include, but are not limited to, public involvement activities, historic preservation reviews, Section 4(f) evaluations, wetlands evaluations, and endangered species consultations. This pre-award authority is strictly limited to costs incurred to conduct the NEPA process and associated engineering, and to prepare environmental, historic preservation and related documents. When a New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity project is granted pre-award authority for the environmental review process, the reimbursement for NEPA activities conducted under pre-award authority may be sought at any time through Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program) or the flexible highway programs (
Except as discussed in paragraphs i through iii above, a CIG project sponsor must obtain a written LONP from FTA before incurring costs for any activity not covered by pre-award authority. To obtain an LONP, an applicant must submit a written request accompanied by adequate information and justification to the appropriate FTA Regional Office, as described in B. below.
LONP authority allows an applicant to incur costs on a project utilizing non-Federal resources, with the understanding that the costs incurred subsequent to the issuance of the LONP may be reimbursable as eligible expenses or eligible for credit toward the local match should FTA approve the project for a grant award at a later date. LONPs are applicable to projects and project activities not covered by automatic pre-award authority. The majority of LONPs will be for Section 5309 CIG program projects undertaking activities not covered under automatic pre-award authority. LONPs may be issued for formula funds beyond the life of the current authorization or FTA's extension of automatic pre-award authority; however, the LONP is limited to a five-year period, unless otherwise authorized in the LONP. Receipt of Federal funding under any program is not implied or guaranteed by an LONP.
The conditions and requirements for pre-award authority specified in section V.4ii and V.4.iii above apply to all LONPs. Because project implementation activities may not be initiated before completion of the environmental review process, FTA will not issue an LONP for such activities until the environmental review process has been completed with a combined FEIS/ROD, ROD, FONSI, or CE determination.
Before incurring costs for project activities not covered by automatic pre-award authority, the project sponsor must first submit a written request for an LONP, accompanied by adequate information and justification, to the appropriate regional office and obtain written approval from FTA. FTA approval of an LONP is determined on a case-by-case basis. Federal funding under the CIG program is not implied or guaranteed by an LONP. Specifically, when requesting an LONP, the applicant shall provide the following items:
Section 5323(n) requires FTA to publish annually a list of all certifications required under Chapter 53 concurrently with the publication of this annual apportionment notice. The 2020 version of FTA's Certifications and Assurances is available on FTA's website. FTA cannot make an award or an amendment to an award unless the recipient has executed the latest version of FTA's Certifications and Assurances. FTA encourages Recipients of formula funding to execute the new Certifications and Assurances within 90 days of this notice, to prevent any delay to application processing.
Recipients must carry out provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Department of Transportation's implementing regulations at 49 CFR parts 27, 37, 38, and 39. FTA's ADA Circular (4710.1) provides guidance for carrying out the regulatory requirements of the ADA. In addition, recipients must regularly prepare and submit civil rights program plans and reports to establish voluntary compliance and document policies and practices in the areas of Title VI, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). The current status of civil rights programs can be found on each recipient's Civil Rights Information page of TrAMS. New program plans and program updates must be submitted there as well. Before submitting an application for funding, recipients should consult with FTA Circulars and guidance and submit the following programs, as applicable:
Recipients exercising pre-award authority are expected to comply with the DBE regulations. The Department of Transportation's DBE program helps small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to compete in the marketplace, and is designed to support the people who create jobs—our nation's entrepreneurs. Pursuant to 49 CFR 26.49, transit vehicle manufacturers (TVMs) “must establish and submit for FTA's approval an annual overall percentage goal”; only those TVMs “listed on FTA's certified list of transit vehicle manufacturers, or that have submitted a goal methodology to FTA that has been approved or has not been disapproved, at the time of solicitation are eligible to bid.” Recipients may, with prior FTA approval, establish project-specific goals for DBE participation in the procurement of transit vehicles in lieu of using a certified TVM.
Prior to accepting bids, it is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that the TVM has submitted a goal to FTA and FTA has either approved it or not disapproved it. A recipient may verify a TVM has submitted a DBE goal to FTA for its review by checking the FTA Eligible TVMs List located on FTA's website at
Furthermore, recipients are also reminded of the requirement in 49 CFR 26.49(a)(4), which states, “FTA recipients are required to submit within 30 days of making an award, the name of the successful bidder, and the total dollar value of the contract in the manner prescribed in the grant agreement.” Recipients are to report to FTA all vehicle purchases, post-production alterations, and retrofit procurements within the 30 days of award using the electronic Transit Vehicle Award Reporting form found at
FTA and FHWA planning funds under both the Metropolitan Planning and State Planning and Research Programs can be consolidated into a single consolidated planning grant, awarded by either FTA or FHWA. The Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG) eliminate the need to monitor individual fund sources, if several have been used, and ensures that the oldest funds will always be used first.
Under the CPG, States can report metropolitan planning program expenditures, to comply with the Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200, subpart F, for both FTA and FHWA under the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance number for FTA's Metropolitan Planning Program (20.505). Additionally, for States with an FHWA Metropolitan Planning (PL)
States interested in transferring planning funds between FTA and FHWA should contact the FTA Regional Office or FHWA Division Office for more detailed procedures. The FHWA Order 4551.1 dated August 12, 2013, on “Funding Transfers to Other Agencies and Among Title 23 Programs” provides guidance and more detailed information.
All applications for FTA funds should be submitted to the appropriate FTA Office. All applications are filed electronically. FTA continues to award and manage grants and cooperative agreements using the Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). To access TrAMS, contact your FTA Office. Resources on using TrAMS can be found on FTA's website at
FTA regional staff are responsible for working with grantees to review and process grant applications. For an application to be considered complete and ready for FTA to assign a Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), enabling submission in TrAMS, and submission to the Department of Labor, when applicable, the following requirements must be met:
FTA must also provide Congressional notification before awarding competitive grants.
Other important issues that impact FTA grant processing activities in addition to the list above are discussed below.
FTA uses Scope and ALI Codes in the award budgets to track disbursements, monitor program trends, report to Congress, and to respond to requests from the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office, as well as to manage grants. The accuracy of the data is dependent on the careful and correct use of codes.
For its formula programs, FTA primarily apportions funds to the designated recipient in the large UZAs (areas over 200,000), or for areas under 200,000 (small UZAs and rural areas), it apportions the funds to the Governor, or its designee (
For the programs in which FTA may make grants to eligible direct recipients, other than the designated recipient(s), recipients are reminded that documentation must be on file to support: (1) The status of the recipient either as a designated recipient or direct recipient; and (2) the allocation of funds to the direct recipient.
Documentation to support existing designated recipients for the UZA must also be on file at the time of the first application in FY 2020. Split letters and/or suballocation letters (Governor's Apportionment letters), must also be on file to support grant applications for direct recipients. Once suballocation letters for FY 2020 funding are finalized, they should be uploaded as part of the application into TrAMS.
The Direct Recipient is required to upload to TrAMS a copy of the suballocation letter (Letter) indicating their allocation of funding, for the appropriate fund program, when the applicant transmits their application for initial review. The Letter must be signed by the Designated Recipient, or as applicable in accordance with their planning requirements. If there are two Designated Recipients, both entities must sign the Letter. The Letter must: (1) Indicate the allocations to the respective Direct Recipients listed in the letter; (2) incorporate language above the signatories to reflect this agreement; and (3) make clear that the Direct Recipient will assume any/all responsibility associated with the award for the funds. When drafting the Letter, Designated Recipients may use the template language below:
“As identified in this Letter, the Designated Recipient(s) authorize the reassignment/reallocation of [enter fund source;
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Grantees should refer to
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), USDOT.
Notice of public meetings.
This notice announces the public meetings via conference call of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board.
The public meetings will be held on (all times Eastern):
○ Requests to attend the meeting must be received by June 10, 2020.
○ Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by June 10, 2020
○ If you wish to speak during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of your remarks to SLSDC by June 10, 2020.
○ Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than June 10, 2020.
○ Requests to attend the meeting must be received by September 10, 2020.
○ Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by September 10, 2020.
○ If you wish to speak during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of your remarks to SLSDC by September 10, 2020.
○ Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than September 10, 2020.
The meetings will be held via conference call at the SLSDC's Operations location, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662.
Wayne Williams, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091. There will be three (3) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the SLSDC conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to SLSDC Advisory Board members. All prepared remarks submitted will be accepted and considered as part of the meeting's record. Any member of the public may submit a written statement after the meeting deadline, and it will be presented to the committee.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The agenda for each meeting is the same and will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed under the heading,
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act, a report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the Art Advisory Panel during Fiscal Year 2019 has been prepared. A copy of this report has been filed with the Assistant Secretary for Management of the Department of the Treasury.
The report is available at
Maricarmen R. Cuello, AP:SO:AAS, Internal Revenue Service/Independent Office of Appeals, 51 SW 1st Avenue, Room 1014, Miami, FL 33130, Telephone number (305) 982-5364 (not a toll free number).
It has been determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis is, therefore, not required. Additionally, this document does not constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
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 (NCA), 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.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is correcting the formatting of a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective June 29, 2020.
Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. Phone: (202) 482-0092; Fax: (202) 482-3355; Email:
The April 28 rule (85 FR 23460) revised portions of Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the Commerce Control List (CCL) (Supplement No. 1 to part 774).
The April 28 rule published only the revised portions of each ECCN; this correction publishes each revised ECCN in full. Therefore, FR Rule Doc. No. 2020-07241, published in the April 28, 2020, issue of the
0A521 commodities are subject to RS1 controls with no license exception eligibility other than License Exception GOV for U.S. Government personnel and agencies under § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 particular to an item covered under ECCN 0A521. The list of commodities determined to be classified under ECCN 0A521 controls is published in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. The license requirements and licensing policy relating to ECCN 0A521 are set forth in § 742.6(a)(8) of the EAR.
0B521 commodities are subject to RS1 controls with no license exception eligibility other than License Exception GOV for U.S. Government personnel and agencies under § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 particular to an item covered under ECCN 0B521. The list of commodities determined to be classified under ECCN 0B521 controls is published in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. The license requirements and licensing policy relating to ECCN 0B521 are set forth in § 742.6(a)(8) of the EAR.
0C521 materials are subject to RS1 controls with no license exception eligibility other than License Exception GOV for U.S. Government personnel and agencies under § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 particular to an item covered under ECCN 0C521. The list of materials determined to be classified under ECCN 0C521 controls is published in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. The license requirements and licensing policy relating to ECCN 0C521 are set forth in § 742.6(a)(8) of the EAR.
0D521 software is subject to RS1 controls with no license exception eligibility other than License Exception GOV for U.S. Government personnel and agencies under § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 particular to an item covered under ECCN 0D521. The list of software determined to be classified under ECCN 0D521 controls is published in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. The license requirements and licensing policy relating to ECCN 0D521 are set forth in § 742.6(a)(8) of the EAR.
0E521 technology is subject to RS1 controls with no license exception eligibility other than License Exception GOV for U.S. Government personnel and agencies under § 740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, or an item-specific license exception identified in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 particular to an item covered under ECCN 0E521. The list of technologies determined to be classified under ECCN 0E521 controls is published in Supplement No. 5 to part 774. The license requirements and licensing policy relating to ECCN 0E521 are set forth in § 742.6(a)(8) of the EAR.
a. Ground vehicles, whether manned or unmanned, “specially designed” for a military use and not enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category VII.
b. Other ground vehicles, “parts” and “components,” as follows:
b.1. Unarmed vehicles that are derived from civilian vehicles and that have all of the following:
b.1.a. Manufactured or fitted with materials or “components” other than reactive or electromagnetic armor to provide ballistic protection to level III (National Institute of Justice standard 0108.01, September 1985) or better;
b.1.b. A transmission to provide drive to both front and rear wheels simultaneously, including those vehicles having additional wheels for load bearing purposes whether driven or not;
b.1.c. Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,500 kg; and
b.1.d. Designed or modified for off-road use.
b.2. “Parts” and “components” having all of the following:
b.2.a. “Specially designed” for vehicles specified in paragraph .b.1 of this entry; and
b.2.b. Providing ballistic protection to level III (National Institute of Justice standard 0108.01, September 1985) or better.
c. Air-cooled diesel engines and engine blocks for armored vehicles that weigh more than 40 tons.
d. Fully automatic continuously variable transmissions for tracked combat vehicles.
e. Deep water fording kits “specially designed” for ground vehicles controlled by ECCN 0A606.a or USML Category VII.
f. Self-launching bridge “components” not enumerated in USML Category VII(g) “specially designed” for deployment by ground vehicles enumerated in USML Category VII or this ECCN.
g. through w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 0A606 (other than 0A606.b or 0A606.y) or a defense article enumerated in USML Category VII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in 0A606.y.
“
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in this ECCN (other than ECCN 0A606.b) or for a defense article in USML Category VII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or the CCL, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Brake discs, rotors, drums, calipers, cylinders, pads, shoes, lines, hoses, vacuum boosters, and parts therefor;
y.2. Alternators and generators;
y.3. Axles;
y.4. Batteries;
y.5. Bearings (
y.6. Cables, cable assembles, and connectors;
y.7. Cooling system hoses;
y.8. Hydraulic, fuel, oil, and air filters, other than those controlled by ECCN 1A004;
y.9. Gaskets and o-rings;
y.10. Hydraulic system hoses, fittings, couplings, adapters, and valves;
y.11. Latches and hinges;
y.12. Lighting systems, fuses, and “components;”
y.13. Pneumatic hoses, fittings, adapters, couplings, and valves;
y.14. Seats, seat assemblies, seat supports, and harnesses;
y.15. Tires, except run flat; and
y.16. Windows, except those for armored vehicles.
a. [Reserved]
b. Concealment and deception equipment “specially designed” for military application, including special paints, decoys, smoke or obscuration equipment and simulators, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor, not controlled by USML Category XIII.
c. Ferries, bridges (other than those described in ECCN 0A606 or USML Category VII), and pontoons, “specially designed” for military use.
d. Test models “specially designed” for the “development” of defense articles controlled by USML Categories IV, VI, VII and VIII.
e. [Reserved]
f. “Metal embrittlement agents.”
g. through x. [Reserved]
y. Other commodities as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Construction equipment “specially designed” for military use, including such equipment “specially designed” for transport in aircraft controlled by USML VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
y.2. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for commodities in paragraph .y.1 of this entry, including crew protection kits used as protective cabs.
y.3. ISO intermodal containers or demountable vehicle bodies (
y.4. Field generators “specially designed” for military use.
y.5. Power controlled searchlights and control units therefor, “specially designed” for military use, and “equipment” mounting such units.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCNs 0A606 (except for ECCNs 0A606.b or 0A606.y), 0B606, or 0C606.
b. through x. [Reserved]
y. “Specific software” “specially designed” for the “production,” “development,” operation, or maintenance of commodities described in ECCN 0A606.y.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCNs 0A606 (except for ECCNs 0A606.b or 0A606.y), 0B606, or 0C606.
b. through x. [Reserved]
y. “Specific software” “specially designed” for the “production,” “development,” operation, or maintenance of commodities described in ECCN 0A606.y.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 0A606 (except for ECCNs 0A606.b or 0A606.y), 0B606, or 0C606.
b. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul or refurbishing of commodities or software in ECCN 0A606.y or 0D606.y.
a. “Technology” (other than “technology” controlled by paragraph .y of this entry) “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or “software” controlled by ECCN 0A617 (except 0A617.y), 0B617, 0C617, or 0D617 (except 0D617.y).
b. through x. [Reserved].
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 0A617.y or “software” controlled by 0D617.y.
a. Metallic or non-metallic armored plate “specially designed” for military use and not controlled by the USML.
b. Shelters “specially designed” to:
b.1. Provide ballistic protection for military systems; or
b.2. Protect against nuclear, biological, or chemical contamination.
c. Military helmets (other than helmets controlled under 1A613.y.1) providing less
d. Body armor and protective garments, as follows:
d.1. Soft body armor and protective garments manufactured to military standards or specifications, or to their equivalents, that provide ballistic protection equal to or less than NIJ level III (NIJ 0101.06, July 2008); or
d.2. Hard body armor plates that provide ballistic protection equal to NIJ level III (NIJ 0101.06, July 2008) or national equivalents.
e. Atmospheric diving suits “specially designed” for rescue operations for submarines controlled by the USML or the CCL.
f. Other personal protective “equipment” “specially designed” for military applications not controlled by the USML, not elsewhere controlled on the CCL.
g. to w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity controlled by ECCN 1A613 (except for 1A613.y) or an article enumerated in USML Category X, and not controlled elsewhere in the USML.
y. Other commodities as follows:
y.1 Conventional military steel helmets.
y.2 [Reserved]
a. “Software” (other than “software” controlled in paragraph .y of this entry) “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCNs 1A613 (except 1A613.y) or 1B613 (except 1B613.y).
b. to x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “production,” “development,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 1A613.y.
a. “Technology” (other than “technology” controlled by paragraph .y of this entry) “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or “software” controlled by ECCNs 1A613 (except 1A613.y), 1B613 or 1D613 (except 1D613.y).
b. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software controlled by ECCN 1A613.y or 1D613.y.
a. Electronic “equipment,” “end items,” and “systems” “specially designed” for a military application that are not enumerated or otherwise described in either a USML category or another “600 series” ECCN.
b. [Reserved]
c. [Reserved]
d. [Reserved]
e. High frequency (HF) surface wave radar that maintains the positional state of maritime surface or low altitude airborne objects of interest in a received radar signal through time.
f. Application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and programmable logic devices (PLD) that are not controlled by paragraph .y of this entry and that are programmed for “600 series” items.
g. Printed circuit boards and populated circuit card assemblies that are not controlled by paragraph .y of this entry and for which the layout is “specially designed” for “600 series” items.
h. Multichip modules that are not controlled by paragraph .y of this entry and for which the pattern or layout is “specially designed” for “600 series” items.
i. through w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity controlled by this entry or for an article controlled by USML Category XI, and not enumerated or described in any USML category or in any paragraph other than the .x paragraph of another 600 series ECCN or in paragraph .y of this entry.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in a “600 series” ECCN or a defense article and not elsewhere specified in any paragraph other than the .y paragraph of a “600 series” ECCN or the USML as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Electrical connectors;
y.2. Electric fans;
y.3. Heat sinks;
y.4. Joy sticks;
y.5. Mica paper capacitors;
y.6. Microphones;
y.7. Potentiometers;
y.8. Rheostats;
y.9. Electric connector backshells;
y.10. Solenoids;
y.11. Speakers;
y.12. Trackballs;
y.13. Electric transformers;
y.14. Application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and programmable logic devices (PLD) that are programmed for commodities controlled in the .y paragraph of any “600 series” ECCN;
y.15. Printed circuit boards and populated circuit card assemblies for which the layout is “specially designed” for an item controlled by the .y paragraph of any “600 series” ECCN;
y.16. Multichip modules for which the pattern or layout is “specially designed” for an item in the .y paragraph of a “600 series” ECCN;
y.17. Circuit breakers;
y.18. Ground fault circuit interrupters;
y.19. Electrical contacts;
y.20. Electrical guide pins;
y.21. Filtered and unfiltered mechanical switches;
y.22. Thumbwheels;
y.23. Fixed resistors;
y.24. Electrical jumpers;
y.25. Grounding straps;
y.26. Indicator dials;
y.27. Contactors;
y.28. Touchpads;
y.29. Mechanical caps;
y.30. Mechanical plugs;
y.31. Finger barriers;
y.32. Flip-guards;
y.33. Identification plates and nameplates;
y.34. Knobs;
y.35. Hydraulic, pneumatic, fuel and lubrication gauges.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 3A611 (other than 3A611.y) and 3B611.
b. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation or maintenance of technology in ECCN 3E611.b.
c. through x. [Reserved]
y. “Software” “specially designed” for the “production,” “development,” operation or maintenance of commodities enumerated in ECCNs 3A611.y.
2. Except for “build-to-print technology,” License Exception STA is not eligible for “technology” enumerated in ECCN 3E611.b.
a. “Technology” (other than that controlled by 3E611.b or 3E611.y) “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software controlled by ECCN 3A611, 3B611 or 3D611.
b. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of the following if controlled by ECCN 3A611, including 3A611.x:
b.1. Helix traveling wave tubes (TWTs);
b.2. Transmit/receive or transmit modules.
c. through x. [Reserved]
y. “Technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software enumerated in ECCNs 3A611.y or 3D611.y.
a. Guidance or navigation systems, not elsewhere specified on the USML, that are “specially designed” for a defense article on the USML or for a 600 series item.
b. to w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” including accelerometers, gyros, angular rate sensors, gravity meters (gravimeters), and inertial measurement units (IMUs), that are “specially designed” for defense articles controlled by USML Category XII or items controlled by 7A611, and that are NOT:
1. Enumerated or controlled in the USML or elsewhere within ECCN 7A611;
2. Described in ECCNs 6A007, 6A107, 7A001, 7A002, 7A003, 7A101, 7A102 or 7A103; or
3. Elsewhere specified in ECCN 7A611.y or 3A611.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN or a defense article in Category XII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in the CCL, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1 [Reserved]
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCNs 7A611 (except 7A611.y) or 7B611.
b. to x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities described in 7A611.y.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or “software” controlled by ECCN 7A611 (except 7A611.y), 7B611, or 7D611 (except 7D611.y).
b. through .x [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of commodities or software controlled by ECCNs 7A611.y or 7D611.y.
a. Surface vessels of war “specially designed” for a military use and not enumerated or otherwise described in the USML.
b. Non-magnetic diesel engines with a power output of 50 hp or more and either of the following:
b.1. Non-magnetic content exceeding 25% of total weight; or
b.2. Non-magnetic parts other than crankcase, block, head, pistons, covers, end plates, valve facings, gaskets, and fuel, lubrication and other supply lines.
c. through w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 8A609 (except for 8A609.y) or a defense article enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category VI and not specified elsewhere on the USML, in 8A609.y or 3A611.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN or for a defense article in USML Category VI and not elsewhere specified in the USML, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Public address (PA) systems;
y.2. Filters and filter assemblies, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets for pneumatic, hydraulic, oil and fuel systems;
y.3. Galleys;
y.4. Lavatories;
y.5. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.6. Medical facilities;
y.7. Potable water tanks, filters, valves, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets;
y.8. Panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials whether unfiltered or filtered for use with night vision imaging systems;
y.9. Emergency lighting;
y.10. Gauges and indicators;
y.11. Audio selector panels.
a. Submersible and semi-submersible vessels “specially designed” for a military use and not enumerated or otherwise described in the USML.
b. Submersible and semi-submersible vessels “specially designed” for cargo transport and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor.
c. Harbor entrance detection devices (magnetic, pressure, and acoustic) and controls therefor, not elsewhere specified on the USML or the CCL.
d. Diesel engines of 1,500 hp and over with rotary speed of 700 rpm or over “specially designed” for submarines.
e. Submarine nets and torpedo nets.
f. Diving and underwater swimming apparatus specially designed or modified for military use, as follows:
f.1. Self-contained diving rebreathers, closed or semi-closed circuit;
f.2. Underwater swimming apparatus specially designed for use with the diving apparatus specified in subparagraph f.1;
g. through w. [Reserved]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 8A620 (except for 8A620.b or 8A620.y) and not elsewhere specified on the USML, in 8A620.y or 3A611.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Public address (PA) systems;
y.2. Filters and filter assemblies, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets for pneumatic, hydraulic, oil and fuel systems;
y.3. Galleys;
y.4. Lavatories;
y.5. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.6. Medical facilities;
y.7. Potable water tanks, filters, valves, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets;
y.8. Panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials whether unfiltered or filtered for use with night vision imaging systems;
y.9. Emergency lighting;
y.10. Gauges and indicators;
y.11. Audio selector panels.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A609, ECCN 8B609, or ECCN 8C609 (except for commodities controlled by ECCN 8A609.y).
b. through .x [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities in ECCN 8A609.y.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620 or ECCN 8B620 (except for commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620.b or .y or ECCN 8B620.b).
b. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620.b or ECCN 8B620.b.
c. through .x [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities in ECCN 8A620.y.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A609, 8B609, or 8C609 (except for commodities controlled by ECCN 8A609.y), or “software” controlled by ECCN 8D609.
b. through .x [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software in ECCN 8A609.y or 8D609.y.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620 or 8B620 or “software” controlled by ECCN 8D620 (except for commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620.b or .y or ECCN 8B620.b or “software” controlled by 8D620.b or .y).
b. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 8A620.b or 8B620.b or “software” controlled by ECCN 8D620.b.
c. through .x [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul or refurbishing of commodities or software in ECCN 8A620.y or 8D620.y.
The Commerce Country Chart is not used for determining license requirements for commodities classified in ECCN 9A515.a.1, .a.2., .a.3., .a.4, and .g. See § 742.6(a)(9), which specifies that such commodities are subject to a worldwide license requirement.
“Spacecraft” and other items described in ECCN 9A515 remain subject to the EAR even if exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) with defense articles “subject to the ITAR” integrated into and included therein as integral parts of the item. In all other cases, such defense articles are subject to the ITAR. For example, a 9A515.a “spacecraft” remains “subject to the EAR” even when it is exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) with a “hosted payload” described in USML Category XV(e)(17) incorporated therein. In all other cases, a “hosted payload” performing a function described in USML Category XV(a) always remains a USML item. The removal of the defense article subject to the ITAR from the spacecraft is a retransfer under the ITAR and would require an ITAR authorization, regardless of the CCL authorization the spacecraft is exported under. Additionally, transfer of technical data regarding the defense article subject to the ITAR integrated into the spacecraft would require an ITAR authorization.
a. “Spacecraft,” including satellites, and space vehicles, whether designated developmental, experimental, research or scientific, not enumerated in USML Category XV or described in ECCN 9A004.u or .w, that:
a.1. Have electro-optical remote sensing capabilities and having a clear aperture greater than 0.35 meters, but less than or equal to 0.50 meters;
a.2. Have remote sensing capabilities beyond NIR (
a.3. Have radar remote sensing capabilities (
a.4. Provide space-based logistics, assembly, or servicing of another “spacecraft”; or
a.5. Are not described in ECCN 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3 or .a.4.
b. Ground control systems and training simulators “specially designed” for telemetry, tracking, and control of the “spacecraft” controlled in paragraphs 9A004.u or 9A515.a.
c. [Reserved]
d. Microelectronic circuits (
d.1. A total dose of 5 x 105 Rads (Si) (5 × 103 Gy (Si));
d.2. A dose rate upset threshold of 5 × 108 Rads (Si)/sec (5 × 106 Gy (Si)/sec);
d.3. A neutron dose of 1 × 1014 n/cm2 (1 MeV equivalent);
d.4. An uncorrected single event upset sensitivity of 1 × 10-10 errors/bit/day or less, for the CRÈME-MC geosynchronous orbit, Solar Minimum Environment for heavy ion flux; and
d.5. An uncorrected single event upset sensitivity of 1 × 10-3 errors/part or less for a fluence of 1 × 107 protons/cm2 for proton energy greater than 50 MeV.
e. Microelectronic circuits (
e.1. A total dose ≥1 × 105 Rads (Si) (1 × 103 Gy(Si)) and <5 × 105 Rads (Si) (5 × 103 Gy(Si)); and a single event effect (SEE) (
e.2. A total dose ≥5 × 105 Rads (Si) (5 × 103 Gy (Si)) and not described in 9A515.d.
f. Pressure suits (
g. Remote sensing components “specially designed” for “spacecraft” described in ECCNs 9A515.a.1 through 9A515.a.4 as follows:
g.1. Space-qualified optics (
g.2. Optical bench assemblies “specially designed” for ECCN 9A515.a.1, 9A515.a.2, 9A515.a.3, or 9A515.a.4 “spacecraft;” or
g.3. Primary, secondary, or hosted payloads that perform a function of ECCN 9A515.a.1, 9A515.a.2, 9A515.a.3, or 9A515.a.4 “spacecraft.”
h. Spacecraft thrusters using bi-propellants or mono-propellants that provide thrust equal to or less than 150 lbf (
i. through w. [RESERVED]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for defense articles controlled by USML Category XV or items controlled by 9A515, and that are NOT:
x.1. Enumerated or controlled in the USML or elsewhere within ECCNs 9A515 or 9A004;
x.2. Microelectronic circuits and discrete electronic components;
x.3. Described in ECCNs 7A004 or 7A104;
x.4. Described in an ECCN containing “space-qualified” as a control criterion (
x.5. Microwave solid state amplifiers and microwave assemblies (refer to ECCN 3A001.b.4 for controls on these items);
x.6. Travelling wave tube amplifiers (refer to ECCN 3A001.b.8 for controls on these items); or
x.7. Elsewhere specified in ECCN 9A515.y.
y. Items that would otherwise be within the scope of ECCN 9A515.x but that have been identified in an interagency-cleared commodity classification (CCATS) pursuant to § 748.3(e) as warranting control in 9A515.y.
y.1. Discrete electronic components not specified in 9A515.e;
y.2. Space grade or for spacecraft applications thermistors;
y.3. Space grade or for spacecraft applications RF microwave bandpass ceramic filters (Dielectric Resonator Bandpass Filters);
y.4. Space grade or for spacecraft applications hall effect sensors;
y.5. Space grade or for spacecraft applications subminiature (SMA and SMP) plugs and connectors, TNC plugs and cable and connector assemblies with SMA plugs and connectors; and
y.6. Space grade or for spacecraft applications flight cable assemblies.
a. 'Military Aircraft' “specially designed” for a military use that are not enumerated in USML paragraph VIII(a).
b. L-100 aircraft manufactured prior to 2013.
c.-d. [Reserved]
e. Mobile aircraft arresting and engagement runway systems for aircraft controlled by either USML Category VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
f. Pressure refueling equipment and equipment that facilitates operations in confined areas, “specially designed” for aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
g. Aircrew life support equipment, aircrew safety equipment and other devices for emergency escape from aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
h. Parachutes, paragliders, complete parachute canopies, harnesses, platforms, electronic release mechanisms, “specially designed” for use with aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and “equipment” “specially designed” for military high altitude parachutists, such as suits, special helmets, breathing systems, and navigation equipment.
i. Controlled opening equipment or automatic piloting systems, designed for parachuted loads.
j. Ground effect machines (GEMS), including surface effect machines and air cushion vehicles, “specially designed” for use by a military.
k. through s. [Reserved]
t. Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for unmanned aerial vehicles controlled under USML Category VIII(a) with a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for unmanned aerial vehicles controlled under USML Category VIII(a) with a maximum range less than 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
u. Apparatus and devices “specially designed” for the handling, control, activation and non-ship-based launching of UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and capable of a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
Apparatus and devices “specially designed” for the handling, control, activation and non-ship-based launching of UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a with a maximum range less than 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
v. Radar altimeters designed or modified for use in UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
w.1. Pneumatic hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight control systems (including fly-by-wire and fly-by-light systems) and attitude control equipment designed or modified for UAVs controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
w.2. Flight control servo valves designed or modified for the systems in 9A610.w.1 and designed or modified to operate in a vibration environment greater than 10g rms over the entire range between 20Hz and 2 kHz.
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 9A610 (except for 9A610.y) or a defense article enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category VIII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in 9A610.y, 9A619.y, or 3A611.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this entry, ECCN 9A619, or for a defense article in USML Categories VIII or XIX and not elsewhere specified in the USML or the CCL, and other aircraft commodities “specially designed” for a military use, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Aircraft tires;
y.2. Analog gauges and indicators;
y.3. Audio selector panels;
y.4. Check valves for hydraulic and pneumatic systems;
y.5. Crew rest equipment;
y.6. Ejection seat mounted survival aids;
y.7. Energy dissipating pads for cargo (for pads made from paper or cardboard);
y.8. Fluid filters and filter assemblies;
y.9. Galleys;
y.10. Fluid hoses, straight and unbent lines (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or defense article in USML Category VIII), and fittings, couplings, clamps (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or defense article in USML Category VIII) and brackets therefor;
y.11. Lavatories;
y.12. Life rafts;
y.13. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.14. Medical litter provisions;
y.15. Cockpit or cabin mirrors;
y.16. Passenger seats including palletized seats;
y.17. Potable water storage systems;
y.18. Public address (PA) systems;
y.19. Steel brake wear pads (does not include sintered mix or carbon/carbon materials);
y.20. Underwater locator beacons;
y.21. Urine collection bags/pads/cups/pumps;
y.22. Windshield washer and wiper systems;
y.23. Filtered and unfiltered panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials;
y.24. Lead-acid and Nickel-Cadmium batteries;
y.25. Propellers, propeller systems, and propeller blades used with reciprocating engines;
y.26. Fire extinguishers;
y.27. Flame and smoke/CO2 detectors;
y.28. Map cases;
y.29. `Military Aircraft' that were first manufactured from 1946 to 1955 that do not incorporate defense articles enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless the items are required to meet safety or airworthiness standards of a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State; and do not incorporate weapons enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless inoperable and incapable of being returned to operation;
y.30. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” other than electronic items or navigation equipment, for use in or with a commodity controlled by ECCN 9A610.h;
y.31. Identification plates and nameplates; and
y.32. Fluid manifolds.
a. “Military Gas Turbine Engines” “specially designed” for a military use that are not controlled in USML Category XIX(a), (b), (c), or (d).
b. Digital engine controls (
c. If “specially designed” for gas turbine engines controlled in 9A619.a, hot section components (
d. If “specially designed” for gas turbine engines controlled in 9A619.a, uncooled turbine blades, vanes, disks, and tip shrouds;
e. If “specially designed” for gas turbine engines controlled in 9A619.a, combustor cowls, diffusers, domes, and shells;
f. Engine monitoring systems (
g. through w. [RESERVED]
x. Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity controlled by this ECCN 9A619 (other than ECCN 9A619.c) or for a defense article enumerated in USML Category XIX and not specified elsewhere on the USML or in ECCN 3A611.y, 9A610.y or 9A619.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this entry, ECCN 9A610, or for a defense article in USML Category VIII or Category XIX and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in the CCL, and other commodities, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Oil tank and reservoirs;
y.2. Oil lines and tubes;
y.3. Fluid hoses, and lines (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or a defense article in USML Category XIX), fittings, couplings, and brackets therefor;
y.4. Fluid filters and filter assemblies;
y.5. Clamps (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or a defense article in USML Category XIX);
y.6. Shims;
y.7. Identification plates and nameplates;
y.8. Fluid manifolds; and
y.9. Check valves for fluid systems.
a. Test, inspection, and production “equipment” “specially designed” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 9A619 (except for 9A619.y) or in USML Category XIX, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor.
b. Equipment, cells, or stands “specially designed” for testing, analysis and fault isolation of engines, “systems,” “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments” enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 9A619 (except for 9A619.y) on the CCL or in Category XIX on the USML.
c. through x. [Reserved]
y. Bearing pullers “specially designed” for the “production” or “development” of commodities enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 9A619 (except for 9A619.y) or USML Category XIX and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor.
a. “Software” (other than “software” controlled in paragraphs .b, .d, or .e of this entry) “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515 (except 9A515.d or .e) or 9B515.
b. “Source code” that:
b.1. Contains the algorithms or control principles (
b.2. Is “specially designed” for the integration, operation, or control of items controlled by ECCN 9A515;
b.3. Contains algorithms or modules “specially designed” for system, subsystem, component, part, or accessory calibration, manipulation, or control of items controlled by ECCN 9A515;
b.4. Is “specially designed” for data assemblage, extrapolation, or manipulation of items controlled by ECCN 9A515;
b.5. Contains the algorithms or control laws “specially designed” for attitude, position, or flight control of items controlled in ECCN 9A515; or
b.6. Is “specially designed “for built-in test and diagnostics for items controlled by ECCN 9A515.
c. [Reserved]
d. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, failure analysis or anomaly resolution of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515.d.
e. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, failure analysis or anomaly resolution of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515.e.
f. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities enumerated in ECCN 9A515.y.
a. “Software” (other than software controlled in paragraphs .b or .y of this entry) “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A610, ECCN 9B610, or ECCN 9C610.
b. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
b.1. Static structural members;
b.2. Exterior skins, removable fairings, non-removable fairings, radomes, access doors and panels, and in-flight opening doors;
b.3. Control surfaces, leading edges, trailing edges, and leading edge flap seals;
b.4. Leading edge flap actuation system commodities (
b.5. Engine inlets and ducting;
b.6. Fatigue life monitoring systems “specially designed” to relate actual usage to the analytical or design spectrum and to compute amount of fatigue life “specially designed” for aircraft controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, except for Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft;
b.7. Landing gear, and “parts” and “components” “specially designed” therefor, “specially designed” for use in aircraft weighing more than 21,000 pounds controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, except for Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft;
b.8. Conformal fuel tanks and “parts” and “components” “specially designed” therefor;
b.9. Electrical “equipment,” “parts,” and “components” “specially designed” for electro-magnetic interference (EMI)—
b.10. HOTAS (Hand-on Throttle and Stick) controls, HOCAS (Hands on Collective and Stick), Active Inceptor Systems (
b.11. Integrated Vehicle Health Management Systems (IVHMS), Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) Systems, and Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) systems;
b.12. Equipment “specially designed” for system prognostic and health management of aircraft;
b.13. Active Vibration Control Systems; or
b.14. Self-sealing fuel bladders “specially designed” to pass a .50 caliber or larger gunfire test (MIL-DTL-5578, MIL-DTL-27422).
c. to x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities enumerated in ECCN 9A610.y.
a. “Software” (other than software controlled in paragraph .b of this entry) “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A619 (except 9A619.y), ECCN 9B619 (except 9B619.y), or ECCN 9C619.
b. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
b.1. Front, turbine center, and exhaust frames;
b.2. Low pressure compressor (
b.3. High pressure compressor “components” and “parts” as follows: casings, blades, vanes, spools, shrouds, blisks, shafts, disks, and impellers;
b.4. Combustor “components” and “parts” as follows: casings, fuel nozzles, swirlers, swirler cups, deswirlers, valve injectors, igniters, diffusers, liners, chambers, cowlings, domes and shells;
b.5. High pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: casings, shafts, disks, blades, vanes, nozzles, and tip shrouds;
b.6. Low pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: casings, shafts, disks, blades, vanes, nozzles, and tip shrouds;
b.7. Augmentor “components” and “parts” as follows: casings, flame holders, spray bars, pilot burners, augmentor fuel controls, flaps (external, convergent, and divergent), guide and syncronization rings, and flame detectors and sensors;
b.8. Mechanical “components” and “parts” as follows: fuel metering units and fuel pump metering units, valves (fuel throttle, main metering, oil flow management), heat exchangers (air/air, fuel/air, fuel/oil), debris monitoring (inlet and exhaust), seals (carbon, labyrinth, brush, balance piston, and knife-edge), permanent magnetic alternator and generator, eddy current sensors;
b.9. Torquemeter assembly (
b.10. Digital engine control systems (
b.11. Engine monitoring systems (
c. to x. [RESERVED]
y. Specific “software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities enumerated in ECCN 9A619.y or 9B619.y.
The Commerce Country Chart is not used for determining license requirements for “technology” classified ECCN 9E515.f. See § 742.6(a)(9), which specifies that such “technology” is subject to a worldwide license requirement.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” installation, repair (including on-orbit anomaly resolution and analysis beyond established procedures), overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515 (except 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3, .a.4, .b, .d, .e, or .g), ECCN 9B515, or “software” controlled by ECCN 9D515.a.
b. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” failure analysis or anomaly resolution of software controlled by ECCN 9D515.b.
c. [Reserved]
d. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, failure analysis or anomaly resolution of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515.d.
e. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” failure analysis or anomaly resolution of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515.e.
f. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” installation, repair (including on-orbit anomaly resolution and analysis beyond established procedures), overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities controlled by ECCN 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3, .a.4, or .g.
g. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software enumerated in ECCN 9A515.y or 9D515.y.
[RESERVED]
a. “Technology” (other than technology controlled by paragraphs .b or .y of this entry) “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software controlled by ECCN 9A610, 9B610, 9C610, or 9D610.
“Build-to-print technology” “required” for the “production” of items described in paragraphs b.1 through b.15 of this entry is classified under 9E610.a.
b. “Technology” (other than “build-to-print technology”) “required” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
b.1. Static structural members;
b.2. Exterior skins, removable fairings, non-removable fairings, radomes, access doors and panels, and in-flight opening doors;
b.3. Control surfaces, leading edges, trailing edges, and leading edge flap seals;
b.4. Leading edge flap actuation system commodities (
b.5. Engine inlets and ducting;
b.6. Fatigue life monitoring systems “specially designed” to relate actual usage to the analytical or design spectrum and to compute amount of fatigue life “specially designed” for aircraft controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, except for Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft;
b.7. Landing gear, and “parts” and “components” “specially designed” therefor, “specially designed” for use in aircraft weighing more than 21,000 pounds controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, except for Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft;
b.8. Conformal fuel tanks and “parts” and “components” “specially designed” therefor;
b.9. Electrical “equipment,” “parts,” and “components” “specially designed” for electro-magnetic interference (EMI)—
b.10. HOTAS (Hand-on Throttle and Stick) controls, HOCAS (Hands on Collective and Stick), Active Inceptor Systems (
b.11. Integrated Vehicle Health Management Systems (IVHMS), Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) Systems, and Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) systems;
b.12. Equipment “specially designed” for system prognostic and health management of aircraft;
b.13. Active Vibration Control Systems;
b.14. Self-sealing fuel bladders “specially designed” to pass a .50 caliber or larger gunfire test (MIL-DTL-5578, MIL-DTL-27422); or
b.15. Technology “required” for the “development” or “production” of “parts” or “components” controlled in 9A610.x and “specially designed” for damage or failure-adaptive flight control systems controlled in Category VIII(h)(7) of the USML.
c. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “production,” “development,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities or software enumerated in ECCN 9A610.y or 9D610.y.
a. “Technology” (other than “technology” controlled by paragraphs .b and .c of this entry) “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishment of items controlled by ECCN 9A619 (except 9A619.y), ECCN 9B619 (except 9B619.y), ECCN 9C619, or ECCN 9D619 (except 9D619.y).
b. “Technology” (other than “build-to-print technology”) “required” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
b.1. Front, turbine center, and exhaust frames;
b.2. Low pressure compressor (
b.3. High pressure compressor “components” and “parts” as follows: Casings;
b.4. Combustor “components” and “parts” as follows: Casings, fuel nozzles, swirlers, swirler cups, deswirlers, valve injectors, and igniters;
b.5. High pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: Casings
b.6. Low pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: Casings;
b.7. Augmentor “components” and “parts” as follows: Casings, flame holders, spray bars, pilot burners, augmentor fuel controls, flaps (external, convergent, and divergent), guide and syncronization rings, and flame detectors and sensors;
b.8. Mechanical “components” and “parts” as follows: Fuel metering units and fuel pump metering units, valves (fuel throttle, main metering, oil flow management), heat exchangers (air/air, fuel/air, fuel/oil), debris monitoring (inlet and exhaust), seals (carbon, labyrinth, brush, balance piston, and “knife-edge”), permanent magnetic alternator and generator, eddy current sensors;
b.9. Torquemeter assembly (
b.10. Materials controlled by ECCN 9C619.b.
c. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
c.1. Low pressure compressor (
c.2. High pressure compressor “components” and “parts” as follows: blades, vanes, spools, shrouds, blisks, shafts, disks, and impellers;
c.3. Combustor “components” and “parts” as follows: diffusers, liners, chambers, cowlings, domes and shells;
c.4. High pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: shafts and disks, blades, vanes, nozzles, tip shrouds;
c.5. Low pressure turbine “components” and “parts” as follows: shafts and disks, blades, vanes, nozzles, tip shrouds;
c.6. Digital engine control systems (
c.7. Engine monitoring systems (
d. through x. [Reserved]
y. Specific “technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishment of commodities controlled by 9A619.y or 9B619.y, or “software” controlled by ECCN 9D619.y.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action on amendments to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments also include provisions regarding electronic reporting, as well as clarifying and technical corrections. These final amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.
This final rule is effective on June 3, 2020. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 27, 2003.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0753. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For questions about this final action, contact Christopher Werner, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5133; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
Additional information is available on the RTR website at
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by August 3, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
The EPA promulgated the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP on May 27, 2003 (68 FR 28774). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP. The engine test facilities industry consists of facilities that utilize engine test cells/stands for testing of uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 59 facilities.
As promulgated in 2003, the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP applies to engine test cells/stands located at major sources of HAP emissions. Because the NESHAP regulates the testing of uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines, it does not regulate the testing of any final product (
Engine test cells/stands emit HAP in the exhaust gases from combustion of gaseous and liquid fuels in the engines tested. The emission rates and annual emissions vary based on the size and design of the engines tested, the types of fuels burned, and the number, type, and duration of tests performed. Fuels used during testing include, but are not limited to, biofuels, natural gas, propane, gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, and various grades of fuel oil.
The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of fuels in the engines being tested in the test cells/stands. The primary HAP present in the exhaust gases from engine test cells/stands are formaldehyde, benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
The Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP provides the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 horsepower or more and located at a major source of HAP emissions two compliance options: (1) Reduce carbon monoxide (CO) or total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions in the exhaust from the new or reconstructed affected source to 20 parts per million by volume dry basis or less, at 15-percent oxygen content, or (2) reduce CO or THC emissions in the exhaust from the new or reconstructed affected source by 96 percent or more. If a new or reconstructed affected source elects to comply with the percent reduction emission limitation, the affected source must conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis.
On May 8, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category. This action also finalizes
This section introduces the final amendments to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). As proposed, we are finalizing our finding that risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for this source category are acceptable. Similarly, as proposed, we are finalizing the determination that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that a more stringent standard is not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are not finalizing any revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the analysis conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are readopting the current standards.
We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in
EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in the proposal. See 84 FR 20226, May 8, 2019.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in the May 2019 proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. See 84 FR 20226 (May 8, 2019), for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, to eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to revise the recordkeeping and reporting requirements as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the proposal preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.9305(a) that the standards apply at all times. See 84 FR 20228-29, May 8, 2019.
Consistent with the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the electronic reporting requirements, specifically that owners and operators of engine test cells/stands submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
We are also finalizing additional changes to the NESHAP that address technical and editorial corrections, as proposed and as described in section IV.E of this preamble.
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on June 3, 2020. The compliance date for existing engine test cells/stands is December 1, 2020. New sources, including those that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 8, 2019, must comply with all of the revisions to the standards immediately upon the effective date of this action, June 3, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later.
For existing affected sources, we are finalizing two changes, as proposed, that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are finalizing the requirement that performance test results, performance evaluation reports, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also finalizing a change to the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan, as proposed. We have experience with similar industries that have been required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters. This experience shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording
For each of the issues addressed in the proposed rule, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key public comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries, and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response document titled
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the May 2019 proposed rule for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble and in more detail in the residual risk document titled
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based on actual emissions, show the maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk (MIR) posed by the 59 facilities is 20-in-1 million, with benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions from reciprocating engine testing as the major contributors to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 200 years. About 2,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted by this source category, with 60 of those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) value for the source category is 0.1 (respiratory) driven by emissions of acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and naphthalene from reciprocating engine testing. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1.
The EPA also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions allowed by the MACT standard, or “MACT-allowable emissions.” Risk results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable emissions indicate that the cancer MIR is 70-in-1 million with benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions from reciprocating engine testing driving the risks, and that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is 0.5 at the MACT-allowable emissions level with acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and naphthalene emissions from reciprocating engine testing driving the TOSHI. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.02 excess cancer cases per year or one excess case every 50 years. Based on MACT-allowable emission rates, approximately 190,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, with 500 of those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. No people are estimated to have a noncancer hazard index (HI) above 1.
Table 1 of this preamble indicates that for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category, the maximum acute HQ could be up to 9, driven by actual emissions of acrolein. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the Science Advisory Board's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies, we examined a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute health reference
Regarding multipathway risk screening, of the 59 facilities in the source category, 21 facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP) (arsenic and polycyclic organic matter (POM)), and 23 facilities reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury). Three of these facilities reported emissions of a carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic) that exceeded a Tier 1 cancer screening threshold emission rate, and one facility reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury) that exceeded a Tier 1 noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway screening threshold emission rate for one or more PB-HAP, we used additional facility site-specific information to perform a Tier 2 screening assessment and determined the maximum chronic cancer and noncancer impacts for the source category. Based on the Tier 2 multipathway cancer assessment, the arsenic emissions exceeded the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate by a factor of 2. An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in any of the tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, a tier screening threshold emission rate of 30 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower than 30-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the conservative, or health-protective, assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the screening tiers, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. The Tier 2 noncancer screening threshold emission rate for both mercury and cadmium emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2 results presented above, additional screening or site-specific assessments were not deemed necessary.
The EPA also conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic and POM emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Divalent mercury, methyl mercury, and cadmium emissions had Tier 1 exceedances at one facility of surface soil benchmarks by a maximum screening value of 3. A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for divalent mercury, methyl mercury, and cadmium emissions. In the Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each facility (
An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to provide context for the source category risks. The results of the facility-wide risk assessment for both MACT sources and non-MACT sources (
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source category are acceptable. We then considered whether the current NESHAP for the source category provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more stringent standards are necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emission control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed that the 2003 Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we also proposed that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have changed.
The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed risk review and our proposed determination that no revisions are warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Comments that were not supportive of the risk review were considered at length.
The commenter disagreed with the EPA's use of the 2008 lead NAAQS as a benchmark for determining acceptable risk and argued that the EPA's assessment of the health risks for lead was inadequate. The commenter noted that the EPA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CalEPA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) acknowledge that no safe level of lead can be identified. By relying on the lead NAAQS rather than conducting an independent risk assessment, the commenter believed the EPA's risk assessment for lead was inadequate because the EPA had not assessed the inhalation risks (from breathing) and multipathway risks (from other types of exposure). The commenter argued that the EPA cannot presume that achieving an ambient air concentration of the NAAQS for lead is sufficient to ensure an acceptable health risk and provide an “ample margin of safety to protect public health” from lead for CAA section 112(f) purposes. The commenter observed that the NAAQS recognizes harm (including the loss of IQ points as an indicator of neurological harm) occurs below the level of the NAAQS.
The commenter also noted that the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) has advised the EPA to lower the lead NAAQS to 0.02 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that either the use of the lead NAAQS does not sufficiently protect public health from lead emissions from this source category or the setting of the lead NAAQS did not reflect an adequate scientific assessment of risk. While recognizing that lead has been demonstrated to exert “a broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems,” the lead NAAQS targets the effects associated with relatively lower exposures and associated blood lead levels, specifically nervous system effects in children, including cognitive and neurobehavioral effects (73 FR 66976, November 12, 2008). The EPA establishes the NAAQS at a level to protect sensitive subpopulations, such as children and pregnant women. The 2008 decision on the lead NAAQS was informed by an evidence-based framework for neurocognitive effects in young children. In applying the evidence-based framework, the EPA focused on a subpopulation of U.S. children, those living near air sources and more likely to be exposed at the level of the standard; to the same effect.
As noted in the risk assessment document, there is no reference dose (RfD) or other comparable chronic health benchmark value for lead compounds. In 1988, the EPA's IRIS program also reviewed the health effects data regarding lead and its inorganic compounds and determined that it would be inappropriate to develop an RfD for these compounds, stating, “A great deal of information on the health effects of lead has been obtained through decades of medical observation and scientific research. This information has been assessed in the development of air and water quality criteria by the Agency's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) in support of regulatory decision-making by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and by the Office of Drinking Water. By comparison to most other environmental toxicants, the degree of uncertainty about the health effects of lead is quite low. It appears that some of these effects, particularly changes in the levels of certain blood enzymes and in aspects of children's neurobehavioral development may occur at blood lead levels so low that a threshold has yet to be determined. The Agency's RfD Work Group discussed inorganic lead (and lead compounds) at two meetings (07/08/1985 and 07/22/1985) and considered it inappropriate to develop an RfD for inorganic lead.”
The EPA's IRIS assessment for lead and lead compounds (inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1) can be found at:
With regard to the information identified by the commenter, much of this information was similar to information available at the time of the 2008 NAAQS decision. For example, in 2005, the CDC recognized the evidence of adverse health effects in children with blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL, and that there is no safe level of blood lead in young children.
We also disagree with the comment that EPA cannot presume that achieving an ambient air concentration of the NAAQS for lead is sufficient to ensure acceptable health risk and provide an “ample margin of safety to protect public health” from lead for CAA section 112(f) purposes. The EPA considered the primary NAAQS for lead—which incorporates an adequate margin of safety—in determining whether lead risks (taken together with cancer and other noncancer health risks) from air-borne lead from engine test facilities are acceptable or unacceptable, under CAA section 112(f)(2). As explained at proposal, ample margin of safety determinations, under CAA section 112(f)(2) are conducted separately, in accord with the two-step framework set forth in the Benzene NESHAP and
After review of all the comments received, we determined that no changes needed to be made to the underlying risk assessment methodology. Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the document titled
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our risk review as proposed, and we are readopting the current standards.
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for control of HAP emissions from engine testing facilities. No cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the standards. More information concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled
The technology review has not changed since proposal.
The EPA received comments in support of the proposed determination from the technology review that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). We also received comments asserting that the technology review was inadequate for a variety of reasons, primarily because of failure to consider control technologies developed since the original NESHAP.
Additionally, the emission standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP apply to the collection of engine test cells/stands located at a major source of HAP emissions that are used to test uninstalled stationary engines or uninstalled mobile engines. The subpart PPPPP standards do not apply to individual engines or to final products, such as automobiles or light and heavy-duty trucks. Rather, the purpose of engine testing is to simulate the operation of a specific type of engine under certain environmental conditions. In some cases, the testing confirms a new or refurbished engine is assembled correctly and will function as intended. In other cases, the testing measures the durability and performance of a new engine design or a new engine component.
In sum, under the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review, the EPA is concluding that there are no new cost-effective controls that would achieve further emissions reductions and that the existing numerical emission limits in the NESHAP should be retained. For these reasons, consistent with the EPA's proposal, the emission limits in the NESHAP are not being revised.
The EPA also reviewed numerous construction and operating permits issued by permitting authorities to major and area sources that operate engine test facilities. As part of these reviews, we looked for any new control technology or work practice standards required by a state or local agency. We also provided a 45-day comment period on our proposed conclusion that would allow industry, state, and local air agencies, control device manufacturers, and other stakeholders to provide information on any new technologies and work practices that we may have overlooked. However, no new technologies or work practice approaches were identified in the public comments we received. Commenters did not provide any additional information on control technology for this source category and the EPA did not receive any additional information based on the proposal. The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem and courts generally defer to the Agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to “invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.”
For these reasons, the EPA is not persuaded by these comments and rather considers our review to be sufficiently rigorous. If any improvements in control technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches occurred since the 2003 NESHAP was finalized, we would have identified them. Since our review did not identify any improvements and no new methods have been identified during the public comment period, we are finalizing as proposed our determination that no changes to the emission standards are required pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and response document titled,
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the standards. More information concerning our technology review, and how we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled
The EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in
The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019) with minor changes to the General Provisions table (Table 7) and related cross-references to correct inadvertent errors made at proposal. These include the following:
• Addition of language in Table 7 indicating that several provisions are still applicable for 180 days following the effective date of this final rule; and
• Removal of cross-references to SSM exemption-related provisions.
We also note that because the final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable, the EPA is adding to the rule at 40 CFR 63.9355(c)(5) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: “The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).” A public comment was also received on this issue and more information can be found in the comment summary and response document titled
For reasons more fully described in the preamble at proposal, we also proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.9305 to add regulatory text regarding the general duty to minimize emissions. However, a typographical error was inadvertently made at the end of the sentence, “The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieve.” This sentence should have read as follows, and we are finalizing it as such: “The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.”
Also, for reasons more fully described at proposal, we proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.9355 to add regulatory text regarding the requirements to record actions taken to minimize emissions and to record corrective actions. However, in 40 CFR 63.9355(a)(6), we inadvertently left the words “the cause” out of the sentence that read, “For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure.” This sentence should have read as follows, and we are finalizing it as such: “For each failure record the date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.”
Finally, while we proposed to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.9321 to remove the language “according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1)” (because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption), rule text showing this change was inadvertently not provided in the amendatory text appearing toward the end of the proposal document. Because this change, and the rationale for it, was adequately described in the proposal preamble, we are finalizing it as proposed.
The EPA received comments related to our proposed revisions to the SSM provisions. One commenter generally supported the proposed revisions to the SSM provisions but disagreed with the Agency's approach to malfunctions.
The commenter's discussion of the EPA's decision in the Refinery Sector Rule, to set a standard for a particular type of malfunction that is different than the standards that apply in other circumstances, is not relevant here because the standards in this final rule for engine test cells apply to at all times, including during periods of malfunction. The commenter also
Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and response document titled
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019) and in section III.C of this preamble, we are finalizing our approach for the SSM provisions as proposed other than the minor changes detailed previously.
The EPA proposed that owners and operators of engine test cells/stands must submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. More information concerning our proposal on electronic reporting requirements can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
Since proposal, the electronic reporting provisions have not changed.
The EPA received comments both in support of and against the proposed electronic reporting provisions.
• The addition of electronic reporting should not establish any new data requirements beyond what is currently required by the regulation. All data reporting requirements should tie to a regulatory citation;
• The reporting system should allow companies the option to provide explanatory comments on data or information submitted;
• Electronic reporting should not place further restrictions on who is eligible to submit a report;
• Sufficient compliance time should be allowed for companies to implement the revised requirements and to integrate EPA and company systems;
• Regulatory language should allow companies to submit hardcopy reports if there are problems with the EPA's reporting system availability or company systems;
• Electronic reporting should allow companies to submit reports as Portable Document Format (PDF) documents;
• The reporting system should allow updates or corrections to be submitted;
• The EPA should work with other regulatory authorities (
• Any reporting templates should be available for review at the time a rule is proposed.
For the semiannual compliance reports, reporters must use the spreadsheet template provided by the EPA to submit information to CEDRI. Additional information may be supplied through the comment field or as additional attachments through the process described on the Welcome tab of the spreadsheet template. In the proposal, we solicited comment on the content, layout and overall design of the template and a copy of the proposed template was made available in the docket (see
All facilities must submit their reports electronically. For reports that contain information claimed as CBI, reporters will submit redacted reports electronically and mail complete versions, including the CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other electronic storage media to the EPA. Although facilities will not have the option to continue submitting reports in hardcopy, the EPA provides support for companies on the EPA's CEDRI website, accessed at
Section 307(d)(3) of the CAA states, in the case of any rule to which this subsection applies, notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the
Section 553(b) of the APA states that general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the
The commenter stated that none of the exceptions in the APA would apply to any future changes in reporting templates and noted that the
The EPA has amended the template to display the date of creation and revision number of the template. The date of the final rule is not included in the template.
The commenter also thought that the EPA lacked the authority to allow exceptions or extensions for a “force majeure event” under the CAA. The commenters said the CAA was enacted to protect public health and welfare, to reduce pollution and the harm it causes, including cancer and other serious health impacts from HAP. The commenter said that creating a “malfunction exemption” contravenes the CAA. The commenter noted that the concept of “force majeure” comes from contract law and is not applicable to the CAA because it is not a contract. The commenter noted that “force majeure is a phrase coined primarily for the convenience of contracting parties wishing to describe the facts that create a contractual impossibility due to an `Act of God.' (See 6 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, section 1324 (1962)). As Corbin points out, this term is outmoded and serves no useful purpose as a test of responsibility.”
The commenter thought that while CEDRI outages and some events may be out of a facility's control, the facility owners or operators have many factors within their control. The commenter said the EPA failed to evaluate the steps
The commenter also said the EPA did not identify any problems or burdens with the electronic reporting system that could justify an extension. The commenter noted that in a proposed rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector, the EPA had stated: “We note that the submission of ERT formatted performance test and performance evaluation reports using CEDRI is fully operational, and there are no known or reported system issues . . . In addition, the CDX Helpdesk staff are available during regular business hours to support industry users in completing their submissions electronically using CEDRI.” The commenter also noted the EPA found that “over 3,400 ERT files have been submitted to the EPA through CEDRI,” only 43 help calls were received, and only 9 calls were referred to EPA staff for further assistance (see, NESHAP: Petroleum Refinery Sector Amendments, Proposal, 83 FR 15458, 15469 (April 10, 2018). The commenter said the EPA's proposed extension was not based on evidence of any problem with electronic reporting in the past, based on the record provided for public comment. The commenter said that no evidence was provided showing that a reporting problem could not be resolved through a case-by-case resolution or that any harm has been caused by not having an extension provision.
The commenter was concerned that delayed reporting and potentially failure to report would cause harm because it delays compliance assurance by the EPA, the states, and affected community residents. The commenter thought the extension provision would undermine the health and environmental protections of the standards, resulting in cancer and acute health threats from engine test facilities. The commenter urged the EPA to set a deadline for reporting and to assure that the extension request allows only a temporary delay in reporting, such as a 10-day extension, rather than an open-ended extension with no deadline.
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
There is no exception or exemption to reporting, much less an exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, rather, this regulatory provision only sets out a method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by the Administrator (
The concept of force majeure is not arbitrary, as it has been implemented since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the performance test extensions requirements provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the discretion of the Administrator.
The EPA disagrees that the reporting extension will undermine enforcement because the Administrator has full discretion to accept or reject the claim of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an extension is not automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by the Administrator. If the Administrator determines that a facility has not acted in good faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the Administrator can reject the claim and find that the failure to report timely is a deviation from the regulation. CEDRI system outages are infrequent, but the EPA knows when they occur and whether a facility's claim is legitimate. Force majeure events (
Additionally, the ability to request a reporting extension does not apply to a broad category of circumstances; on the contrary, the scope for submitting an extension request for an electronic report is very limited in that claims can only be made for an event outside of the owner's or operator's control that occurs in the 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline. The claim must then be approved by the Administrator, and in approving such a claim, the Administrator would agree that something outside the control of the owner or operator prevented the owner or operator from meeting its reporting obligation. In no circumstance does this electronic reporting extension allow for the owner or operator to be out of compliance with the underlying emissions standards.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assumption that the requirement to report “as soon as possible” makes it likely that reporting will be significantly delayed, may lead a facility to drag its feet in submitting reports for an extended period, or may lead to a facility never reporting information. Each request for an extension of the electronic reporting deadline must be approved by the Administrator (or delegated authority), and each request must state the time requested for the extension as well as the dates and times at which the unsuccessful attempt(s) to access CEDRI were made in the case of a CEDRI outage. The EPA also disagrees that a delay in reporting due to a CEDRI outage or a force majeure event would necessitate a delay in a corrective action that would be taken to prevent harmful and unlawful emission exceedances. The facility must remain in compliance with all air emissions requirements and has an ongoing responsibility under the general duty clause of 40 CFR 63.6(e) to operate and maintain any affected source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution practices for minimizing emissions. An extension of the deadline for submitting an electronic report in no way eliminates culpability for exceedances of emissions limitations or the requirement to address them.
The EPA disagrees that the force majeure extension request must require a facility to report what steps it will take in the future to prevent the same problem from occurring. A force majeure event for the purpose of electronic reporting is defined as “. . . an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility.” Examples of such events are acts of nature and acts of war or terrorism. By definition, force majeure events are not something that a facility is able to control, and, thus, there is no way for the facility to prevent it from happening.
The EPA disagrees that the existing statistics on the use of CEDRI and e-reporting precludes the need for a provision to account for an outage of the CEDRI system. Prudent management of electronic data systems builds in allowances for unexpected, non-routine delays, such as occurred on July 1, 2016, and October 20-23, 2017, and is consistent with the already-existing provisions afforded for unexpected, non-routine delays in performance testing (see 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1) and (2) and 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4)). For both electronic reporting and performance testing, owners or operators are to conduct and complete their activities within a short window of time; the EPA believes that it is prudent to allow owners or operators to make force majeure claims for situations beyond their reasonable control. The EPA also disagrees that incidental issues with questions on completing the form or the procedures for accessing CEDRI for which the CEDRI Helpdesk is available, are conditions that would be considered either force majeure or a CEDRI system outage. The existence of the Helpdesk for answering questions on procedures in submitting reports to CEDRI have no impact on the availability of CEDRI in such a circumstance.
The purpose of these requests for extensions are to accommodate owners and operators in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report electronically for reasons that are beyond their control and occur during a short window of time prior to the reporting deadline. The extension is not automatic, and the Administrator retains the right to accept or reject the request. The language was added as part of the standard electronic reporting language based on numerous comments received on the proposal for the Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards (80 FR 15100, March 20, 2015).
Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and response document titled
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the electronic reporting provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019), we have determined the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final rule will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time
The EPA proposed the following technical and editorial changes to the existing NESHAP for the source category:
• Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.9307 to add THC as a continuous emission monitoring option and to add Performance Specification 8A and EPA Method 25A;
• Revising the initial compliance requirements in 40 CFR 63.9320 to include a provision for the performance test to be used to demonstrate compliance;
• Revising Tables 3 and 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, to add an alternative compliance option; and
• Revising section 40 CFR 63.9350 to address the reporting of performance tests and performance evaluations.
Since proposal, the technical and editorial changes have not changed.
While no comments were received on the particular technical and editorial changes detailed above, additional comments of a technical and editorial nature were received. Our specific responses to those comments can be found in the document titled
Because no comments were received on the technical and editorial changes that the EPA proposed, we determined that these changes should be finalized as proposed.
In the proposal, the EPA specifically solicited comment on an aspect of initial performance testing. According to the existing regulations, if an affected source owner or operator elects to comply with the percent reduction emission limitation, an initial performance test must be conducted to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish the operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. Performance tests are to be conducted under representative operating conditions, and the source is required to document the operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. In discussions prior to our May 2019 proposal, industry stakeholders raised the issue that, for facilities with multiple test cells/stands, it is difficult to define “normal” operation due to the several types of engine tests conducted, the varying operation conditions for the engine tests, the number of cells/stands, different kinds of test fuels, and the complex emission capture system. Thus, affected sources have felt the need to request approval on the testing protocol prior to conducting the performance tests to limit tests to representative cells. We requested comment on whether this process of requesting prior approval for determining what is considered “normal” operation for a specific affected facility is reasonable and appropriate for the one-time required performance test. More information concerning our request for comment on this aspect of initial performance testing can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019).
Since proposal, this issue has not changed.
One commenter commented more broadly on the issue of performance testing.
• The test method requires the construction of a TTE over all of the test cells in order to measure emissions at exhaust points from the test cell building. With many cells and the volume of air flow involved, construction of a TTE is impossible because the temporary structure would be the size of a large building.
• Measuring all of the emission points from a test cell building at one location is not practical as this would require simultaneous testing at one location of exhaust volume and THC concentration from over 100 locations (90+ general ventilation exhaust points, scavenge air exhaust points systems, emission analyzer vents, and regenerative thermal oxidizers).
• The low CO volume generated from scavenge air and air handling units associated with the general ventilation system can be difficult to measure accurately and background CO levels can interfere with obtaining accurate
• Approval is needed to limit tests to “representative” cells. From a practical perspective, the absence of a definition of what is representative (
• Other TTE EPA Method 204 issues include:
○ A source must request alternative approval to deviate from EPA Method 204 requirements to use a single analyzer. The rule does not address the ability to use various calibration gases based on concentration ranges for several capture points.
○ Current rule excludes an allowance for measuring CO instead of VOC or THC, triggering the need for regulatory authority approval to measure CO. In most cases, VOC is too low of a concentration to measure from test cell operations.
○ When testing capture efficiency, an entity must lock room air handling system in place in order to accurately measure air flow from this source and generate valid data. This can trigger changes in ambient conditions for the engine test.
To address these issues, the commenter recommended the EPA should:
1.
○ Due to the size, number, and configuration of test cells, it is difficult to determine capture efficiency and meet the TTE requirements.
○ Alternatively, the EPA could establish a default capture rate for the
2.
○ Allow for a representative test and include a definition describing the requirements for representative test conditions in order to measure CO from various points from the enclosure. This would include testing a representative test cycle (
○ Modify requirements to allow for multiple analyzers with different measurement spans.
○ If testing of capture efficiency must be conducted, the test method should allow for the locking of the room air handling system. This is not considered normal operation but is necessary because facilities cannot accurately measure air flow when the system is in a constant state of adjusting.
○ Allow measurement of CO, not just THC or HAP.
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed changes regarding initial performance testing. For the reasons explained previously, we determined that no changes should be made to current practice. Although affected sources may still request approval on the testing protocol, this practice will continue to not be required.
There are currently 59 engine test cells/stands facilities operating in the United States that conduct engine testing operations and are subject to the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP, affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities associated with engine test cells/stands used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines located at a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source is a completely new engine testing source that commenced construction after May 14, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and commenced reconstruction after May 14, 2002.
At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP from the source category are estimated to be approximately 163 tpy. This represents a reduction in HAP emissions of about 80 tpy due to the current (2003) Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP. These final amendments require all affected sources subject to the emission standards in the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We do not expect that eliminating the SSM exemption will result in reduced emissions since the existing NESHAP requires that the operating limits established during the performance test for demonstrating continuous compliance must be met at all times.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (
The EPA estimates that each facility in the source category will experience costs as a result of the final amendments. These costs are estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs of the final rule. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. The total cost for this activity is estimated to be $4,029 annually, inclusive of all affected entities. Facilities will also experience costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption (including labor hours required for re-evaluation of previously developed SSM record systems), and costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit performance test, performance evaluation, and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI (including labor hours needed to become familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports). There costs were also estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs of the rule amendments, however, we do not expect any net change in cost to result from elimination of the SSM exemption or the addition of the electronic reporting requirements. Therefore, the total estimated cost of this action, beyond the costs that would have been incurred by industry pursuant to the regulations in effect prior to this final rule, is $4,029 annually.
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with a
The EPA is not finalizing changes to the emission limit requirements and estimates the proposed changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring are not economically significant. Because these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.
The results of the Engine Test Cells/Stands source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 2,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 based on actual or allowable emissions. Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by engine test cells/stands emissions is greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the following demographics: White (90 percent for the source category compared to 62 percent nationwide), Above Poverty Level (87
The EPA, therefore, reaffirms its determination that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations because it maintains the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report,
The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the document,
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2066.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Engine Test Cells/Stands NESHAP in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. During the original rulemaking, an ICR was sent to over 100 companies representing over 300 individual facilities. Using that information, along with discussion with industry stakeholders, it was determined that there were no major sources that were also owned by small entities. A review of the 59 facilities currently in this source category also concluded that none are owned by small entities. Thus, this action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any engine test cell/stand facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019) and further documented in the risk report titled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of the proposal preamble (84 FR 20208, May 8, 2019), section IV.A of this preamble, and the technical report,
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Engine test cells/stands, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after May 27, 2003, you must comply with the emission limitations in this subpart upon startup; except that if the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 27, 2003, but on or before May 8, 2019, the compliance date for the requirements promulgated at §§ 63.9295, 63.9305, 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.9355, 63.9375, and Table 7 of this subpart as revised on June 3, 2020 is December 1, 2020.
(3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 8, 2019, the compliance date is June 3, 2020 or the date of startup, whichever is later.
(a) Prior to December 1, 2020, you must be in compliance with the emission limitation that applies to you at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of your control device or associated monitoring equipment. On and after December 1, 2020, you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitation at all times.
(b) If you must comply with the emission limitation, you must operate and maintain your engine test cell/stand, air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source.
(c) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, you must develop a written SSM plan (SSMP) for emission control devices and associated monitoring equipment according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The plan will apply only to emission control devices, and not to engine test cells/stands.
(c) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to the applicable Performance Specification (PS) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS- 3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to PS-3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, using Reference Method 3A or 3B for the O
(4) All CEMS data must be reduced as specified in § 63.8(g)(2) and recorded as CO or THC as carbon concentration in parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 percent O
(b) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each capture and control system according to §§ 63.9321, 63.9322, 63.9323 and 63.9324, and each CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B (PS-3, PS-4A, or PS-8).
(c) The initial demonstration of compliance with the carbon monoxide (CO) or THC concentration limitation consists of either the first 4-hour rolling average CO or THC concentration recorded after completion of the CEMS performance evaluation if CEMS are installed or the average of the test run averages during the initial performance test. You must correct the CO or THC concentration at the outlet of the engine test cell/stand or the emission control device to a dry basis and to 15 percent O
(a) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.9310 under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). Prior to December 1, 2020, the performance test must also be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1).
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
(c) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions:
(1) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1).
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as an SSM of control devices and associated monitoring equipment are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, if you had an SSM of a control device or associated monitoring equipment during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in paragraphs § 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(7) Beginning on December 1, 2020, submit all semiannual compliance reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(c) For each deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, except that on and after December 1, 2020 the semiannual compliance report must also include the information included in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(d) For each CEMS or CPMS deviation, the semiannual compliance report must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and the information included in paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this section, except that on and after December 1, 2020, the semiannual compliance report must also include the information included in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.
(11) The total operating time of each new or reconstructed engine test cell/stand during the reporting period.
(e) Prior to December 1, 2020, if you had an SSM of a control device or associated monitoring equipment during the semiannual reporting period that was not consistent with your SSMP, you must submit an immediate SSM report according to the requirements in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test or performance evaluation required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(2) Data collected or performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test or performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (f) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occured within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. After June 3, 2020, you must also keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) of this section.
(3) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the air pollution control equipment, if applicable, as required in § 63.9355.
(6) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard,
(7) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(8) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.9305, and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(b) * * *
(2) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to SSM.
(c) For each CEMS, you must keep the records as described in paragraph (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(2) Previous (
(4) For affected sources prior to December 1, 2020, the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to SSM of the control device and associated monitoring equipment.
(5) The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(3) Prior to December 1, 2020, fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limit in this subpart during malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.