Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Drug Enforcement Administration
Executive Office for Immigration Review
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model G-IV airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of un-commanded nose wheel steering turns. This AD requires replacing the nose wheel steering servo valve manifold, incorporating revised operating procedures into the airplane flight manual (AFM), doing a records inspection for any incidents of un-commanded nose wheel steering turns, and reporting the results to the FAA. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 20, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 20, 2020.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Alex Armas, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5538; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Gulfstream Model G-IV airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
Accordingly, this AD requires replacing the nose wheel steering servo valve manifold, incorporating revised operating procedures into the AFM, doing a records inspection for any incidents of un-commanded nose wheel steering turns, and reporting the results to the FAA. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.
Gulfstream requested the FAA add verbiage to the preamble referencing training that Gulfstream developed for the un-commanded nose wheel steering issue. Gulfstream stated the flight crew training is an important mitigation component should an aircraft experience an un-commanded nose wheel steering turn during landing.
The FAA disagrees. The reduction in risk associated with incorporation of the flight crew training verbiage is minimal. The sudden and unpredicted nature of an un-commanded nose wheel steering event allows for little to no response from the flight crew, even with the related training. The primary means of mitigation for an un-commanded nose wheel steering event is replacement of the nose wheel steering valve manifold assembly, which will prevent un-commanded turns from occurring. The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.
The FAA reviewed Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 244, dated March 12, 2018; Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin 244, dated March 12, 2018; and Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin 244, dated March 12, 2018. For the applicable airplane configuration, each customer bulletin describes
The FAA also reviewed Gulfstream IV Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-GIV-OPS-0001, Revision 52, dated October 30, 2017; Gulfstream G300 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-G300-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017; and Gulfstream G400 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-G400-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017. For the applicable airplane configuration, each AFM document provides revisions to the AFM with instructions for flight crew to follow if un-commanded nose wheel steering turns occur.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 425 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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 costs in this cost estimate.
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 2 hours 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-IV airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of un-commanded nose wheel steering turns. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent moisture from entering the nose steering wheel servo valve, which could freeze and cause an un-commanded nose wheel steering position during touchdown. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a lateral runway departure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise your airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating the revision applicable to your airplane configuration as listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD:
(1) Gulfstream IV Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-GIV-OPS-0001, Revision 52, dated October 30, 2017;
(2) Gulfstream G300 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-G300-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017; or
(3) Gulfstream G400 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number FAC-AC-G400-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the nose wheel steering servo valve manifold with nose wheel steering servo valve manifold part number 5100-11 or 5105-5 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the customer bulletin that applies to your airplane configuration as listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD, except you are not required to comply with step H:
(1) Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 244, dated March 12, 2018;
(2) Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin 244, dated March 12, 2018; or
(3) Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin 244, dated March 12, 2018.
(1) Between 12 months and 24 months after the replacement of the nose wheel steering valve manifold assembly required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect all aircraft records for entries of an un-commanded nose wheel steering turn.
(2) Within 10 days after the records inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, report the results of the inspection, regardless of whether the inspection found any entries, to the FAA by either email:
(i) Date of records inspection;
(ii) Date and time of all un-commanded occurrences (if any);
(iii) Airplane serial number;
(iv) Weather and runway conditions at the time of each occurrence;
(v) Copy of the pilot's report of the occurrence (if available);
(vi) Maintenance entry of the root cause of the un-commanded deflection (if available); and
(vii) Any other information pertinent to the occurrence.
(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 (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Alex Armas, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5538; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 244, dated March 12, 2018.
(ii) Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 244, dated March 12, 2018.
(iii) Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 244, dated March 12, 2018.
(iv) Gulfstream IV Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-GIV-OPS-0001, Revision 52, dated October 30, 2017.
(v) Gulfstream G300 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number GAC-AC-G300-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017.
(vi) Gulfstream G400 Airplane Flight Manual, Gulfstream Aerospace Document Number FAC-AC-G400-OPS-0001, Revision 20, dated October 30, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) 54H60 model propellers. This AD was prompted by the failure of a propeller blade that resulted in the loss of the airplane. This AD requires initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECIs) of the affected propeller blades and replacement of the propeller blades that fail the inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 20, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 20, 2020.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010, United States; phone: (877) 808-7575; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7076; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propellers. The NPRM published in the
The USMCR investigation of this event revealed the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade separated due to corrosion pitting and a resultant intergranular radial crack that was not corrected at the last propeller overhaul. From this intergranular crack, a fatigue crack initiated and grew under service loading until the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade could no longer sustain the applied loads and ultimately the blade separated. The separation of the blade resulted in the loss of the airplane and 17 fatalities. The investigation further revealed that 54H60 model propeller blades manufactured before 1971 are susceptible to cracks of the propeller blade in the area of the internal taper bore. The applicability of this AD is therefore limited to those Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propellers blades with a blade serial number below 813320, which are those propeller blades manufactured before 1971.
The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive ECIs of the affected propeller blades and removal from service of any blades that fail these inspections. Propeller blade taper bore cracks, if not detected, could result in failure of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received one comment, from Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LMAC). The following presents the FAA's response.
LMAC commented that the Discussion section of the NPRM indicated that the propeller blade separated from the KC-130T airplane as the result of corrosion that was not corrected at the last propeller overhaul. LMAC noted that the investigation completed by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force concluded that the separation was a result of a fatigue crack which grew under service loading until the blade could no longer sustain the applied loads.
The FAA revised the Discussion section of this final rule to state that the investigation concluded that corrosion pitting and a resultant intergranular radial crack was not corrected at the last propeller overhaul. From this intergranular crack, a fatigue crack initiated and grew under service loading until the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade could no longer sustain the applied loads and ultimately the blade separated. No change to this AD is required.
LMAC commented that the compliance time in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of the NPRM differs from the time recommended by LMAC in its two applicable Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs): AV382-61-011, dated October 3, 2019, for all “382 models” (excluding the 382J) and 88/SB-723, dated November 6, 2019, for L-188 Electra aircraft types. LMAC has recommended that its customers comply with the Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019, within 90 days of receipt of the applicable aircraft-type LMAC ASB. LMAC stated that this 90-day compliance time was based on an aircraft-level risk assessment that considered the consequence of loss of the propeller and the probability of occurrence based on the reported cases of intergranular cracking of the blade.
The FAA applied Advisory Circular (AC) 39-8, “Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and Auxiliary Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes,” dated September 8, 2003 (“AC 39-8”) to identify the unsafe condition and to assess the risk for propellers installed in transport aircraft. The FAA's risk assessment for the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 propeller affected by this AD did not support the compliance interval proposed by LMAC in its ASBs. The FAA's risk assessment did not justify mandating that all blades be inspected within 90 days, per the LMAC recommendation. No change to this AD is required.
LMAC commented that the severity of this “hazard/unsafe condition” is not influenced by the overhaul period and there is no known correlation between time since overhaul and probability of intergranular cracking.
The FAA agrees that the severity of this unsafe condition is not influenced by the overhaul period and there is no known correlation between time since overhaul and probability of intergranular cracking. There is little established knowledge of this type of intergranular crack initiation and growth in this aluminum alloy, although an investigation has been underway for 2 years. However, the FAA has determined that since corrosion occurs regardless of whether the propeller is in service and corrosion has been discovered in blades exhibiting intergranular cracks, the appropriate compliance time uses calendar time after the effective date of this AD, based on the time of the last overhaul.
This AD employs risk-based inspections by placing priority on inspecting blades that have higher calendar time since their last overhaul because these blades have a higher probability of corrosion. In most cases, corrosion has been found to exist in conjunction with intergranular cracking. Moreover, this AD imposes a mandatory reporting requirement for cracked blades and the FAA expects that such blades will be subject to additional metallurgical examinations intended to identify factors influencing intergranular cracking. The FAA may consider further rulemaking action on this unsafe condition, depending on the results of these examinations. No change to this AD is required.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes. These minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation ASB 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019. The ASB describes procedures for performing an ECI of the propeller blade taper bore. 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 considers this AD interim action. The root cause of the 54H60 model propeller blade separation is still under investigation. The FAA may consider further rulemaking action.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 212 propellers installed on 53 aircraft of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 20, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to all Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6111, Propeller Blade Section.
This AD was prompted by the separation of a propeller blade that resulted in the loss of an airplane and 17 fatalities. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect cracking in the propeller blade taper bore. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For affected propellers identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.E.(1), of Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019 (“the ASB”), perform an eddy current inspection (ECI) of all blades installed on the propeller within one year or 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For affected propellers identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.E.(2), of the ASB, perform an ECI of all blades installed on the propeller within two years or 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3) Perform the ECI of the affected propeller blades using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C. of the ASB.
(4) If any propeller blade fails any inspection required by this AD, based on the criteria in paragraph 3.C. of the ASB, remove the blade from service and replace with a blade eligible for installation prior to the next flight.
(5) For all affected propellers, repeat the inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD at intervals not exceeding 3 years or 1,500 flight hours, whichever comes first, after the previous inspection.
(6) Report the results of the ECI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(6) of the ASB.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any Hamilton Sundstrand propeller blades having an S/N below 813320 on any propeller, unless the blade has first passed the inspection required by this AD. After the effective date of this AD, do not install any propeller assemblies with affected propeller blades onto any aircraft unless the affected propeller blades have passed the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
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, Boston 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.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Maureen Maisttison, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7076; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) Alert Service Bulletin 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Hamilton Sundstrand service information identified in this AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010, United States; phone: (877) 808-7575; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Order with opportunity for comment.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is designating two pharmaceutical preparations containing esterified estrogens and methyltestosterone as exempt anabolic steroid products under the Controlled Substances Act.
This order is effective June 15, 2020. Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be sent, on or before August 14, 2020.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-601” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document is available at
Anabolic steroids are listed in schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). 21 U.S.C. 802(41) and 812(c), Schedule III(e). The CSA further provides that the Attorney General may, by regulation, exempt from any or all CSA provisions any “compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any anabolic steroid, which is intended for administration to a human being or an animal, and which, because of its concentration, preparation, formulation or delivery system, does not present any significant potential for abuse.” 21 U.S.C. 811(g)(3)(C). The authority to exempt these products has been delegated from the Attorney General to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (28 CFR 0.100(b)), who in turn, re-delegated this authority to the Assistant Administrator of Diversion Control (DC) (28 CFR part 0, Appendix to Subpart R, section 7(g)). The procedures for implementing this section are found at 21 CFR 1308.33.
On September 30, 2015, DEA received an application from ECI Pharmaceuticals, LLC, seeking to exempt two products combining esterified estrogens and methyltestosterone in tablets from control under the CSA. Letter from ECI Pharmaceuticals to DEA Office of Diversion Control (Sept. 30, 2015), at 1. Specifically, the products were Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone 0.625/1.25mg tablets H.S. (half strength) and Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone 1.25/2.5mg tablets D.S. (full strength).
ECI based its application on the ground that DEA had previously exempted from control other tablet products combining esterified estrogens and methyltestosterone and that its products “contain the same active drug substances in the same quantities . . . and most of the same excipients as many of the” products that have been granted exemptions.
Upon review of the application, DEA accepted it for filing. On November 2, 2015, DEA provided a copy of ECI's application to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and requested an evaluation and a recommendation.
On September 30, 2019, the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) provided HHS's evaluation and recommendation to DEA. Letter from Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, to Acting Administrator, DEA, at 1 (Sept. 30, 2019) (ASH Letter). HHS found that “[r]eports and evidence of the abuse of steroids have involved topically applied testosterone formulations and transdermal testosterone products,” which are “treatment replacement therapies for deficiency of endogenous testosterone.”
HHS further noted that ECI's two products contain the same active drug substance in the same amounts and most of the same excipients as eight different products which had previously been exempted from control.
HHS thus concluded that ECI's “Esterified Estrogen and Methyltestosterone H.S. and D.S. tablets have no abuse potential and therefore may be exempted from CSA regulation.”
Based on the evaluation and recommendation of the ASH, as well as DEA having found no evidence of significant abuse or trafficking of these types of products, the Assistant Administrator finds that “because of [their] concentration, preparation, formulation, or delivery system,” ECI's Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone 0.625/1.25mg tablets H.S. and Esterified Estrogens and Methyltestosterone 1.25/2.5mg tablets D.S., “ha[ve] no significant potential for abuse.” 21 CFR 1308.33(a). Information on these products is given below.
Therefore, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, hereby orders that the above products containing anabolic steroids be exempted from application of sections 302, 303, 305, 307, 309, 1002, 1003, 1004 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 822-823, 825, 827, 829, a 952-954) and 21 CFR 1301.13, 1301.22 and 1301.71 through 1301.76, and be included in the list of products described in 21 CFR 1308.34. These exemptions apply only with respect to the finished products. To the extent ECI handles methyltestosterone in the manufacturing process, because such material remains a controlled anabolic steroid, ECI must comply with all applicable registration, security and recordkeeping requirements set forth in the CSA and DEA regulations.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.33, any interested person may submit written comments on, or objections to, the exemption of either product listed in this order, within 60 days of the date of publication of this, as specified above. If any comments or objections raise significant issues regarding any finding of fact or conclusion of law upon which this order is based, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, shall immediately suspend the effectiveness of this order until he may reconsider the application in light of the comments and objections filed. 21 CFR 1308.33. Thereafter, the Assistant Administrator shall reinstate, revoke, or amend his original order as he determines appropriate.
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Final rule.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors is revising its regulations to clarify the practical meaning and impact of the statutory firewall contained within the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, upon Agency operations. Consistent with this action, this rule makes appropriate conforming changes.
This rule is effective as of June 11, 2020.
Armanda Mathews, Staff Assistant, email at:
The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), identified in the International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), is an independent establishment of the federal government that exercises authority over non-military United States government broadcasting.
Before reaching the end of its tenure, the Governing Board of the Agency wanted to codify and memorialize definitions and practices associated with the firewall. In 2016, the Board created a firewall working group to investigate the firewall and its sources. This rule was developed by that working group and subsequently passed unanimously by the Governing Board. (This supplementary information was added by the Agency to provide additional background as to impetus for the rule). The impetus was to demystify the firewall, including by making clear what the firewall is not.
The firewall is essential to ensuring the continued credibility and therefore effectiveness of the journalism provided by USAGM funded networks. The firewall protects the editorial independence of the networks journalists. It does not prevent oversight of the journalism consistent with the highest standards of professional journalism and editorial independence; nor does it prevent VOA or any of the networks carrying out all enumerated elements of their mission, including that of VOA to “tell America's Story”. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 432, 104-6 Cong., 2nd Sess. 127 (1998).
Pursuant to the background above, and in light of the Board's desire to codify a common-sense definition of the firewall, consistent with the law, the
This regulation clarifies the practical meaning of the statutory firewall and its basis and its impact on Agency operations
1. This final rule has been determined to be exempt from review for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. This rule does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, at the time of passage, the Agency is governed by a bipartisan Board.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as this term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this rule involves a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
Accordingly, this rule is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this rule are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Armanda Mathews, Staff Assistant, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20237 (email at:
Scope and purposes of the statutory firewall, Editorial independence, Requirement to adhere highest professional standards of journalism.
22 U.S.C. 6201
The Broadcasting Board of Governors, referred to as the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), per section 305(a)(22) of the IBA, currently provides public funds to five news media networks: The Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). Pursuant to International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended (22 U.S.C. 6201
(a) All USAGM-funded Networks must adhere to the highest professional standards of journalism, pursuant to section 303(a)(5) of the IBA, in order to produce news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive, per section 303(b) of IBA. Accordingly, USAGM networks necessarily enjoy full editorial independence in order to maintain their “professional independence and integrity,” per section 305(b) of the IBA. This statutorily mandated firewall protects the independence of the networks by insulating their editorial decisions from interference from those outside of the network, or from impermissible considerations, as set forth herein.
(b) The existence of a firewall does not mean the absence of oversight. This firewall shall not be construed to limit USAGM oversight conducted in a manner consistent with that conducted by other media organizations which operate editorially independent news divisions that adhere to the highest standards of journalism; nor does it prevent federal officials from treating the networks like any other news organization:
(c) Editorial independence and adherence to the highest standards of professional journalism do not prevent VOA from adhering fully to each of the elements of its Charter. The VOA Charter, currently codified at section 303(c) of the IBA, states that VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news, which itself will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive; represent America as a whole, and thereby present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions; and present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, as well as responsible discussions and opinion on such policies. Editorial independence and adherence to the highest standards of professional journalism, as described herein, allow for audiences to rely on VOA to be truthful and accurate. Accordingly, these principles are considered essential to meeting the Charter's mandate that “to be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners” per section 303(c) of the IBA; S. Rep. No. 703, 94 Cong., 2nd Sess. 15 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1555, 1569; and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 432, 105 Cong., 2nd Sess. 127 (1998).
(d) Editorial independence and adherence to the highest standards of professional journalism do not preclude any news organization from publishing editorials or opinion pieces, clearly marked as such; as described in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, VOA is required to carry editorials which present the views of the U.S. Government.
(a) USAGM-funded networks each enjoy full editorial independence, as that term is defined and understood by best practices of journalism.
(b) Editorial independence includes, but is not limited to the fact that only individuals within the network may make any decisions with respect to newsgathering or reporting. USAGM networks and their employees, including the heads of each network, are fully insulated from any political or other external pressures or processes that would be inconsistent with the highest standards of professional journalism.
(c) The heads of each network, and everyone else therein, are required at all times to adhere to the highest
(d) Each network is required to establish and maintain written rules setting forth the journalistic best practices for their organization, based upon the highest professional standards of professional journalism. These best practices also preclude any journalist or other covered individuals at a network, including the heads of the networks, from engaging in any activity that would call into question their neutrality or impartiality.
(a) A statutory `firewall,' provided for in section 305(b) of the IBA, and incident to adherence to the highest professional standards of broadcast journalism, exists around USAGM-funded networks, their products, and staff in order to protect their professional independence and integrity.
(b) Within any credible news organization, a firewall exists between anybody involved with any aspect of journalism (
(c) This “firewall” is understood to be violated when any person within the Executive Branch or a Network, but outside the newsroom, attempts to direct, pressure, coerce, threaten, interfere with, or otherwise impermissibly influence any of the USAGM networks, including their leadership, officers, employees, or staff, in the performance of their journalistic and broadcasting duties and activities. It is also violated when someone inside the newsroom acts in furtherance of or pursuant to such impermissible influence. Such impermissible influence would undermine the journalistic and editorial independence, and thus the credibility, of that USAGM network, and their reporters, editors, or other journalists.
(d) The firewall is critical to ensuring that the editors, reporters, and other journalists of the USAGM network make the decisions on what stories to cover and how they are covered, and that those decisions are ultimately governed by the highest standards of professional journalism.
(e) The following are not firewall violations:
(1) The firewall is not meant to discourage journalists from interviewing U.S. Government officials or to discourage such officials from appearing on USAGM-funded programs.
(2) The firewall does not prevent officers or employees within the Executive Branch, including the State Department, from engaging with or speaking about USAGM networks as they might with any other news organization. Such interaction could include but is not limited to:
(i) Publicly or privately commenting on USAGM stories;
(ii) Publicly or privately reaching out to journalists in the same manner that they would do with any other journalist;
(iii) Publicly or privately reaching out to network staff in the same manner that they would do with any other network staff; and
(iv) Otherwise interacting with journalists and other network staff in the same manner that they would do with such staffs' private sector counterparts.
(3) The firewall does not prevent a USAGM CEO or Board from undertaking the same type of direction and oversight that those in equivalent leadership positions in an organization overseeing other reputable news organizations may provide, in a manner consistent with the highest standards of professional journalism.
(4) In determining which languages to broadcast, the Agency has prioritized certain countries and audiences, such as those under authoritarian rule. The firewall does not prevent the USAGM CEO or Board from otherwise prioritizing certain audiences or languages, consistent with the statutory language service review that is carried out per section 305(a)(4) of the IBA to determine whether the continued broadcasting in various languages are furthering the mission of the networks, and per section 303(a)(1) of the IBA, are thus consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.
(5) Per section 303(b)(3) of the IBA, the firewall does not prohibit the publication of editorials and other opinion pieces by U.S. Government officials, marked clearly as such, on VOA, expressing policy positions of the U.S. Government.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe certain interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for plans with valuation dates in July 2020 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for plans with valuation dates in the third quarter of 2020. These interest assumptions are used for valuing benefits and paying certain benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective July 1, 2020.
Gregory Katz (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's website (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments”) to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay as a lump sum. Because some private-sector pension plans use these interest rates to determine lump sum amounts payable to plan participants (if the resulting lump sum is larger than the amount required under section 417(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates are also provided in appendix C to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments”).
This final rule updates appendices B and C of the benefit payments regulation to provide the rates for July 2020 measurement dates.
The July 2020 lump sum interest assumptions will be 0.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is (or is assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for June 2020, these assumptions represent no change in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4044 (“Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits”) to value benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 of ERISA, and some private-sector pension plans use them to determine benefit liabilities reportable under section 4044 of ERISA and for other purposes. The third quarter 2020 interest assumptions will be 1.98 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 1.57 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the second quarter of 2020, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.13 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.35 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
PBGC updates appendix B of the asset allocation regulation each quarter and appendices B and C of the benefit payments regulation each month. PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to issue new interest assumptions promptly so that they are available to value benefits and, for plans that rely on our publication of them each month or each quarter, to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during July 2020, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA). This revision updates certain NWCAA regulations currently in the SIP, removes obsolete regulations, and approves a subset of updated Ecology regulations to apply in NWCAA's jurisdiction.
This final rule is effective July 15, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0108. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256, or
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it means the EPA.
On March 24, 2020, we proposed to approve updates to certain NWCAA regulations currently in the SIP, remove obsolete regulations, and approve a subset of updated Ecology regulations to apply in NWCAA's jurisdiction (85 FR
The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
• 100 (8/21/2005), 101 (8/21/2005), 102 (8/21/2005), 200 (5/12/2019), 300 (5/12/2019), 305 (5/12/2019), 320 (5/12/2019), and 321 (05/12/2019).
The EPA is also approving and incorporating by reference the following Chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections submitted for approval to apply within NWCAA's jurisdiction (effective date):
• 173-400-020 (12/29/2012), 173-400-025 (9/16/2018), 173-400-030 (9/16/2018), 173-400-050 (09/16/2018), 173-400-060 (11/25/2018), 173-400-091 (4/1/2011), 173-400-111 (7/1/2016), 173-400-112 (12/29/2012), 173-400-113 (12/29/2012), 173-400-117 (12/29/2012), 173-400-118 (12/29/2012), 173-400-131 (04/1/2011), 173-400-136 (12/29/2012), 173-400-151 (2/10/2005), 173-400-171 (9/16/2018), 173-400-200 (2/10/2005), 173-400-800 (4/1/2011), 173-400-810 (7/1/2016), 173-400-820 (12/29/2012), 173-400-830 (7/1/2016), 173-400-840 (7/1/2016), 173-400-850 (7/1/2016), and 173-400-860 (4/1/2011).
Please see the amendatory text for more detailed information about the provisions submitted and approved in this action, including local agency corollaries which replace certain Chapter 173-400 WAC provisions and exclusions to our approval.
In addition to the regulations approved and incorporated by reference above in section II of this preamble, the EPA reviews and approves state and local clean air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. Therefore, we are approving the following updates to NWCAA's general provisions for inclusion in 40 CFR 52.2470(e),
As discussed in the proposal for this action, we are removing from the SIP sections: 104, 106, 122, 130, 140, 145, 301, 302, 310, 322, 323, 400, 401, 410, 420, 422, and 424. We are also removing from the SIP any formerly approved WAC provisions which are replaced by local agency corollaries for facilities or actions subject to NWCAA's jurisdiction.
This revision to the SIP applies specifically to the NWCAA jurisdiction incorporated into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c), Table 5. As discussed in our proposal, local air agency jurisdiction in Washington is generally defined on a geographic basis; however, there are exceptions. By statute, NWCAA does not have authority for sources under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). See Revised Code of Washington Chapter 80.50. Under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-405-012, 173-410-012, and 173-415-012, NWCAA also does not have jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary aluminum plants. For these sources, Ecology retains statewide, direct jurisdiction. Ecology and EFSEC also retain statewide, direct jurisdiction for issuing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits. Therefore, the EPA is not approving into 40 CFR 52.2470(c), Table 5, those provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC related to the PSD program. Specifically, these provisions are WAC 173-400-116 and WAC 173-400-700 through 173-400-750, which the EPA has already approved as applying state-wide under 40 CFR 52.2470(c), Tables 2 and 3.
Also, as described in our proposal for this action, jurisdiction to implement the visibility permitting program contained in WAC 173-400-117 varies depending on the situation. Ecology and EFSEC retain authority to implement WAC 173-400-117 as it relates to PSD permits. However, for facilities subject to major nonattainment new source review (NSR) under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-400-800, we are approving NWCAA's implementation of those parts of WAC 173-400-117 as they relate to major nonattainment NSR permits. Therefore, we are modifying the visibility protection Federal Implementation Plan contained in 40 CFR 52.2498 to reflect the approval of WAC 173-400-117 as it applies to implementation of the major nonattainment NSR program in NWCAA's jurisdiction.
Lastly, this SIP revision is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in sections II.A. and II.C. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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
• 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 it does not address technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Sources subject to the jurisdiction of local air authorities (except Benton Clean Air Agency, Northwest Clean Air Agency, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, and Southwest Clean Air Agency);
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), on May 23, 2019. The revision pertains to ACHD's amendments of the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control) to implement Federal nonattainment new source review (NNSR) provisions for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on July 15, 2020.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0469. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Amy Johansen, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2156. Ms. Johansen can also be reached via electronic mail at
On March 5, 2020 (85 FR 12882), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of amendments to ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control), sections 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area), and 2101.20 (Definitions), herein referred to as Revision 90A. Specifically, Revision 90A establishes that emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia are precursors to PM
EPA has revised the NAAQS for PM
For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly referred to as “Nonattainment New Source Review.” See CAA section 172(c)(5).
ACHD's Revision 90A revises NNSR permit requirements for major sources of PM
As required by EPA's 2016 Implementation Rule, which implements the D.C. Circuit Court's January 2013 decision in
Article XXI addresses NNSR permit requirements for major sources of PM
At proposal, EPA evaluated the revised portions of Article XXI to determine if the revisions meet current applicable requirements for a PM
Section 2102.06(b)(3)—Emission Offsets, establishes offset ratios for VOC and ammonia at a ratio of 1:1 for flue emissions and fugitive emissions in Allegheny County. EPA also proposed to find the addition of offset ratios to be approvable, as they match what is already in Article XXI for PM
Other specific provisions of SIP Revision 90A and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and its associated technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.
EPA received two comments on the March 5, 2020 NPRM. See 85 FR 12882. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are discussed in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can be found in the docket for this rulemaking action.
EPA's review of SIP Revision 90A, as explained in the NPRM and TSD for this rulemaking action, shows that Allegheny County is meeting the applicable requirements found in EPA's 2016 Implementation Rule, which implements the
EPA is approving amendments to ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI (Air Pollution Control), sections 2102.06 (Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area), and 2101.20 (Definitions) as a revision to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ACHD's Article XXI, sections 2102.06, and 2101.20, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 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 approving NNSR requirements under the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
NMFS corrects the final rule that implemented management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), which published in the
This correction is effective June 15, 2020.
Kelli O'Donnell, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
On April 14, 2020, NMFS published a final rule in the
In the final rule for the framework action (85 FR 20611, April 14, 2020), the regulatory text in Table 1 to appendix B to 50 CFR part 622 contained one incorrect waypoint for the reef fish longline and buoy gear restricted area. The coordinates presented to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for review were correct. However, in the rulemaking for the framework action, Point 19 of the longline and buoy gear restricted area in Table 1 was incorrectly identified as 28°46.5′ N and 89°26.0′ W, which is inshore of the revised boundary of the Gulf reef fish longline and buoy gear restricted area. Thus, NMFS corrects Table 1 of appendix B to 50 CFR part 622 with the correct coordinate for Point 19 of the Gulf reef fish longline and buoy gear
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this correcting amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf reef fish resources and is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.
This correcting amendment has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This correcting amendment corrects a waypoint for the longline and buoy gear restricted area. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this is a non-substantive change and retaining the incorrect waypoint will cause confusion among the affected fishers and law enforcement. The current waypoint error results in an inshore boundary of the federally-managed restricted that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2016 and 2017 Appropriations Acts.
For the same reasons, the Assistant Administrator also finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment. This non-substantive correction will prevent confusion about the location of the boundary for the longline and buoy gear restricted area.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Boundary, Commercial, Coordinates, Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf of Mexico, Reef fish, Trip limits.
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 622 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; 2020 fishing seasons notice.
NMFS announces the limited opening of commercial and recreational red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2020 fishing year. This notice announces the red snapper commercial season opening date and the opening and closing dates for the red snapper recreational season, according to the accountability measures (AMs). This season announcement for South Atlantic red snapper allows fishers to maximize their opportunity to harvest the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) while also managing harvest to protect the red snapper resource.
The 2020 commercial red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 13, 2020. The 2020 recreational red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 10, 2020, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 13, 2020; then reopens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 17, 2020, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 18, 2020, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery includes red snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The final rule implementing Amendment 43 to the FMP (83 FR 35428; July 26, 2018) describes red snapper management measures including the specific timing for red snapper commercial and recreational fishing seasons. The final rule also revised the commercial and recreational ACLs for red snapper. The commercial AM requires the sector to close when commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL. The recreational AM is the length of the recreational season, with NMFS projecting the season length based on catch rate estimates from previous years.
The commercial ACL is 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), and this ACL was not exceeded in 2019. The recreational ACL is 29,656 fish, and preliminary landings information show this ACL was exceeded in the 5-day fishing season in 2019. For 2020, NMFS has determined that the landings from the recreational sector are expected to reach the recreational ACL in 4 days.
At the March 2020 Council meeting, NMFS presented estimates showing a possible 3-day recreational red snapper season for 2020. Subsequent to that meeting, NMFS determined that a 4-day recreational red snapper season was appropriate.
For South Atlantic red snapper, the commercial season begins each year on the second Monday in July and closes when the commercial ACL is reached or is projected to be reached. Accordingly, the 2020 commercial season opens on July 13, 2020. The commercial season will remain open until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2021, unless the commercial ACL is reached or projected to be reached prior to this date. During the commercial fishing season, the commercial trip limit is 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight. NMFS will monitor commercial landings during the open season, and if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, then NMFS will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for red snapper for the remainder of the fishing year.
The recreational season begins on the second Friday in July. Accordingly, the 2020 recreational red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 10, 2020, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 13, 2020; then reopens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 17, 2020, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 18, 2020. During the recreational season, the recreational bag limit is one red snapper per person, per day. After the recreational sector closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper are zero.
Additionally, during both the commercial and recreational open seasons, there is not a red snapper minimum or maximum size limit for either sector.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic red snapper and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.183(b)(5)(i) and 622.193(y) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to implement the notice of the dates for the red snapper fishing seasons constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the red snapper ACLs and AMs has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the respective commercial and recreational fishing seasons. Additionally, announcing the fishing seasons now allows each sector to prepare for the upcoming harvest and provides opportunity to for-hire fishing vessels to book trips that could increase their revenues and profits.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement Regulatory Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Regulatory Amendment 29), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule requires descending devices to be on board vessels and requires the use of specific fish hook types while fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species. This rule also allows the use of powerheads in Federal waters off South Carolina to harvest snapper-grouper species. The purpose of this rule is to modify fishing gear requirements to promote best fishing practices and to ensure consistent regulations for the dive component of the snapper-grouper fishery.
This final rule is effective on July 15, 2020.
Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 29 may be obtained from
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
NMFS and the Council manage the snapper-grouper fishery under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
On April 21, 2020, NMFS published a proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 29 in the
This final rule requires: Descending devices be on board all commercial, charter vessels and headboats (for-hire), and private recreational vessels while fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species; the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when
This final rule requires at least one descending device to be on board and ready for use on any commercial, for-hire, or private recreational vessel while fishing for or possessing South Atlantic snapper-grouper. As described in Regulatory Amendment 29, studies have shown that if properly used and maintained, descending devices may relieve symptoms of barotrauma and can decrease discard mortality of released fish. Barotrauma is the injury caused by internal gas expansion when a fish is retrieved from depth. This final rule defines a descending device as an instrument capable of releasing the fish at the depth from which the fish was caught, and to which is attached a minimum of a 16-ounce (454-gram) weight and a minimum of a 60-ft (18.3-m) length of line. A 16-ounce weight is available at many tackle shops and is heavy enough to descend a majority of snapper-grouper species subject to barotrauma. A minimum line length of 60 ft (18.3 m) attached to a descending device will better ensure fish are released at a minimum depth of 50 ft (15.2 m) while fishermen using the descending device are standing on the deck of a vessel, as well as to account for possible ocean current or swell.
The descending device may either attach to the fish's mouth or it may be a container that will retain the fish while it is lowered to depth. The device must be capable of releasing the fish at depth automatically, by actions of the device operator, or by allowing the fish to escape on its own when at depth.
This final rule does not specifically require the use of a descending device because it may not be needed every time a fish is caught; however, the device is required to be readily available on a vessel for use when a fish may be experiencing barotrauma.
This final rule requires the use of non-offset and non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits north of 28° N latitude, which is approximately 25 miles (40 km) south of Cape Canaveral, Florida. A non-offset hook has the point and barb in-line with the hook shank. Commercial and recreational fishermen in the South Atlantic have reported to the Council that some released snapper-grouper die due to foul-hooking,
This final rule requires the use of non-stainless steel hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits throughout Federal waters in the South Atlantic region. Similar to the requirement to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28° N latitude, this measure is expected to provide biological benefits to snapper-grouper species in South Atlantic Federal waters. Because non-stainless steel hooks degrade faster than stainless steel hooks, any fish released with an embedded non-stainless steel hook could have a greater chance of survival.
This final rule removes the powerhead prohibition in Federal waters off South Carolina, allowing a powerhead to be used to harvest South Atlantic snapper-grouper. A powerhead is a type of fishing gear that includes any device with an explosive charge, usually attached to a spear gun, spear, pole, or stick that fires a projectile upon contact with the fish. Fishermen previously expressed concern to the Council at public meetings regarding inequitable access for the dive component of the snapper-grouper fishery off South Carolina because they were prohibited from using a powerhead, while that was an allowable gear to harvest snapper-grouper species in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the other South Atlantic states. The Council determined that because the commercial and recreational dive components of the snapper-grouper fishery only constitute approximately 5 percent of the landings from South Atlantic Federal waters, any impacts on snapper-grouper species from removing the powerhead prohibition would be minimal. This rule increases consistency in regulations throughout South Atlantic Federal waters, reduces regulatory confusion among commercial and recreational dive fishermen, and aids in compliance and enforcement efforts.
NMFS received 27 comments from individuals, commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental non-governmental organizations, and fishing organizations during the public comment period on the proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 29. Most comments supported the actions in the proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 29, particularly the descending device action. NMFS acknowledges the comments in favor of all or part of the actions in the proposed rule and agrees with them. Comments that were beyond the scope of the proposed rule are not responded to in this final rule. Comments that opposed an action contained in Regulatory Amendment 29 and the proposed rule are summarized below, along with NMFS' responses.
NMFS disagrees that descending devices will result in little benefit to the species in the snapper-grouper fishery. The use of descending devices may reduce predation on released snapper-grouper species by allowing a more rapid return to depth, thereby making them less vulnerable to predators. Discarded fish stranded at the surface may become prey for marine mammals, sea birds, and other large predators,
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 29, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a) of the RFA. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. A description of this final rule, why it is being implemented, and the purpose of this final rule are contained in the
Public comments relating to socio-economic implications and potential impacts on small businesses are addressed in the response to
This final rule applies to all commercial vessels, for-hire vessels, and private recreational anglers that fish for or harvest snapper-grouper species in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the impacts on commercial and for-hire fishing businesses will be discussed.
As of May 8, 2020, there were 525 valid or renewable South Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited permits and 102 valid or renewable 225-lb (102-kg) trip-limited permits. On average from 2013 through 2017, there were 568 federally permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2013 through 2017 was approximately $47,000 (2018 dollars) and snapper-grouper species accounted for 68 percent of this revenue. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of the commercial vessels that landed South Atlantic snapper-grouper species from 2013 through 2017 was approximately $1.5 million (2018 dollars).
As of May 8, 2020, there were 1,680 vessels with valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permits for South Atlantic snapper-grouper. Although the NMFS for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit itself does not identify the permitted vessel as either a charter vessel or a headboat. Operation as either a charter vessel or headboat is not restricted by permitting regulations and vessels may operate in both capacities on separate trips. However, only selected headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to the NMFS Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). Participation in the SRHS is based on determination by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. As of February 18, 2020, 65 South Atlantic headboats were registered in the SRHS. As a result, of the 1,680 vessels with Federal snapper-grouper for-hire permits, up to 65 may primarily operate as headboats and the remainder as charter vessels. The average South Atlantic charter vessel is estimated to receive approximately $123,000 (2018 dollars) in annual gross revenue. The average South Atlantic headboat is estimated to receive approximately $218,000 (2018 dollars) in annual gross revenue.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated
The SBA has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210). A business primarily involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $8 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the for-hire fishing businesses that will be directly regulated by this final rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria.
No other small entities that will be directly affected by this final rule have been identified.
This final rule will require owners or operators of commercial and for-hire vessels to have a descending device on board when fishing for or possessing species in the snapper-grouper fishery management unit (FMU). It also requires that commercial fishermen and for-hire anglers use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for species in the snapper-grouper FMU with hook-and-line gear and natural baits in the South Atlantic EEZ north of 28° N latitude. Finally, it requires that commercial fishermen and for-hire anglers use non-stainless steel hooks when fishing for species in the snapper-grouper FMU with hook-and-line gear and natural baits throughout the South Atlantic EEZ. To the extent that for-hire fishing businesses supply fishing tackle such as hooks to their customers, this final rule will require for-hire businesses to purchase, and ensure the use of, such hooks as described previously. No special professional skills are necessary for compliance with this final rule.
The estimated lower bound cost per vessel to purchase a descending device, based on advertised retail prices, plus the cost of a qualifying weight and line, is approximately $19 (2018 dollars). Commercial and for-hire businesses that already own suitable descending devices will not need to purchase new ones.
The requirement for commercial fishermen and for-hire anglers to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits in the EEZ north of 28° N latitude will require some commercial fishing businesses and potentially some for-hire vessels to purchase these hooks. The cost of purchasing circle hooks is highly variable and will depend on how many hooks each commercial or for-hire fishing business needs, as well as the quantity of hooks included in each purchase. In general, the cost per hook may vary from approximately $0.30 per hook to $1.00 per hook. If for-hire anglers supply their own hooks, then the impact to for-hire fishing businesses would be reduced. Additionally, non-offset circle hooks may reduce the catchability of some species, which could negatively affect catch efficiency on some fishing trips. In turn, this could lead to a reduction in commercial ex-vessel revenue or increased trip costs. It is not possible to estimate the specific costs that each business would face as a result of the circle hook requirement. Any change in for-hire anglers' demand for for-hire fishing trips (and associated economic effects) as a result of the new hook requirement would be secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, would be an indirect effect of this final rule. Indirect effects are not relevant to the RFA.
In addition, this final rule will require the use of non-stainless steel hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits throughout the South Atlantic EEZ. Commercial and for-hire vessels fishing north of 28° N latitude will not be affected because there is already a non-stainless steel hook requirement in place there. The cost of purchasing non-stainless steel hooks is highly variable and will depend on how many hooks each commercial or for-hire fishing business needs as well as the quantity of hooks in each purchase. In general, the cost per non-stainless steel hook may vary from approximately $0.30 per hook to $1.00 per hook. Switching from stainless to non-stainless steel would likely decrease the useful lifespan of hooks, leading to a small increase in operating costs in the long term for commercial and for-hire businesses. If for-hire anglers supply their own hooks, then the impact to for-hire fishing businesses would be reduced. Changing from stainless to non-stainless steel hooks is not be expected to affect the harvest of snapper-grouper species and, therefore, no reduction in commercial ex-vessel revenue is expected.
Finally, this final rule will allow federally permitted commercial fishermen and for-hire anglers to use powerheads to harvest snapper-grouper species in the EEZ off South Carolina. This will increase the opportunity for harvest in some circumstances, potentially leading to greater commercial ex-vessel revenue or lower harvest costs. It is not possible to meaningfully estimate these potential economic effects with available data. Any economic effects on for-hire fishing businesses would be indirect and would depend on how anglers' demand for for-hire trips changes as a result of removing the restriction on powerhead usage. Again, indirect effects are not relevant to the RFA.
The following discussion describes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council.
Three alternatives were considered for the action to specify requirements for the use of descending devices or venting devices when fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not require descending or venting devices to be on board when fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species. This alternative would not be expected to result in direct costs to any small entities. It was not selected by the Council because it would forgo any improvements to snapper-grouper fish stocks that could be achieved through the increased usage of descending or venting devices and resultant decreases in release mortality.
The second alternative and three sub-alternatives, which were all selected as preferred by the Council, will require a descending device be on board private recreational, for-hire, and commercial vessels, respectively, when fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species.
The third alternative would require a venting device be on board a vessel when fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species. The third alternative contained three sub-alternatives that would apply the venting device requirement to private recreational vessels, for-hire vessels, and commercial vessels, respectively. The estimated lower bound cost of purchasing a venting device, based on advertised retail prices, would be $6 (2018 dollars). This is slightly cheaper than the estimated cost of the preferred alternative. The third alternative was not selected by the Council because of the higher mortality risk to released fish associated with using venting devices incorrectly, versus using descending devices.
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the requirement for the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not modify current gear requirements and therefore would not be expected to result in direct costs to any small entities. This alternative was not selected by the
The second alternative, selected as preferred by the Council, will require the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits within certain areas of the South Atlantic EEZ. The second alternative contained two sub-alternatives. The first sub-alternative, which was selected as preferred, applies the non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook fishing requirement to South Atlantic Federal waters north of 28° N latitude. The second sub-alternative would apply the non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook fishing requirement throughout the extent of the Council's jurisdiction (from the North Carolina and Virginia border through Key West, Florida), except that other non-stainless steel hook types would be allowed to be used when fishing for yellowtail snapper with natural baits. The second sub-alternative would be expected to affect a greater number of commercial and for-hire fishing businesses because of the larger area to which it would apply and because there is currently no circle hook requirement in place when fishing for snapper-grouper species south of 28° N latitude. As discussed under the effects of the preferred sub-alternative, the cost of purchasing circle hooks would depend on how many hooks each commercial or for-hire fishing business would need, as well as the quantity of hooks included in each purchase. The effect of switching to circle hooks in the area south of 28° N latitude may have a more pronounced effect on catch efficiency there than in the rest of the South Atlantic EEZ. Stakeholders have indicated that a circle hook requirement would negatively affect their ability to catch snapper-grouper species when drift fishing, which is a common practice in South Florida and the Florida Keys. The second sub-alternative was not selected because it would be expected to result in substantial negative economic and social effects, specifically to the for-hire industry that operates south of 28° N latitude.
The third alternative would require non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks be on board a vessel possessing snapper-grouper species when fishing with hook-and-line gear and natural baits within certain areas of the EEZ. The third alternative contained two sub-alternatives. The first sub-alternative would apply the non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook on board requirement to vessels in Federal waters north of 28° N latitude. Under this sub-alternative, some commercial and for-hire fishing businesses that fish for snapper-grouper species north of 28° N latitude would need to purchase non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks to have on board. This sub-alternative would be expected to result in lower direct costs to fishing businesses than the preferred alternative, as non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks would only need to be on board the vessel and would likely not be used to the same extent as under the preferred alternative. Under such circumstances, multiple circle hook types and sizes would not be necessary to satisfy the circle hook requirement. Additionally, J-hooks or treble hooks could be used to harvest snapper-grouper species, which may increase the catchability of some species in comparison to circle hooks. To the extent that catch efficiency increases on commercial fishing trips, this could result in an increase in commercial trip profitability. The second sub-alternative would apply the non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook on board requirement throughout the extent of the Council's jurisdiction, except that other non-stainless steel hook types would be allowed to be used when fishing for yellowtail snapper with natural baits. The second sub-alternative would require that commercial and for-hire fishing businesses that fish for snapper-grouper species anywhere in the South Atlantic EEZ purchase non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks to have on board. Because J-hooks and treble hooks may already be used while fishing for snapper-grouper species with natural bait south of 28° N latitude, the second sub-alternative would be expected to have comparable effects on catch efficiency as the first sub-alternative. The third alternative and two sub-alternatives were not selected by the Council, because they were expected to be less likely than the preferred alternative to reduce release mortality.
The fourth alternative, also selected as preferred, requires the use of non-stainless steel hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits in the South Atlantic EEZ.
Three alternatives were considered for the action to modify powerhead prohibitions in the South Atlantic region. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not modify existing powerhead regulations or restrictions, and therefore, would not be expected to have direct economic effects on any small entities. Under the no action alternative, the harvest of snapper-grouper species by powerhead in the EEZ off South Carolina would continue to be prohibited. This alternative was not selected by the Council because it would fail to ensure consistent regulations for the dive component of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery.
The second alternative and two sub-alternatives were selected as preferred and will allow private recreational, for-hire, and commercial vessels to use powerheads for the harvest of snapper-grouper species in the EEZ off South Carolina.
The third alternative would prohibit the use of a powerhead for the harvest of snapper-grouper species in the EEZ of the entire South Atlantic region. The third alternative contained two sub-alternatives. The first sub-alternative would apply the prohibition of powerheads in the EEZ to private recreational and for-hire vessels. This sub-alternative would remove some opportunities to recreationally harvest snapper-grouper species in the EEZ of the South Atlantic, but would not be expected to have any direct effects on for-hire fishing businesses. Any effects on for-hire fishing businesses would be indirect and would depend on how anglers' demand for for-hire trips changes as a result of powerhead restrictions. The second sub-alternative would apply the prohibition of powerheads in the EEZ to commercial vessels. This would remove some opportunities to commercially harvest snapper-grouper species in the EEZ of the South Atlantic, which may lead to decreased trip profits for some commercial businesses. Using the average annual ex-vessel revenue estimates from powerhead fishing in the South Atlantic EEZ from 2013 through 2017, NMFS estimates the upper bound cost of this sub-alternative would be $261,000 (2018 dollars) per year or approximately $460 per commercial vessel. The true cost of this sub-alternative would likely be much less, because commercial fishermen could substitute powerhead landings with landings by other gear types or in other areas. The third alternative and two sub-alternatives were not selected by the Council because they would unnecessarily reduce fishing opportunities in the South Atlantic EEZ and potentially result in negative economic effects to fishermen.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group
This final rule does not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this final rule.
Fisheries, Fishing, Grouper, Snapper, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish area navigation (RNAV) routes T-301 and T-305 in the northcentral United States. The proposed new RNAV routes would expand the availability of RNAV routing in support of transitioning the National Airspace System (NAS) from ground-based to satellite-based navigation. Additionally, a portion of the new RNAV routes would provide enroute structure where VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway segments were removed due to the Cape Girardeau, MO, VOR being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before July 30, 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: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0512; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-10 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 expand the availability of RNAV in the northcentral United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.
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-2020-0512; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-10) 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-2020-0512; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-10.” 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
In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today, NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more predictable.
In support of NextGen efforts to improve the safety and efficiency of the NAS, as well as transition the NAS from a ground-based to a satellite-based Performance Based Navigation (PBN) system, the FAA is proposing to establish RNAV routes T-301 and T-305 to provide additional PBN enroute structure. This action would reduce air traffic control (ATC) sector workload and complexity, reduce pilot-to-controller communication, assist ATC when non-radar procedures are required, and increase NAS capacity in the areas of the new RNAV T-routes.
Additionally, portions of the proposed T-routes would mitigate previously removed airway segments from VOR Federal airways V-125 and V-313 in the Cape Girardeau, MO, area due to the planned decommissioning of the Cape Girardeau, MO, VOR in July 2020, as well as supplement existing Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes beyond the Cape Girardeau area. The new T-routes would also provide Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) pilots that are equipped for RNAV PBN additional ATS route options for navigating around areas of heavy aviation activity and in areas of limited or no radar coverage. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) pilots, equipped with RNAV PBN, who elect to navigate via ATS routes, could also take advantage of the proposed RNAV T-routes.
The proposed T-301 would provide RNAV routing from the Cape Girardeau, MO, area; through the Centralia, IL, and Springfield, IL, areas; to the Peoria, IL, area. Similarly, the proposed T-305 would provide RNAV routing from the Cape Girardeau, MO, area; through the Sparta, IL, and Vandalia, IL, areas; to the Terra Haute, IN, area.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish RNAV routes T-301 and T-305. The proposed new T-routes are described below.
United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 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 RNAV 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton Regional Airport, Clinton, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Golden Valley non-directional beacon (NDB) which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database.
Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0514/Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-9 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton Regional Airport, Clinton, MO, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0514/Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (increased from 6.4-mile) radius of Clinton Regional Airport, Clinton, MO; removing the Golden Valley NDB and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; and updating the name and the geographic coordinates of the airport (previously Clinton Memorial Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is due to an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Golden Valley NDB which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
The airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Clinton Regional Airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances which are the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule. This action would further require that persons not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until they have submitted a Significant New Use Notice, and EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice under TSCA, and has taken any risk management actions as are required as a result of that determination.
Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0251, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/DC and Reading Room, please visit
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import provisions. This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA, which would include the SNUR requirements should these proposed rules be finalized. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after July 15, 2020 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for chemical substances which are the subjects of PMNs P-18-151, P-18-271, P-19-19, P-19-88, P-19-109, P-20-36, P- and 20-37. These proposed SNURs would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
The record for these proposed SNURs, identified as docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0251, includes information considered by the Agency in developing these proposed SNURs.
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same significant new use notice (SNUN) requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(A)). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b) and 2604(d)(1)), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit. During its review of these chemicals, EPA identified certain conditions of use that are not intended by the submitters, but reasonably foreseen to occur. EPA is proposing to designate those reasonably foreseen conditions of use as well as certain other circumstances of use as significant new uses.
EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the SNUR.
• Potentially Useful Information.
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of these proposed rules.
The regulatory text section of this document specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.
The chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed SNURs are undergoing premanufacture review. In addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter, EPA has identified certain other reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemicals under their intended conditions of use are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of use for these chemicals. EPA is proposing to designate these reasonably foreseen conditions of use and other circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot occur without first going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
The substances subject to these proposed rules are as follows:
• Manufacture, processing, or use in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
• Release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance exceeding a surface water concentration of 1 ppb.
• Use other than as a film-forming coalescent for architectural coatings; for automotive OEM coatings; for can and coil coatings; for industrial wood coatings; for floor polishes, for industrial maintenance coatings; for marine and wood coatings; for transportation coatings; for use in printing inks; and as a chemical intermediate to prepare ester plasticizers, consistent with the manufacturing, processing, use, distribution, and disposal information described in the PMN.
• Processing the PMN substance to a weight fraction greater than 8% in the final formulation.
• Release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance exceeding a surface water concentration of 23 ppb.
• Use of the PMN substance without a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified respirator with an assigned protection factor of at least 1000.
• Manufacture, processing, or use in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
• Release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance exceeding a surface water concentration of 46 ppb.
• Use of the PMN substances in consumer products.
• Manufacture, processing, or use in a manner that results in inhalation exposure.
• Release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance exceeding a surface water concentration of 3 ppb.
• Use other than for the confidential use specified in the PMN.
• Release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance exceeding a surface water concentration of 35 ppb.
• Use other than for the confidential use specified in the PMN.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed SNURs and as further discussed in Unit IV, EPA identified certain other reasonably foreseen conditions of use, in addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemical under the intended conditions of use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA is proposing to designate these conditions of use as well as certain other circumstances of use as significant new uses to ensure that they are no longer reasonably foreseen to occur without first going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency wants:
• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed
• To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.
• To be able to complete its review and determination on each of the PMN substances, while deferring analysis on the significant new uses proposed in these rules unless and until the Agency receives a SNUN.
Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory. Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule were undergoing premanufacture review at the time of signature of this proposed rule and were not on the TSCA Inventory. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concludes that the proposed significant new uses are not ongoing.
EPA designates June 2, 2020 (date of web posting of this proposed rule) as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach is to ensure that a person cannot defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.
Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified on or after that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and EPA would have to take action under TSCA section 5 allowing manufacture or processing to proceed. In developing this proposed rule, EPA has recognized that, given EPA's general practice of posting proposed rules on its website a week or more in advance of
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information (
In the absence of a rule, Order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists potentially useful information for all SNURs listed here. Descriptions are provided for informational purposes. The potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. will be useful to EPA's evaluation in the event that someone submits a SNUN for the significant new use. Companies who are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to develop the information on the substance, which may assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN.
EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
The potentially useful information described in Unit IV. may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0251.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget
According to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA and assigned OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, EPA received 7 SNUNs in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, 13 in FY2014, 6 in FY2015, 12 in FY2016, 13 in FY2017, and 11 in FY2018, only a fraction of these SNUNs were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $16,000 to $2,800. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $10,116 for qualifying small firms.
Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action will not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes; will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments; nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to remove obsolete language appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, regarding the rates charged for the provision of IHS services to ineligible individuals.
Comments due on or before August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments to this proposed rule, identified by RIN 0917-AA14 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received by the methods and due date specified above will be posted without change to content to
Evonne Bennett, Acting Director, Division of Regulatory and Policy Coordination, Office of Management Services, IHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Mail Stop: 09E70. Telephone (301) 443-1116 (This is not a toll-free number).
In response to Executive Order 13777, Sec. 3(d), which directs agencies to repeal existing regulations that are “outdated, unnecessary or ineffective” from the CFR, HHS proposes to remove outdated language appearing in the CFR at 42 CFR 136.14. The regulations in this part establish general principles and program requirements for carrying out Indian health programs. Regarding the provision of IHS services to ineligible individuals, § 136.14(b) provides that such individuals should be charged “rates approved by the Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). HHS submits that this proposed rule is not “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. This rule has not been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 13771, titled, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to categorize all impacts which generate or alleviate costs associated with regulatory burden and to determine the actions net incremental effect. HHS identifies this proposed rule as a deregulatory action (removing an obsolete rule from the CFR) that provides no cost savings.
Executive Order 13777, titled, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” was issued on February 24, 2017. As required by Section 3 of this Executive Order, HHS established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (HHS Task Force). Pursuant to Section 3(d)(ii), the HHS Task Force evaluated this rulemaking and determined that these regulations are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” Following this finding, the HHS Task Force advised IHS to initiate this rulemaking to remove the unnecessary regulation from the CFR.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on Indian health programs. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
This action does not affect any information collections.
Care and treatment of ineligible individuals.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 42 CFR 136.14 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 13; sec. 3, 68 Stat. 674 (42 U.S.C. 2001, 2003); Sec. 1, 42 Stat. 208 (25 U.S.C. 13); 42 U.S.C. 2001.
(b) Charging ineligible individuals. Where the Service Unit Director determines that an ineligible individual is able to defray the cost of care and treatment, the individual shall be charged. Reimbursement from third-party payors may be arranged by the patient or by the Service on behalf of the patient.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 15, 2020 will be considered. 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
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Wednesday July 15, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. ET for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday July 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. ET.
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call, on Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. (EDT). The purpose of the meeting is to hold its first organizational and project planning meeting.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. (EDT).
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-800-367-2403 and conference call ID: 4195799. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number:1-800-822-2024 and conference call ID: 4195799.
Members of the public are invited make statements during the Public Comment section of the meeting or to submit written comments; the written comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing, as they become available at this FACA link, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website,
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite 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. Public comments were previously requested via the
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
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability of proposed finding; request for comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the Federal agencies) invite public comment on the agencies' proposed finding that Washington has satisfied all conditions the agencies established as part of their 1998 approval of the State's coastal nonpoint pollution control program (coastal nonpoint program). The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) directs states and territories with coastal zone management programs previously approved under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs, which must be submitted to the Federal agencies for approval. Prior to making such a finding, NOAA and the EPA invite public input on the two Federal agencies' rationale for this proposed finding.
Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the proposed findings document should do so by August 14, 2020.
Comments may be submitted by:
•
•
Copies of the proposed findings document may be found on
Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b(a), requires that each state (or territory) with a coastal zone management program previously approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act must prepare and submit to the federal agencies a coastal nonpoint pollution control program for approval. Washington originally submitted its program to the Federal agencies for approval in September 1995. The Federal agencies provided public notice of and invited public comment on their proposal to approve, with conditions, the Washington program (63 FR 27055). The Federal agencies approved the program by letter dated June 30, 1998, subject to the conditions specified in the letter (63 FR 37094). The Federal agencies propose to find, and invite public comment on the proposed findings, that Washington has now fully satisfied all conditions (of the earlier
The proposed findings document for Washington's program is available at
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of availability of the NOAA Research and Development Vision Areas: 2020-2026; and associated response to public comments.
Notice is hereby given that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published the NOAA Research and Development Vision Areas: 2020-2026. Notices for public comments during the drafting of the document were published in the
This notice is applicable June 15, 2020.
Copies of the NOAA Research and Development Vision Areas: 2020-2026 and Response to Public Comments can be downloaded or viewed on the internet at
Dr. Gary Matlock, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, NOAA, Rm. 11461, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1185, Email:
NOAA R&D is an investment in the scientific knowledge and technology that will allow the United States to protect lives and property, sustain a strong economy, manage natural resources, and foster improved readiness in response to challenges from the rapidly changing environment. The NOAA Research and Development Vision Areas: 2020-2026 will provide a common understanding among NOAA's leadership, workforce, partners, and constituents on the value and direction of NOAA R&D activities. Public input was solicited twice during the development of the draft document. NOAA's response to the public comments is available electronically on the website listed in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting via webinar of its Standing, Reef Fish, Mackerel, Spiny Lobster, Red Drum, Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The webinar will be held on Monday, June 29, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., EDT.
The meeting will take place via webinar; you may register by visiting
Dr. John Froeschke, Deputy Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The meeting will begin with Introductions, Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes from the June 1, 2020 webinar meeting; and, review of the Scope of Work.
The Committees will review National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Procedural Guidance for Changing Assessed Stock Status from Known to Unknown; and, the Council's Draft Comment letter.
The Committees will review any other business items, during which any public comments will be heard.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Climate and Communities Core Team (CCCT) will hold an online meeting, which is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Wednesday, July 1, 2020, from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Council's website (see
Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The CCCT is overseeing a climate change scenario planning process as part of the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan Climate and Communities Initiative. During this meeting, the CCCT will discuss finalization of four scenarios that describe possible conditions facing West Coast fisheries and communities, over the period 2020-2040. These scenarios were initially developed at a January 2020 workshop and at the direction of the Council have been undergoing refinement. Based on input from Council advisory bodies, the CCCT will finalize the scenarios for use in phase two of the scenario planning process. The second phase will use a series of workshops to consider the policy and strategic planning implications of conditions described in the scenarios. The CCCT will also begin planning these workshops during this meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
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 to renew the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Fair Credit Reporting Act (Regulation V).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 14, 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
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a generic clearance for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection of information under control number 3041-0148. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on September 30, 2020. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from OMB. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0014, by any of the following methods:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7791, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
• Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;
• Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;
• Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and
• Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic, or other forms of information technology.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information from persons who may voluntarily participate in consumer focus groups. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection of information under control number 3041-0136. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on September 30, 2020. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from OMB.
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0046, by any of the following methods:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7791, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
To help identify and evaluate product-related incidents, Commission staff invites and obtains direct feedback from consumers on issues related to product safety, such as recall effectiveness, product use, and perceptions regarding safety issues. The information that the CPSC collects from future focus groups will help inform the Commission's identification and evaluation of consumer products and product use, by providing insight and information into consumer perceptions and usage patterns. In some cases, one-on-one interviews may be conducted as a more in-depth extension of a focus group, or in place of a traditional focus group. This information may also assist the Commission in its efforts to support voluntary standards activities and help CPSC identify consumer safety issues requiring additional research. In addition, based on the information obtained, CPSC may be able to provide safety information to the public that is easier to read and understood by a wider range of consumers.
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
• Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;
• Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;
• Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and
• Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.
Defense Health Agency (DHA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified System of Records.
DHA is modifying the System of Records titled, “Military Health Information System (MHIS),” EDHA 07 to facilitate public health activities and research efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this System of Records will become the DoD-wide SORN with enterprise application across the department. The proposed modifications include clarifying the purposes for the handling and use of data to improve quality assurance within healthcare operations (such as
This System of Records modification is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before July 15, 2020. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods.
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Rahwa A. Keleta, Chief, Defense Health Agency, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101, or by phone at (703) 275-6363.
The DHA is modifying this System of Records to facilitate public health activities and research efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This modification is necessary to enable the sharing of information with other federal agencies and academic institutions to process and analyze data to further the federal government's public health mission and medical research goals. This effort is especially urgent due to the current COVID-19 pandemic; and these modifications are also anticipated to assist in responding to future public health emergencies.
The statutory intent behind this System of Records is the provision of medical and dental care, financial compensation for military members and beneficiaries, support to military readiness, enhancement for public health institutions, and advancements in medical research. The statute also facilitates disclosure of records in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
The DoD notices for Systems of Records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system reports, as required by the Privacy Act, were submitted on May 28, 2020, to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).
Military Health Information System, EDHA 07.
Unclassified.
Defense Health Agency (DHA), Electronic Health Records (EHR) Core Program Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, VA 22042-510.
Program Manager, EHR Core Program Office, 1700 N Moore Street, Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209.
Public Law 104-191, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; 10 U.S.C., Chapter Ch. 55, Medical and Dental Care; 10 U.S.C. 1097a, TRICARE Prime: Automatic Enrollments; Payment Options; 10 U.S.C. 1097b, TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Program: Financial Management; 10 U.S.C. 1079, Contracts for Medical Care for Spouses and Children: Plans; 10 U.S.C. 1079a, TRICARE Program: Treatment of Refunds and Other Amounts Collected Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); 10 U.S.C. 1086, Contracts for Health Benefits for Certain Members, Former Members, and Their Dependents; 10 U.S.C. 1095, Health Care Services Incurred on behalf of Covered Beneficiaries: Collection From Third-party Payers; 42 U.S.C. 290dd, Substance Abuse Among Government and Other Employees; 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, Confidentiality Of Records; 42 U.S.C 42 U.S.C. Ch. 117, Sections 11131-11152, Reporting of Information; 45 CFR 164, Security and Privacy; Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 6015.23, Foreign Military Personnel Care and Uniform Business Offices in Military Treatment Facilities (MTFS); DoD 6025.18-R, DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
The MHIS collects and maintains data that supports benefits determination for Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries between DoD, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) healthcare programs. The MHIS collects and maintains data used to authenticate and identify American Red Cross volunteers and United Service Organizations granted privileges and access to DoD facilities. This data provides Federal Agencies the ability to support continuity of care for patrons, ensures more efficient adjudication of claims, enables quality assurance and healthcare operations, and supports a myriad of healthcare policy, public health, military mission, data analysis, and clinical research activities. The system documents and tracks environmental health data, deployment information, and data used to perform disease management. The system also maintains data used in proactive health intervention activities. Data is used for research and data analysis to support military missions, improve safety, and advance military technology. Continuity of care includes maintaining data for patient
The information stored in this system consists of personally identifiable information (PII) protected by the Privacy Act and personal health information (PHI) protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the HIPAA of 1996, applies to most health information. DoD 6025.18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this System of Records Notice (SORN).
Members, former members, retirees, civilian employees (includes non-appropriated fund) and contractor employees of the DoD and all of the Uniformed Services; Presidential appointees of all Federal Government agencies; Medal of Honor recipients; U.S. Military Academy students; Lighthouse Service, DoD and VA beneficiaries (
Eligibility and Enrollment Data: Selected electronic data elements extracted from the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) regarding personal eligibility for and enrollment in various health care programs within the DoD and among DoD and other federal healthcare programs including those of the VA, the HHS, and contracted health care provided through funding provided by one of these three Departments. Personal data includes: Name; DoD ID number; Social Security Number (SSN); address; email address(es); date of birth; gender; branch of service; citizenship; DoD Benefits number; DEERS ID number; sponsorship and beneficiary information; race and ethnic origin; religious preference;
Emergency Data information may include spouse's name and address; children's names, dates of birth, address and telephone number; parents' names, addresses and telephone numbers; or emergency contact's name and address;
Employment Information: Employment status; duty position; email address(es); leave balances and history; work schedules; individual personnel records; time and attendance records; retirement records, sponsor duty location, unit of assignment; occupation; rank; skill specialty; security clearance information.
Personal Financial Information: Pay, wage, earnings information; separation information; financial benefit records; income tax withholding records; accounting records.
Medical Readiness and Deployment Information: Inpatient and outpatient medical records; diagnosis codes; admission and discharge dates; location of care; pharmacy records; immunization records; Medical and Physical Evaluation Board records; neuropsychological functioning and cognitive testing data; periodic and deployment-related health assessments.
Clinical Encounter Data: Electronic data regarding beneficiaries' interaction with the MHS including health care encounters, health care screenings and education, wellness and satisfaction surveys, and cost data relative to such healthcare interactions. Electronic data regarding Military Health System beneficiaries' interactions with the VA or HHS healthcare delivery programs where such programs effect benefits determinations between these Department-level programs, continuity of clinical care, or effect payment for care between Departmental programs inclusive of care provided by commercial entities under contract to these three Departments.
Electronic data regarding dental tests, pharmacy prescriptions and reports, data incorporating medical nutrition therapy and medical food management, data for young MHS beneficiaries eligible for services from the military medical departments covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Educations Act (IDEA). Data collected within the system also allows beneficiaries to request an accounting of who was given access to their medical records prior to the date of request. It tracks disclosure types, treatment, payment and other Health Care Operations (TPO) versus non-TPO, captures key information about disclosures, process complaints, process and track request for amendments to records, generates disclosure accounting and audit reports, retains history of disclosure accounting processing. The Protected Health Management Information Tool (PHMIT), an electronic disclosure-tracking tool, assists in complying with the HIPAA Privacy disclosure accounting requirement. The PHIMT stores information about all disclosures, complaints, authorizations, restrictions and confidential communications that are made about or requested by a particular patient.
Occupational and Environmental Exposure Data: Electronic data supporting exposure-based medical surveillance; reports of incidental exposures enhanced industrial hygiene risk reduction; improved quality of occupational health care and wellness programs for the DoD workforce; hearing conservation, industrial hygiene and occupational medicine programs within the MHS; and timely and efficient access of data and information to authorized system users.
Individuals; all DoD databases flowing into or accessed through the following integrated data systems, environments, applications, and tools: The Composite Health Care System (CHCS) and individual Service readiness applications, contractor systems providing clinical results, personnel systems, workload management systems; Defense Manpower Data Center, other developers (Lab Corp, Quest and EpiLab to perform patient specimen laboratory testing); DEERS; and all other systems within the DoD systems' repository that meets the regulatory requirements of this System of Records notice collection. Military Departments' medical
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this System of Records.
b. To permit the disclosure of records to the HHS and its components, other federal agencies, and academic institutions for the purposes of public health activities and conducting research, including to facilitate collaborative research activities.
c. To the Congressional Budget Office for projecting costs and workloads associated with DoD Medical benefits.
d. To the VA for the purpose of providing medical care to former service members and retirees, to determine the eligibility for or entitlement to benefits, to coordinate cost sharing activities, and to facilitate collaborative research activities between the DoD and VA.
e. To the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and similar institutions for authorized health research in the interest of the Federal Government and the public.
f. To local and state government and agencies for compliance with local laws and regulations governing control of communicable diseases, preventive medicine and safety, child abuse, and other public health and welfare programs.
g. To federal offices and agencies involved in the documentation and review of defense occupational and environmental exposure data.
h. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
i. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
j. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
k. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
l. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
m. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or confirms a breach of the System of Records; (2) the DoD determined as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
n. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines information from this System of Records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
Electronic and paper.
Name, SSN, Beneficiary ID (sponsor's ID, patient's name, patient's DOB, and family member prefix or DEERS dependent suffix), diagnosis codes, admission and discharge dates, location of care or any combination of the above.
Temporary. Cut off upon last episode of patient care or last entry to the patient record is annotated. Delete/Destroy when 75 years old.
Multifactor log-in authentication including CAC authentication and password. Access controls enforce need-to-know policies so only authorized users have access to PII and/or PHI. Additionally, security audit and accountability policies and procedures directly support privacy and accountability procedures. Network encryption protects data transmitted over the network while disk encryption secures the disks storing data. Key management services safeguards encryption keys. Sensitive data is identified and masked as practicable. All individuals granted access to this System of Records must complete requisite training to include Information Assurance and Privacy Act training. Sensitive data will be identified, properly marked with access by only those with a need to know, and safeguarded as appropriate.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this System of Records should address written inquiries to the Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.
Written requests for information should include the individual's full name, home address, home phone number, and SSN/DoD ID number, the identifier of this SORN, and signature. If requesting information about a legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the legal guardian or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before any records will be provided. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
The DoD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in 32 CFR part 310, or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this System of Records should address written inquiries to Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.
Written requests should contain the individual's full name, home address, home phone number, and SSN/DoD ID number, the identifier of this SORN, and signature. If requesting information about a legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the legal guardian or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
None.
March 30, 2006, 71 FR 16127; November 18, 2013, 78 FR 69076.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Yeh, 202-205-5798.
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.
Department of Education (ED), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Stephanie Valentine, 202-453-7061.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
In this notice, we announce waivers that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) granted, within the last 30 days, under the CARES Act.
Hugh Reid, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)-11114, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7491. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 3511(d)(3) of the CARES Act requires the Secretary to publish, in the
The Department has approved waivers of the following requirement: Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to extend the period of availability of fiscal year (FY) 2018 funds for programs in which the State educational agency (SEA) participates as the eligible agency until September 30, 2021.
On April 17, 2020 the Secretary delegated authority for programs over
In the last 30 days, OCTAE granted six waivers to SEAs.
A. Three waivers were granted to SEAs for State grants authorized by Title I of Perkins, and three waivers were granted to SEAs for State grants authorized by Title II of WIOA (AEFLA).
1.
The Assistant Secretary reviewed the SEAs' requests for a GEPA section 421(b) waiver and determined that the following SEAs met the requirements for a GEPA section 421(b) waiver on the dates indicated below:
(1) State grants authorized by Title I of Perkins:
• California Board of Education, May 18, 2020;
• Maryland State Department of Education, June 4, 2020; and
• Wyoming Board of Education, May 21, 2020.
(2) State grants authorized by Title II of WIOA (AEFLA):
• Arizona State Board of Education, May 28, 2020;
• California Board of Education, May 18, 2020; and
• Hawaii State Board of Education, May 19, 2020.
The Assistant Secretary also announced the waiver decisions at:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on June 23-25, 2020, through a webinar, in connection with a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) which is scheduled at the same time.
June 23-25, 2020.
The location details of the SEQ and SOM webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France
Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-5000.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held via a webinar commencing at commencing at 12 noon, Central European Summer Time (CEST) on June 24, 2020. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held via webinar at the same time.
The agenda of the meeting is under the control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is expected that the SEQ and the SOM will adopt the following agenda:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held as a webinar,
The location details of the SEQ webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France. The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, the SOM, or the IEA.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 10, 2020, by Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, 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
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of online public workshop.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing an online public workshop entitled, “Leveraging Existing Bioenergy Data Workshop.” The Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) seeks to discuss how to collect and valorize underused datasets and associated knowledge, with the future goal of making this information public on existing databases.
The workshop will be held online on July 21, 2020, 12:30 p.m.—5:00 p.m. EDT, July 22, 2020, 10:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m. EDT, and July 23, 2020 12:30 p.m.—5:00 p.m. EDT. To attend the workshop, you must register by July 14, 2020. Those who are unable to attend the workshop but wish to submit comments may submit comments by email to
Register for the workshop online at
Comments may be submitted by the following methods:
Elizabeth Burrows, Bioenergy Technologies Office, EE-3B/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-5188; Email:
BETO seeks to gather input on how to collect and valorize underused datasets and associated knowledge, with the goal of making this information public on existing databases. This workshop seeks to connect industry scientists, data owners, and lawyers with federal government, academic, and national laboratory representatives to shepherd valuable datasets and other knowledge to be used to maximum benefit. This effort would bolster the growing bioeconomy with industrially-relevant data across the supply chain, and result in accelerated development and utilization of biotechnologies. BETO intends to cover the following topics at the workshop:
Members of the public are welcome to register and attend the workshop. To attend the workshop, register online through the workshop web page at
Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants. To most effectively use the limited time, please concentrate on your individual experiences and comments, and not those of other participants.
Individuals requiring special accommodations during the meeting, please contact Elizabeth Burrows no later than the close of business on July 6, 2020. The registration page, available at
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 28, 2020, by Michael Berube, Acting Director of the 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
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project operates to provide water during the irrigation season, generate power, and meet streamflow requirements for the Bear River. The existing project includes: (1) A 185-foot-high, 40-foot-wide, 2,070-foot-long, earth-filled main dam; (2) a 45-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,060-foot-long, earth-filled south wing dam; (3) a 25-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,460-foot-long, earth-filled north wing dam; (4) a 15-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,450-foot-long, earth-filled north dike; (5) a 2,020-acre reservoir with a gross storage capacity of about 104,000 acre-feet at the normal maximum water surface elevation (NMWSE) of 300 feet; (6) an overflow spillway with a maximum design capacity of 106,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a reservoir elevation of 320 feet with a 15-foot-wide concrete approach apron, 300-foot-long ungated, ogee-type concrete structure, and a 77-foot-long downstream concrete chute with concrete sidewalls and a 302.5-foot single span steel-truss bridge across the spillway crest; (7) a 1,200-foot-long, unlined, rock channel that carries spill downstream to the Bear River; (8) a 22-foot-high, concrete, power intake tower with openings on three sides protected by steel trashracks; (9) a 25-foot-4-inch-high, concrete, intake tower with openings on three sides, each of which is protected by steel trashracks that receives water for the outlet works; (10) a 760-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter concrete tunnel through the left abutment of the main dam that conveys water from the power intake to the powerhouse; (11) a steel-reinforced, concrete powerhouse with a 6.8-megawatt, vertical-shaft, Francis-type turbine, which discharges to the Bear River at the base of the main dam; (12) a 350-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter steel pipe that conveys water from the intake structure to a valve chamber for the outlet works; (13) a 400-foot-long, 7.5-foot-diameter concrete-lined horseshoe tunnel that connects to the valve chamber to a 48-inch-diameter, Howell Bunger outlet valve with a capacity of 500 cfs that discharges directly into the Bear River; (14) a fenced switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse; (15) two recreation areas with campgrounds, day-use areas, boat ramps, restrooms, and sewage holding
South Sutter Water District proposes to: (1) Raise the NMWSE of the project reservoir by 5 feet from an elevation of 300 feet to an elevation of 305 feet; (2) raise the crest of the existing spillway from an elevation of 300 feet to an elevation of 305 feet to accommodate the proposed pool raise; (3) replace and restore several recreation facilities; (4) add an existing 0.25-mile road as a primary project road to access the powerhouse and switchyard; and (5) modify the project boundary to account for the removal of the 1.9-mile-long transmission line from the license in 1991, corrections based on current project operation and maintenance, and changes under the category of a contour 20 feet above the 300-feet NMWSE or proximity of 200-horizontal-feet from the 300-foot NMWSE.
m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
n. You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process
The Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
Commission staff does not anticipate holding a formal public or agency scoping meeting. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued on June 9, 2020.
Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on the web at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Clifton to Palmyra A-line Abandonment Project involving abandonment of pipeline facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Clay and Washington Counties, Kansas, and Gage, Jefferson, Lancaster, and Otoe Counties, Nebraska, and construction and operation of facilities in Gage County, Nebraska. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 9, 2020.
You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 21, 2020, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP20-460-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-460-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426
Northern proposes to abandon in-place a total of approximately 115.9 miles of its M600A and M590A 24-inch-diameter pipeline and M600J 20-inch-diameter pipeline (collectively referred to as the A-line) from Clifton, Kansas to Palmyra, Nebraska. Northern also would increase compression capacity at its existing Beatrice Compressor Station to replace the lost capacity from the proposed abandonment. According to Northern, the purpose of this project is to enhance the safety, security, and operational efficiency of Northern's pipeline system. Northern stated that its M600A and M590A pipelines, which were originally placed in service in the 1930s, have substantially escalating maintenance demands, and the abandonment of this segment of the A-line would improve reliability and provide for the safer long-term operation of its system.
The Clifton to Palmyra A-line Abandonment Project would consist of the following activities:
• Disconnect the 24-inch-diameter M600A and the 20-inch-diameter M600J at Northern's existing Clifton Compressor Station;
• disconnect the 24-inch-diameter M590A and the 24-inch-diameter M600A at Northern's existing Beatrice Compressor Station;
• disconnect the 24-inch-diameter M590A at Northern's existing Palmyra Compressor Station;
• abandon in-place 54.3 miles of 24-inch-diameter M600A mainline in Gage and Jefferson Counties, Nebraska, and Washington and Clay Counties, Kansas;
• abandon in-place 19.9 miles of 20-inch-diameter M600J mainline in Clay and Washington Counties, Kansas;
• abandon in-place 41.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter M590A in Otoe, Lancaster, and Gage Counties, Nebraska, between Palmyra and Beatrice, Nebraska; and
• construct a new 15,900-horsepower turbine driven compressor unit at Northern's existing Beatrice Compressor Station near Beatrice, Nebraska.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Northern would disturb approximately 46.2 acres of land to disconnect the pipeline and install the additional compressor unit. To abandon the pipeline in-place, Northern would disconnect and cap the A-line at six interconnections where it is linked to other system facilities. The disconnect locations are proposed within existing compressor station facilities owned by Northern. Northern would construct the additional turbine at the Beatrice Compressor Station within the current facility fenceline. No new land would be obtained or required for the project. The A-line is collocated with other Northern pipelines, which Northern would continue to operate and maintain.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section
Commission staff have already identified issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Northern. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
• Air quality and noise impacts; and
• cumulative impacts.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2020 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of EXIM.
Comments may be submitted through
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“EXIM”), that EXIM has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter).
Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the EXIM Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
AP089375XX.
Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:
To support the purchase of accounts receivable due from The Boeing Company to CFM International, Inc., originating from the sale of the Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion (“LEAP”) 1-B aircraft engines.
Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported:
The LEAP 1-B aircraft engines are used in the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft exported to airlines throughout the world.
To the extent that EXIM is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Principal Supplier: CFM International, Inc.
Obligor: The Boeing Company.
Guarantor(s): N/A
Aircraft engines.
Information on the final decision for this transaction will be available in the “Summary Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors” on
Please note that this notice does not include confidential or proprietary business information; information which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by supplying information that competitors could use to compete with companies in the United States.
Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Virtual Meeting. Note: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will
This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual meeting, go to the commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by MAC Industries, Inc. d/b/a MAC Container Line, hereinafter “Complainant”, against COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd., hereinafter “Respondent”. Complainant states that it “is a non-vessel-operating common carrier (“NVOCC”)” and is principally located in California. Complainant states that Respondent is an ocean common carrier and controlled carrier of The Peoples Republic of China.
Complainant claims it “has shipped pursuant to COSCO service contracts between 8,000 and 12,000 TEUs annually since 2016, to the present, and as a result of these volumes MAC has earned a VIP Partner status with COSCO since 2013.” Complainant alleges that in late February 2020, Respondent intended to unilaterally amend service contract rates in violation of 46 U.S. Code 41104 (a) (2)(A) and 46 CFR 530.10(a)(1) “requir[ing] that an amendment to a service contract `. . . [have] prospective effect and . . . [be] mutually agreed upon by the service contract parties.' ” Complainant claims that it communicated to Respondents “that it would accept the rate increases prospectively from on or about February 28, 2020, provided that [Respondent] agreed to withdraw the unlawful retroactive charges which [Respondent] had unilaterally and unlawfully initiated.” Complainant further alleges that Respondent “has taken retaliatory steps against MAC in response to the complaint” including limiting its VIP Partner benefits.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41104 (a)(3). Complainant alleges it has suffered “financial damages of at least $1,000,000 as a direct result of Respondents' repeated violations of 46 U.S.C. 8 § 41l04(a)(3)” and seeks reparations and other relief.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at
This proceeding has been assigned to Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding office in this proceeding shall be issued by June 9, 2021, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by December 9, 2021.
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.
The public portions of 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(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
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 30, 2020.
1.
2.
USA.gov Contact Center, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the National Contact Center customer evaluation surveys.
Mr. David Kaufmann, Program Analyst, Office of Technology Transformation Services, via email to
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
This information collection will be used to assess the public's satisfaction with the USA.gov National Contact Center service (formerly the Federal Citizen Information Center's (FCIC) National Contact Center), to assist in increasing the efficiency in responding to the public's need for Federal information, and to assess the effectiveness of marketing efforts.
The following are estimates of the annual hourly burdens for our surveys based on historical participation in our surveys.
(1) Telephone Survey:
(2) Web Chat Survey:
A 60-day notice was published in the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “AHRQ Managing Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Primary Care Initiative.” This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by 30 days after date of publication of this notice.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The Affordable Care Act established the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) and authorized AHRQ to broadly disseminate the research findings published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and other government-funded research relevant to comparative clinical effectiveness research. AHRQ's PCORTF-funded initiative identifies research findings that could significantly improve patient outcomes through broader implementation in clinical practice. Under this initiative, in 2019 AHRQ launched a new initiative, Managing Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Primary Care, in order to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices for unhealthy alcohol use (UAU). As part of this initiative, AHRQ selected six grantees and funded a contractor to support and evaluate the grantees. The grantees will collectively work with more than 700 primary care practices over three years to implement and evaluate strategies to increase the use of evidence-based interventions such as screening for unhealthy alcohol use, brief interventions for adult patients who drink too much, and medication-assisted therapy (MAT) for patients with an alcohol use disorder. The contractor will develop a resource center, convene a technical expert panel, conduct an ongoing environmental scan, support a learning community of grantees, and complete a multisite, mixed methods evaluation.
Unhealthy alcohol use, defined as behaviors ranging from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders (AUD), is estimated to be the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly one in ten deaths were alcohol-related. In addition to early mortality, UAU is associated with a host of adverse outcomes, including unintentional injuries and the development or exacerbation of a range of physical and behavioral health conditions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates suggest that excessive alcohol consumption costs the United States $249 billion annually.
Under the UAU initiative, six AHRQ grantees will work to improve the management of UAU in primary care by disseminating and implementing evidence-based practices for screening and brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBI/RT), and MAT in primary care practices. The multi-site, mixed-methods evaluation will include primary data collection by the evaluator,
The project goals, as laid out in the AHRQ request for applications include:
• Success of recruitment and retention strategies across all six grantees to engage primary care practices for implementation of SBI/RT and MAT, across the initiative;
• Effectiveness of the grantees' collective dissemination and implementation strategies, and the factors associated with the success and/or failure of the strategies as it relates to populations, settings and the influence of contextual factors;
• Success at the practice level in increasing the number of patients screened, identified, and treated; and
• Overall impact on changes in processes or outcomes that can be attributed to the initiative.
This study is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to broadly disseminate research findings published by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and other government-funded research relevant to comparative clinical effectiveness research to physicians, health care providers, and patients. 42 U.S.C 299b-37.
To achieve the goals of the multi-site evaluation (MSE), AHRQ is requesting OMB approval for three years for new data collection by the evaluator. The evaluator's primary data collection is requested to achieve the goals of the MSE and includes the following data collection activities:
Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews will take place in-person and/or by telephone with key staff from each grantee team (
Secondary data collected by grantees and analyzed by the evaluator will include:
Aggregated process measure data that will be used to assess whether the number of patients receiving SBI/RT and/or MAT increased at the practice level. Grantees will survey all participating primary care practices at the beginning of the initiative to collect data on basic practice characteristics (
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to complete the semi-structured Key Informant Interviews. For the three-year clearance period, the estimated annualized burden hours for the interviews are 60.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to complete the Key Informant Interviews. The total annualized cost burden is estimated to be $6,109.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Evaluation of Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships.” This collection is designed to assess the extent to which partnership activities meet the overarching goals for dissemination, communication, and implementation of national engagement efforts in support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Ending the HIV Epidemic.
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0068 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Evaluation of Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships (OMB Control No. 0920-1161)—Reinstatement without Change—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
To address the HIV epidemic in the U.S., the Department of Health and Human Services launched Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America, which is a cross-agency initiative aiming to reduce new HIV infections in the U.S. by 90% by 2030. CDC's Let's Stop HIV Together campaign (formerly known as Act Against AIDS) is part of the national Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, and includes resources aimed at reducing HIV stigma and promoting testing, prevention, and treatment across the HIV care continuum.
Within this context, CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) has and will continue implementing various partnership activities to increase HIV awareness among the general public, reduce new HIV infections among disproportionately impacted populations, and improve health outcomes for people living with HIV/AIDS in the US and its territories.
DHAP partners will be funded under to (1) support the dissemination of Together campaign materials, messaging, and other CDC resources that support HIV prevention and (2) implement national engagement efforts focusing on HIV prevention and awareness. Partners represent civic/social, media, and LGBT-focused organizations. In addition, DHAP will continue to engage and support the private sector in promoting HIV education, awareness, and policies in the workplace. This may take the form of encouraging businesses to implement HIV/AIDS policies and education programs in the workplace with the overarching goal of increasing public
Information collected by DHAP will be used to assess the extent to which partnership activities meet the overarching goals for message dissemination and implementation of national engagement and communication efforts for HIV prevention and awareness. The objective is to collect information from partners on their activities for disseminating HIV messages; barriers and facilitators to implementing these activities; factors that may help contextualize their progress towards meeting the initiative's goals; and their involvement in promoting HIV education, awareness, and policies in their organization.
The data gathered under this request will be summarized in reports prepared for CDC by its contractor, such as quarterly reports, semiannual reports, annual reports, and final reports. It is possible that data from this project will be published in peer-reviewed manuscripts or presented at conferences; the manuscripts and conference presentations may appear on the internet. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4,402.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “DOP Cross-Site Evaluation of Overdose Data to Action Program.” This collection is designed to assess the implementation and the effectiveness of the Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) program (CDC-RFA-CE19-1904) activities and identify the conditions under which these activities are effective and for whom.
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0069 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
DOP Cross-Site Evaluation of Overdose Data to Action Program-New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Overdose Data to Action Program (OD2A) is a comprehensive, national overdose prevention program developed by CDC's NCIPC. The purpose of the OD2A program is to support funded jurisdictions in obtaining high quality, complete, and timely data on opioid prescribing and overdoses, and to use those data to inform prevention and response efforts. The OD2A (CDC-RFA-CE19-1904) funds a total of 66 recipients (state and local health departments) to implement surveillance and prevention strategies, through a three-year cooperative agreement. OD2A funded recipients consist of 47 state-, 16 city/county-, and three district/territory-level jurisdictions.
The purpose of this information collection is to assess the implementation and the effectiveness of the OD2A program activities and identify the conditions under which these activities are most effective. Activities include key informant interviews (KII) and focus groups (FG), and are focused on the tools needed to evaluate the unique OD2A program.
The implementation evaluation will identify the barriers and facilitators associated with deploying several prevention activities targeting specific populations within specific jurisdictions. The outcome evaluation will assess short term (
Data collected from this evaluation will be used by the CDC to obtain valid information regarding how recipients operationalized and implemented their chosen prevention activities, assess the impact of OD2A and different components of OD2A on the trajectory of the opioid epidemic, and through the provision of these data back to the recipients, improve the implementation and impact of further OD2A prevention activities.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). NHSN is a public health surveillance system that collects, analyzes, reports, and makes available data for monitoring, measuring, and responding to healthcare associated infections (HAIs), antimicrobial use and resistance, blood transfusion safety events, and the extent to which healthcare facilities adhere to infection prevention practices and antimicrobial stewardship.
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0065 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office,
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (OMB Control No. 0920-0666)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infection Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data from healthcare facilities in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) under OMB Control Number 0920-0666. NHSN provides facilities, states, regions, and the nation with data necessary to identify problem areas, measure the progress of prevention efforts, and ultimately eliminate healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) nationwide. NHSN allows healthcare facilities to track blood safety errors and various healthcare-associated infection prevention practice methods such as healthcare personnel influenza vaccine status and corresponding infection control adherence rates.
NHSN currently has six components: Patient Safety (PS), Healthcare Personnel Safety (HPS), Biovigilance (BV), Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF), Outpatient Procedure (OPC), and the Dialysis Component. NHSN's planned Neonatal Component is expected to launch during the winter of 2020/2021. This component will focus on premature neonates and the healthcare-associated events that occur as a result of their prematurity. This component will be released with one module, which includes Late Onset-Sepsis and Meningitis. Late-onset sepsis (LOS) and Meningitis are common complications of extreme prematurity. These infections are usually serious, causing a prolongation of hospital stay, increased cost, and risk of morbidity and mortality. The data for this module will be electronically submitted, and manual data entry will not be available. This will allow more hospital personnel to be available to care for patients and will reduce annual burden across healthcare facilities. Additionally, LOS data will be utilized for prevention initiatives.
Data reported under the Patient Safety Component are used to determine the magnitude of the healthcare-associated adverse events and trends in the rates of the events, in the distribution of pathogens, and in the adherence to prevention practices. Data will help detect changes in the epidemiology of adverse events resulting from new medical therapies and changing patient risks. Additionally, reported data is being used to describe the epidemiology of antimicrobial use and resistance and to better understand the relationship of antimicrobial therapy to this rising problem.
Approved as a New Emergency ICR (National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Patient Impact Module for Coronavirus (COVID-19) Surveillance in Healthcare Facilities, OMB Control No. 0920-1290), NHSN launched a COVID-19 Module in the Patient Safety Component on March 27th, 2020. This Module is designed to collect facility-level COVID-19 data on cases, deaths, capacity, healthcare worker staffing shortages, and personal protective equipment and supplies from hospitals on a daily basis. Facility-level data collected through NSHN as part of the COVID-19 Module are being made available to a broader set of Federal, state, and local agency data users than data typically collected by NHSN. Specifically, COVID-19 data at the state, county, territory, and facility level submitted to NHSN will continue to be used for public health emergency response activities by CDC's emergency COVID-19 response, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS') COVID-19 tracking system maintained in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response as part of the National Response Coordination Center at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and by the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
Under the Healthcare Personnel Safety Component, protocols and data on events—both positive and adverse—are used to determine (1) the magnitude of adverse events in healthcare personnel, and (2) compliance with immunization and sharps injuries safety guidelines. Under the Biovigilance Component, data on adverse reactions and incidents associated with blood transfusions are reported and analyzed to provide national estimates of adverse reactions and incidents. Under the Long-Term Care Facility Component, data is captured from skilled nursing facilities. Reporting methods under the LTCF component have been created by using forms from the PS Component as a model with modifications to specifically address the specific characteristics of LTCF residents and the unique data needs of these facilities reporting into NHSN. A new form has been introduced for field testing- Respiratory Tract Infection (RTI)—not to be used by NHSN users, but as part of an EIP project with 4 EIP sites. Form title will be
The Dialysis Component offers a simplified user interface for dialysis users to streamline their data entry and analyses processes as well as provide options for expanding in the future to include dialysis surveillance in settings other than outpatient facilities. The Outpatient Procedure Component (OPC) gathers data on the impact of infections and outcomes related to operative procedures performed in Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs). The OPC is used to monitor two event types: Same Day Outcome Measures and Surgical Site Infections (SSIs). NHSN has increasingly served as the operating system for HAI reporting compliance through legislation established by the states. As of April 2020, 36 states, the District of Columbia and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have opted to use NHSN as their primary system for mandated reporting. Reporting compliance is completed by healthcare facilities in their respective jurisdictions, with emphasis on those states and municipalities acquiring varying consequences for failure to use NHSN. Additionally, healthcare facilities in five U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) are voluntarily reporting to NHSN. Additional territories are projected to follow with similar use of NHSN for reporting purposes.
NHSN's data is used to aid in the tracking of HAIs and guide infection prevention activities/practices that protect patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other payers use these data to determine incentives for performance at healthcare facilities across the US and surrounding territories, and members of the public may use some protected data to inform their selection among available providers. Each of these parties is dependent on the completeness and accuracy of the data. CDC and CMS work closely and are fully committed to ensuring complete and accurate reporting, which are critical for protecting patients and guiding national, state, and local prevention priorities.
CMS collects some HAI data and healthcare personnel influenza vaccination summary data, which is done on a voluntary basis as part of its Fee-for-Service Medicare quality reporting programs, while others may report data required by a federal mandate. Facilities that fail to report quality measure data are subject to partial payment reduction in the applicable Medicare Fee-for-Service payment system. CMS links their quality reporting to payment for Medicare-eligible acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term acute care facilities, oncology hospitals, inpatient psychiatric facilities, dialysis facilities, and ambulatory surgery centers. Facilities report HAI data and healthcare personnel influenza vaccination summary data to CMS via NHSN as part of CMS's quality reporting programs to receive full payment. Still, many healthcare facilities, even in states without HAI reporting legislation, submit limited HAI data to NHSN voluntarily. NHSN's data collection updates continue to support the incentive programs managed by CMS. For example, survey questions support requirements for CMS' quality reporting programs. Additionally, CDC has collaborated with CMS on a voluntary National Nursing Home Quality Collaborative, which focuses on recruiting nursing homes to report HAI data to NHSN and to retain their continued participation. This project has resulted in a significant increase in long-term care facilities reporting to NHSN.
The ICR previously approved in December of 2019 for 5,352,360 responses; 3,113,631 burden hours. The proposed changes in this new ICR include revisions to eight data collection forms and the addition of ten new forms for a total of 86 proposed data collection forms. In this Revision, CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,365,743 annual burden hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Information Collection for Tuberculosis Data from Referring Entities to CureTB to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 23, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Information Collection for Tuberculosis Data from Referring Entities to CureTB (OMB Control No. 0920-1186, Exp. 06/30/2020)—Revision—National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CureTB at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works with domestic and international programs to protect the U.S. public by preventing tuberculosis (TB) disease transmission domestically and internationally, as well as preventing the development of drug resistant TB. These goals are accomplished through CureTB referral and continuity of care services for mobile TB patients.
Lack of treatment adherence and inappropriate selection of medications are prime reasons for the continued emergence and spread of resistant strains of tuberculosis. To combat this, CureTB ensures that patients understand how to remain adherent to treatment regimens, despite moving between nations. CureTB also provides information to the health care team that will be continuing care about each patient's TB strain and tailored medication regimen. CureTB gathers demographic and clinical information for each patient and connects that individual to appropriate clinical care. This information is also provided on a real-time basis to medical providers and public health authorities in receiving nations so that follow-up with the patient can be expedited.
The respondents are local health departments (LHD) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers within the United States and foreign national TB programs or healthcare facilities in other countries that provide diagnostic and treatment services to individuals affected by TB.
To ensure adequate referral to treatment occurs, CDC CureTB may need to follow-up with an individual to complete missing data fields concerning clinical or contact information. This is done to ensure continuity of care. Therefore, individuals with TB are also respondents in this information collection. CDC's CureTB program will also continue working with our public health partners in notifications and referrals for contacts of TB cases. This is a lesser used function of CureTB, but burden is included below. These respondents are health departments.
Finally, CDC staff in the CureTB program also contact the new treating physicians to determine patient outcomes using CureTB Clinician Public Health Department Follow-up Script. The physicians are generally contacted every two months over the course of standard six month TB treatment, for a total of three follow-up contacts per patient.
The revision for this information collection includes a small number of changes to the CureTB Transnational Notification information collection tool for ease of use by the respondents, and adding two pieces of additional data important for clinical decision making and patient contact. Additionally, CDC is clarifying the specific burden attributable to individuals within ICE detention centers by noting this in the Estimated Annualized Burden Hours table. Finally, CDC is updating the number of respondents and associated burden based on program operations over the last 12 months. No other changes are proposed.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in this data collection is voluntary. There are no costs to respondents other than the time required to complete the referral documents and respond to CDC requests for TB patient outcomes. The total estimated annualized burden is 1,081 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Assessment of Technical Assistance and Training Approaches to Accelerate Comprehensive Cancer Control Outcomes to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on December 6, 2019 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Assessment of Technical Assistance and Training Approaches to Accelerate Comprehensive Cancer Control Outcomes (OMB Control No. 0920-1193, Exp. 7/31/2019)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and health care costs for cancer care are expected to rise to $158 billion by 2020. Addressing this public health problem requires primary prevention, early detection and treatment, support for cancer survivors, and a reduction in health disparities. Providing support to state, tribal, territorial and local organizations to implement evidence-based strategies has the potential to impact population-level cancer outcomes and reduce the burden of cancer.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) has been a primary funder for state and community-based cancer control interventions since its inception in the late 1990s. The program supports states and communities in developing a comprehensive approach to cancer prevention and control that includes supporting an infrastructure for state, local, and population-based interventions and multi-sectoral partnerships and coalitions. Currently, NCCCP supports 66 cancer control program grantees including programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in a number of tribes, tribal organizations, and U.S. Associated Pacific Islands/territories.
In striving to build capacity and maximize the impact of CDC's funded programs, CDC has focused on developing and implementing innovative programs to enhance training and technical assistance (TTA) delivered to NCCCP awardees. CDC funds two awardees under a cooperative agreement—Provision of Technical Assistance and Training to Assure Comprehensive Cancer Control Outcomes (DP18-1805). DP18-1805 awardees are charged with developing and delivering high-quality TTA for NCCCP funded programs, coalition members, and partners focused on improving implementation of evidence-based strategies for cancer prevention and control. The TTA activities DP18-1805 awardees implement include (1) conduct of needs assessment, (2) develop framework for building CCC capacity, (3) coordinate and collaborate with existing partners, (4) develop a TTA plan, (5) implement a TTA plan and conduct performance monitoring and continuous quality improvement; and (6) conduct a comprehensive evaluation of TTA.
CDC proposes to conduct an assessment of DP18-1805 awardees to: (1) Document the nature of the TTA provided by DP18-1805 awardees and the extent to which the cooperative agreement was able to achieve planned short-term outcomes; and (2) identify the extent to which DP18-1805 TTA efforts contributed to NCCCP funded programs' achievement in program outcomes. There are no other data collection efforts currently underway to assess implementation or perceived effectiveness of TTA under DP18-1805.
This information collection request will involve two complementary data collection efforts: (1) Case studies of DP18-1805 awardees (consisting of interviews with DP18-1805 TTA provider program managers/directors, DP18-1805 TTA provider evaluators, and DP18-1805 TTA provider partners) and (2) a cross-sectional web-based survey administered to NCCCP program directors and staff, NCCCP coalition members, and NCCCP partners. The case studies will be used to explore how DP18-1805 awardees are implementing their respective cooperative agreements and administering TTA to NCCCP awardees; the factors that affect the implementation of specific TTA components; and the extent to which they were able to achieve planned short-term outcomes. The web-based survey will inform CDC's understanding of the reach of DP18-1805 TTA efforts; elicit information from NCCCP programs and coalitions about the TTA received, including type, dosage, frequency and format; and assess the perceptions of the effectiveness of the TTA.
CDC will use findings from the assessment to inform development of future TTA efforts to more effectively and efficiently support NCCCP's partner organizations. OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary and respondents will not receive incentives for participation. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden is 51 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP). This collection allows CDC to administer the Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP) and collects information needed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to support the Medicare Expanded Model (Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program [MDPP]).
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 14, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0070 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation (DDT) established and administers the National DPP's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP), which recognizes organizations that deliver diabetes prevention programs according to evidence-based requirements set forth in the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program Standards and Operating Procedures” (DPRP Standards). Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) expansion of CDC's National DPP was announced in early 2016, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that the Diabetes Prevention Program met the statutory criteria for inclusion in Medicare's expanded list of healthcare services for beneficiaries (
CDC requests an additional three years of OMB approval to continue collecting the information needed to administer the DPRP and information needed by CMS to support the MDPP benefit. Based on experience with the DPRP from 2011-2020, including data analysis, and feedback from applicant organizations and internal and external partners, CDC plans to revise the DPRP Standards and the associated information collection.
Key changes are a direct result of DPRP data analyses and discussion with National DPP stakeholders, including those serving vulnerable populations. Key changes allow for the optional collection of Hemoglobin A1C levels, and for weight/physical activity minutes to be combined (a new method), to determine Full recognition; the required collection of Application Delivery Mode questions; revised organizational type information; program enrollment motivation/enrollment source information; adding Gender; and the removal of Session ID.
Three data elements have been minimally revised and no other data elements have been added to the one-time application form; and, three elements have been revised, one has been deleted, and four have been added
Application Form:
Evaluation Data Elements:
During the period of this Revision, CDC estimates receipt of approximately 300 DPRP application forms per year. The estimated burden per one-time, up-front application response is one hour (annualized to 300 hours one-time across all new organizations). In addition, CDC estimates receipt of semi-annual evaluation data submissions from the same 300 additional organizations per year; estimated at two hours per response. The total estimated average annualized evaluation burden to respondents is 6,676 hours. This includes an estimate of the time needed to extract and compile the required data records and fields from an existing electronic database, review the data, create or enter a data file in the required format (
Office of Child Support Enforcement; Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Request for Public Comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a three-year extension of the form Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support (IWO) (OMB #0970-0154, expiration 8/31/2020). This request includes minor revisions to the approved forms.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Child support agencies, courts, private attorneys, custodial parties, and others must use the IWO form to initiate an income withholding order for support and give notice of income withholding. State child support agencies are required to have automated data processing systems containing current order and case information. State child support agencies providing services to custodial and/or noncustodial parties enter the terms of a child support order established by a tribunal into the state's automated system, which automatically populates the order information into the IWO form.
Employers and income providers also use the form to respond to the order/notice with termination or income status information. Employers and other income providers may choose to receive the IWO form from child support agencies on paper or electronically, and may respond on paper or electronically to notify the sender of termination of employment or change in the income status.
The information collection activities pertaining to the IWO form are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(1), (a)(8), and 666(b)(6), which require the use of the IWO form to order income withholding for all child support orders.
42 U.S.C. 666(a)(1), (a)(8), and 666(b)(6).
Health Resources and Services Administration; Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of meeting cancellation.
This is to notify the public that the July 29-30, 2020, and November 4-5, 2020, meetings of the National Advisory Council on Migrant Health (NACMH) are canceled.
Esther Paul, NACMH Designated Federal Officer, Strategic Initiatives and Planning Division, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 16N38B, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 301-594-4300; or
The decision to cancel these NACMH meetings has been made after carefully considering the difficulties of obtaining a quorum in light of the current COVID-19 public health emergency and council members' concerns regarding their inability to access the needed internet speeds to conduct a video meeting. Consistent with the provisions in the NACMH Charter, these meetings were previously announced in the
Future NACMH meetings will be announced through the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of funding award.
HRSA announces the award of supplemental funding of approximately $7,000,000 to the Zero to Three National Center for Infant, Toddler and Families, Inc. Cooperative Agreement for the Infant-Toddler Court Program (ITCP). The supplemental funding will allow the current recipient, during the period of September 30, 2020-September 29, 2021, to continue to improve the health, safety, well-being and development of infants, toddlers, and families in the child welfare system.
Lynlee Tanner Stapleton, Division of Home Visiting and Early Childhood Services, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N-146A, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301-443-5764, Email:
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, indicated that “The agreement includes no less than $10,000,000 for the third year of a cooperative agreement to support research-based Infant-Toddler Court Teams to change child welfare practices to improve the well-being of infants, toddlers, and their families as described in House Report 116-62.” Furthermore, the House Report (H. Rept. 116-62) included the following language from the House Committee on Appropriations: “The Committee includes $10,000,000 for the third year of a cooperative agreement to support research-based Infant Toddler Court Teams to change child welfare practices to improve well-being for infants, toddlers, and their families. The Committee expects this increase of $7,000,000 above the fiscal year 2019 enacted level to: (1) Build upon the
ITCP provides high-quality services across multiple systems, building on the previously developed Safe Babies Court Team approach, and works to strengthen and align the child welfare, health, and early childhood and community systems to meet the unique and urgent needs of infants, toddlers, and their families who have experienced, or are at risk for, significant maltreatment and/or foster care placement.
The additional funding will continue to advance outcomes associated with the prevention of infant/toddler maltreatment and the need for child placement into foster care; care linkages for involved children and parents with preventative and indicated health care services; expanded reach of infant-toddler court teams; and improved early identification of and response to child and family risk/need, as well as emphasize the continued expansion of cross-sector engagement and alliances at state and local levels. Expected activities include significantly expanding the number of new sites engaged in outreach and start-up activities, supporting states or other regional networks of sites to plan for and develop common infrastructure and resource sharing, increasing the depth of training and technical assistance offered to existing implementation sites, providing increased sub-awards to implementation sites to increase sites' service capacity, and expanding current evaluation work.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than August 14, 2020.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
While retaining the current organizational structure, performance measure framework and focus on family partnership, specific updates to this edition of the
(1) Add clarifying language/instructions for completing reporting forms and update the Glossary of terms, references and citations, as needed.
(2) Revise the content of the National Outcome/Performance Measure Detail Sheets to include the 2030
(3) Revise the format for Form #10e, which serves as the detail sheet for the state-specific measures (
(4) Provide continued emphasis on family partnership and engagement at the systems level and include the
(5) Share background information, resources, state examples/metrics and definitions to assist states in their efforts to advance population health strategies for children with special health care needs (CSHCN).
(6) Expand Form 5 to include infants in the state's reporting on the number (5a) and percent (5b) of CSHCN served by Title V,
(7) Enhance the narrative and performance reporting on State Title V efforts to build or expand program capacity related to Maternal and Child Health data access and cross-program data linkages, Maternal and Child Health workforce development/training, and emergency planning/preparedness.
a. Strengthen the narrative discussion on the State Systems Development Initiative (SSDI) grant and add a reporting form for annually assessing State Title V program capacity to access essential Maternal and Child Health data that supports timely program planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
b. Enhance the annual narrative reporting to include a more robust description of the State Title V workforce capacity (
c. Expand the annual narrative reporting to include a descriptive analysis of the State Title V program's capacity related to emergency planning and preparedness, with the intended purpose of enabling each state to better assess its capacity for responding to emerging public health threats and disasters that could potentially impact the Maternal and Child Health population.
(8) Expand and enhance the Appendices to include supportive background information, examples, resources and tools.
In consideration of the increasing demands that are being placed on State Title V programs at this time due to the COVID-19 emergency and given that no major changes to the reporting requirements are being proposed, the burden estimates presented in the table below are based on the previous burden estimates for completion of the Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Application/Annual Report. These estimates were developed based on prior estimates and consultations with a few States. When the COVID-19 emergency subsides, HRSA can solicit additional information from states to derive more accurate burden estimates.
The addition of clarifying instructions, state examples, expanded background information and supportive resources and tools, where possible, is expected to assist State Title V programs in responding to the reporting requirements. It is anticipated that further reductions in burden will be realized through the proposed revisions to the National Outcome/Performance Measure detail sheets and to Form #10e, which states use to define their state-specific measures. These reductions in burden will be partially offset by the addition of one reporting form (formerly part of the state's annual performance reporting for the SSDI grant), which will enable State Title V programs to annually assess their progress in building/expanding Maternal and Child Health data capacity. This reporting will be coupled with expanded narrative reporting on the state's SSDI grant activities, along with other capacity-building efforts that relate to the Maternal and Child Health workforce and emergency planning and preparedness.
States will use the updated edition of the
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the availability of the complete lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, mental health, and dental health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) as of May 1, 2020. The lists are available on HRSA's HPSAFind website.
Complete lists of HPSAs designated as of May 1, 2020, are available on the website at
For further information on the HPSA designations listed on the website or to request additional designation, withdrawal, or reapplication for designation, please contact Janelle D. McCutchen, DHEd, MPH, CHES, Chief, Shortage Designation Branch, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W14, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 443-9156, or
Section 332 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. Section 332 further requires that the Secretary of HHS annually publish lists of the designated geographic areas, population groups, and facilities. The lists of HPSAs are to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary.
Final regulations (42 CFR part 5) were published in 1980 that include the criteria for designating HPSAs. Criteria were defined for seven health professional types: Primary medical care, dental, psychiatric, vision care, podiatric, pharmacy, and veterinary care. The criteria for correctional facility HPSAs were revised and published on March 2, 1989 (54 FR 8735). The criteria for psychiatric HPSAs were expanded to mental health HPSAs on January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2473). Currently funded PHS Act programs use only the primary medical care, mental health, or dental HPSA designations.
HPSA designation offers access to potential federal assistance. Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) personnel to provide primary medical care, mental health, or dental health services in or to these HPSAs. NHSC health professionals enter into service agreements to serve in federally designated HPSAs. Entities with clinical training sites located in HPSAs are eligible to receive priority for certain residency training program grants administered by HRSA's Bureau of Health Workforce. Other federal programs also utilize HPSA designations. For example, under authorities administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, certain qualified providers in geographic area HPSAs are eligible for increased levels of Medicare reimbursement.
The three lists of designated HPSAs are available on the HRSA Data Warehouse HPSA Find website and include a snapshot of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities that were designated HPSAs as of May 1, 2020. This notice incorporates the most recent annual reviews of designated HPSAs and supersedes the HPSA lists published in the
In addition, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603(d), are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. Further, the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 provides eligibility for automatic facility HPSA designations for all federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. Specifically, these entities include FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Absence from this list does not exclude them from HPSA designation; facilities eligible for automatic designation are included in the database when they are identified.
Each list of designated HPSAs is arranged by state. Within each state, the list is presented by county. If only a portion (or portions) of a county is (are) designated, a county is part of a larger designated service area, or a population group residing in a county or a facility located in the county has been designated, the name of the service area, population group, or facility involved is listed under the county name. A county that has a whole county geographic or population group HPSA is indicated by the phrase “County” following the county name.
Requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or facility as a HPSA are received continuously by HRSA. Under a Cooperative Agreement between HRSA and the 54 state and territorial Primary Care Offices (PCOs), PCOs conduct needs assessments and submit applications to HRSA to designate areas as HPSAs. HRSA refers requests that come from other sources to PCOs for review. In addition, interested parties, including Governors, State Primary Care Associations, and state professional associations, are notified of requests so that they may submit their comments and recommendations.
HRSA reviews each recommendation for possible addition, continuation, revision, or withdrawal. Following review, HRSA notifies the appropriate agency, individuals, and interested organizations of each designation of a HPSA, rejection of recommendation for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawals from the HPSA list. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date on the notification from HRSA and are updated daily on the HPSAFind website. The effective date of a withdrawal will be the next publication of a notice regarding the list in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30 day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 15, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
Although some program forms vary from program to program (see program-specific burden charts below), required forms generally include: A program application, academic and non-academic letters of recommendation, the authorization to release information, and the acceptance/verification of good standing report. Additional forms for the NHSC SP include the data collection worksheet, which is completed by the educational institutions of program participants; the post-graduate training verification form (applicable for NHSC S2S LRP participants), which is completed by program participants and their residency director; and the enrollment verification form, which is completed by program participants and the educational institution for each academic term. The NHHSP program will add 3 new forms including the scholar enrollment verification, change in program curriculum and graduation documentation forms. These forms are completed by the grantee on behalf of the participant and the educational institution to verify the participant's enrollment status for each academic term, to provide notice of any change in the participant's program curriculum and to verify that NHHSP has met its financial obligation to pay tuition and related fees or to hold additional funds to cover any tuition balance or fees on the participant's student account.
Upon review of the 60-day notice, it was determined that The “Post Graduate Training Form” was accidentally included as a duplicate entry since it is already captured in the “NHSC awardees/schools/post graduate training programs/sites” section, which is the proper program for which it is used. Therefore, it was removed from the NHSC Students to Service Loan Repayment Program Application” section of the Estimated Burden Table.
A 60-day notice published in the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Respiratory Sciences, July 02, 2020, 08:00 a.m. to July 03, 2020, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting date from to July 2-3, 2020 to July 1-2, 2020. The time and meeting location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Social Sciences and Population Studies B Study Section, June 18, 2020, 09:00 a.m. to June 19, 2020, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting time from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group, Child Psychopathology and Developmental Disabilities Study Section, June 22, 2020, 08:00 a.m. to June 23, 2020, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting time from 08:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. Meeting Date and Location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-0361.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Historically SAMHSA collected information on substance use and mental health treatment facilities through two (2) separate data collections: The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS; OMB No. 0930-0106) and the National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS; OMB No. 0930-0119). SAMHSA also maintain as part of the N-SSATS data collection approval, an inventory of treatment facility, named the Inventory of Behavioral Health Services (I-BHS) (N-SSATS; OMB No. 0930-0106).
Some of the content and questions in the N-SSATS and N-MHSS data collection surveys are similar and represented an additional burden to approximately 14 percent of facilities that received both surveys. SAMHSA recognizes the need to have data collections that are less burdensome to these facilities that provide these services. To help reduce respondent
The N-SUMHSS, will include the facility characteristics and services questions currently asked in the N-SSATS and the N-MHSS. The survey will also collect, on an annual basis, client counts on those individuals receiving services at these facilities. Historically, client count information was collected every other year; however there is an increasing need to collect and maintain data on current and accurate numbers of clients in treatment at the local level for community to assess capacity and estimate resource requirements. This information on substance use and mental health services has assisted with communities to better respond to life changing events, (
SAMHSA requests is for approval of the N-SUMHSS data collection and the extension of the I-BHS data collection. The N-SUMHSS survey will provide data on the numbers and types of patients treated and the characteristics of facilities providing substance use and mental health treatment services. The extension of the duration of the I-BHS survey, which is current authorized as part of N-SSATS (OMB No. 0930-0106), aligns it to the same period as the N-SUMHSS. These surveys are conducted under the authority of Section 505 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa-4) to meet the specific mandates for annual information about public and private substance use/mental health treatment providers and the clients they serve.
This request includes:
• N-SUMHSS, an annual census of substance use and mental health treatment facilities which collects descriptive data on the location, scope of services provided, and operational characteristics of all known substance use and mental health treatment facilities in the United States and jurisdictions, and on utilization of services by means of a single-day count of clients in treatment; and
• I-BHS data collection activities associated with updating the inventory of both mental health treatment facilities and substance use treatment facilities.
The information in N-SUMHSS and I-BHS is needed to assess the nature and extent of these resources, to identify gaps in services, and to provide a database for treatment referrals.
The request for OMB approval will include a request to conduct the N-SUMHSS survey which includes facility characteristics and services and one-day client counts and to update the I-BHS facility listing on a continuous basis in 2021, 2022 and 2023. Also included in this request is the Between Cycle N-SUMHSS data collection (N-SUMHSS BC), to be conducted between annual surveys to collect information on new facilities for inclusion in the Treatment Locator. N-SUMHSS BC use is an abbreviated N-SUMHSS survey questionnaire.
The estimated annual burden for the I-BHS and BHSIS activities is as follows:
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fisher Lane, Room 15E57A, Rockville, MD 20852
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces the monthly per unit fee rates for use in determining the on-going administrative fees for public housing agencies (PHAs) administering the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including Single Room Occupancy, during calendar year (CY) 2020.
Miguel A. Fontánez, Director, Housing Voucher Financial Management
This notice provides the HUD's methodology used to determine the CY 2020 administrative fee rates by area, which HUD uses to determine PHA administrative fees for the HCV, Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including Single Room Occupancy programs. The HCV program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Mainstream Vouchers are tenant-based vouchers serving households that include a non-elderly person with a disability, available to PHAs through a competitive Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The moderate rehabilitation program provides project-based rental assistance for low income families. The program was repealed in 1991 and no new projects are authorized for development. Assistance is limited to properties previously rehabilitated pursuant to a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract between an owner and a PHA. PHAs are local offices responsible for administering and maintaining Section 8 housing benefits, located across the country.
For CY 2020, in accordance with the 2020 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 116-94), administrative fees are determined based on vouchers leased as of the first day of each month. This data is extracted from the Voucher Management System (VMS) at the close of each reporting cycle and validated prior to use. For Moderate Rehabilitation, including Single Room Occupancy, HAP contracts, administrative fees are earned based on the units under a HAP contract.
In the attached table, two fee rates are provided for each PHA. The first rate, Column A, applies to the first 7200 voucher unit months leased in CY 2020. The second rate, Column B, applies to all remaining voucher unit months leased in CY 2020. In years prior to 2010, Column C applied to all voucher unit months leased in dwelling units owned by the PHA. For CY 2020, as in recent years, there are no Column C administrative fee rates. Fees for leasing PHA-owned units is determined in the same manner and at the same Column A and Column B rates as for all other voucher leasing.
In some cases, the fee rates calculated for CY 2020 are lower than those established for CY 2019. In these cases, the affected PHAs are held harmless at the CY 2019 fee rates.
The fee rates for each PHA generally cover the fees for areas in which the PHA has the greatest proportion of its participants, based on Public Housing Information Center (PIC) data submitted by the PHA. In some cases, PHAs have participants in more than one fee area. If such a PHA chooses, the PHA may request HUD establish a blended fee rate to proportionately consider all areas in which participants are located. Once a blended rate is established, it is used to determine the PHA's fee eligibility for all months in CY 2020. The 2020 HCV Funding Implementation Notice described how to apply for blended fee rates and the deadline date for submitting such requests. The notice can be accessed through the following link:
PHAs operating over large geographic areas, defined as multiple counties, may request a higher administrative fee rate if eligible. The 2020 HCV Funding Implementation Notice described when to apply for higher fee rates and the deadline date for such requests. Higher administrative fee rates differ from blended administrative fee rates in how they are calculated. Requests for higher administrative rates must clearly demonstrate that the PHA's published rate cannot cover their projected expenses. Next, a breakeven rate is calculated to ensure the PHA receives sufficient funds to cover their expenses while also ensuring the administrative fee reserves do not grow.
This notice identifies the monthly per-voucher-unit fee rates to be used to determine PHA administrative fee eligibility. These fee rates remain posted at:
Direct questions to the PHA's assigned representative at the Financial Management Center or the Financial Management Division at
Where an MTW Agency has an alternative formula for calculating HCV Administrative Fees in Attachment A of their MTW Agreements, HUD calculates the HCV Administrative Fees in accordance with that MTW Agreement provision.
The Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, R. Hunter Kurtz, having reviewed and approved the annual announcement of Administrative Fee Rates, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Aaron Santa Anna, who is the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 5) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 11, 2020, based on a complaint filed by Luraco Health & Beauty, LLC of Arlington, Texas (“Complainant”). 85 FR 27762 (May 11, 2020). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain spa pumps, jet pump housings, pedicure spas, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,926,933; U.S. Patent No. D622,736; U.S. Patent No. D751,723; and U.S. Patent No. 10,451,071. The complaint, as amended, further alleges that a domestic industry exists. The
On May 19, 2020, Complainant moved to withdraw the complaint and to stay the procedural schedule. No one filed a response to the motion.
On May 22, 2020, the presiding ALJ issued Order No. 5, terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. The ALJ notes that the motion is granted,
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. This investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 9, 2020.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Rule §§ 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission orders that the Complainant(s) complete service for any party/parties without a method of electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 15, 2020. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before July 15, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 25, 2020, VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards, 3 Perimeter Road, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On June 8, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Montana in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve claims the United States and State of Montana have brought pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), against the Atlantic Richfield Company and the City and County of Butte Silver Bow (“BSB”) related to the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit.
The Consent Decree requires Atlantic Richfield to remove contaminated mine tailings in numerous locations in and near Butte, Montana, capture and treat certain contaminated groundwater, and construct stormwater retention basins to protect surface waters from contaminated runoff. In addition, Atlantic Richfield will pay EPA $3.5 million for past costs, $11.2 million in future oversight costs, and $20.5 million to the State of Montana to undertake certain remedial and restoration actions. BSB will implement stormwater control and operation and maintenance activities with funding from Atlantic Richfield. The Consent Decree also requires certain federal agencies to pay $10 million of EPA's past costs to resolve Atlantic Richfield's counterclaims. The Consent Decree provides Defendants and certain related persons covenants not to sue relating to the BPSOU under Sections 106, 107(a) and 113(f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a) and 9613(f); Sections 3004(u) and (v), 3008 and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6924(u) and (v), 6928 and 6973; and Sections 309(b), 311 and 504 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), 1321 and 1364.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $355.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits, the cost is $39.75.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of updates.
The Cube Quest (CQ) Challenge is scheduled and teams that wish to compete in the in-space competition may now register. New teams are responsible for securing a launch provider for their candidate CubeSat. Centennial Challenges is a program of prize competitions to stimulate innovation in technologies of interest and value to NASA and the nation. The Cube Quest Challenge is a prize competition designed to encourage development of new technologies or application of existing technologies in unique ways to advance CubeSat communication and propulsion systems. NASA is providing the prize purse.
Challenge registration opened on December 2, 2014. The In-Space Competition starts when the team's CubeSat is deployed. The In-Space Competition ends exactly 365 competition days after team's CubeSat deployment, or 365 days after the Artemis-I launch, whichever occurs first.
The Cube Quest Challenge will be conducted in the cis-lunar and trans-lunar locations in space.
To register for or get additional information regarding the Cube Quest Challenge, please visit:
Competitors will design, build, and launch a 6U CubeSat to a lunar distance and/or beyond. Prizes will be awarded for: Placing the CubeSat into lunar orbit; transmitting the largest amount of data in both the 30 minute time frame from lunar orbit, or from a 3,000,000 km distance; transmitting the largest amount of data in a 28 day time frame from lunar orbit or a 3,000,000 distance; surviving the longest amount of time in lunar orbit or deep space environment (>3,000,000 distance); communicating from the furthest distance from Earth.
I. Prize Amounts: The total Cube Quest prize purse is $5,000,000 (five million U.S. dollars). Prizes will be offered for entries that meet specific requirements detailed in the Rules.
II. Rules and Eligibility: The complete rules and eligibility requirements for the Cube Quest Challenge can be found at:
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 25 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry P. Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of September 10, 2019, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The upcoming meetings are:
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to establish this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by August 14, 2020 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W18200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The NSF INCLUDES Big Idea is a comprehensive national initiative to enhance U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) discoveries and innovations focused on NSF's commitment to diversity, inclusion, and broadening participation in these fields. The vision of NSF INCLUDES is to catalyze the STEM enterprise to work collaboratively for inclusive change, resulting in a STEM workforce that reflects the population of the Nation.
More specifically, NSF INCLUDES seeks to improve collaborative efforts aimed at enhancing the preparation, increasing the participation, and ensuring the contributions of individuals from groups that have been historically underrepresented and underserved in the STEM enterprise such as African Americans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Native Pacific Islanders, persons with disabilities, persons from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and women and girls. Significant advancement in the inclusion of underrepresented groups in STEM will result in a new generation of STEM talent and leadership to secure our nation's future and long-term economic competitiveness.
The NSF INCLUDES Big Idea aligns with the NSF Strategic Plan, directly supporting the strategic objectives to: Advance knowledge through investments in ideas, people, and infrastructure (Strategic Objective 1.1); support research and promote partnerships to accelerate innovation and to provide new capabilities to meet pressing societal needs (Strategic Objective 2.1); foster the growth of a more capable and diverse research workforce and advance the scientific and innovation skills of the Nation (Strategic Objective 2.2) ; and attract, retain, and empower a talented and diverse workforce (Strategic Objective 3.1). The work of NSF INCLUDES contributes to the successful performance of NSF as a Federal agency.
The NSF INCLUDES initiative is supported by the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub (
• NSF INCLUDES-funded projects,
• Other broadening participation projects and research efforts, including projects funded by other NSF programs (
• Federal Coordination in STEM (FC-STEM) agencies, and
• Organizations that support the development of talent from all sectors of society to build an inclusive STEM workforce.
NSF is requesting OMB approval for the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub to collect information from members of the NSF INCLUDES National Network. The NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub seeks to collect data from Network members to: (1)
Information collected will include respondents' names, their affiliated organizations, email addresses, and home states. This personally identifiable information (PII) is collected primarily to categorize responses based on respondents' roles in the NSF INCLUDES National Network. PII will be accessed only by the Coordination Hub. Any public reporting of data will be in aggregate form, and any personal identifiers will be removed.
Please submit one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions received must include the agency name and collection name identified above for this information collection. Commenters are strongly encouraged to transmit their comments electronically via email. Comments, including any personal information provided become a matter of public record. They will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold meetings on July 8-11, 2020. As part of the coordinated government response to combat COVID-19, the Committee will conduct virtual meetings. The public will be able to participate any open sessions via 1-866-822-3032, pass code 8272423#.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
An electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff at least one day before meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Thomas Dashiell, ACRS Audio Visual Technician at (301-415-7907), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Weeks of June 15, 22, 29, July 6, 13, 20, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 15, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 22, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 29, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 6, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 13, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 20, 2020.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold meetings on July 21-25, 2020. This ACRS meeting was approved by the Committee in accordance with the ACRS bylaws as a special meeting for the primary purpose of discussing and making recommendations on the topic of the NuScale design certification application review. As part of the coordinated government response to combat COVID-19, the Committee will conduct virtual meetings. The public will be able to participate any open sessions via 1-866-822-3032, pass code 8272423#.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
An electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff at least one day before meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Thomas Dashiell, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-7907), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) on October 3, 2019, for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP). This exemption would permit CCNPP to load and store spent fuel with a larger pellet diameter than is authorized in the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec) HI-STORM FW storage system in Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment 1, Revision 1.
The exemption was issued on June 8, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0113 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877; email:
CCNPP has been storing PWR spent fuel in its specific licensed independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) utilizing Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2505, which was issued in November 1992. However, for the loading campaign commencing in early summer of 2021, CCNPP is transitioning to store its PWR fuel at a separate on-site ISFSI, which will use the HI-STORM FW dry storage system, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML15152A358) under the general license provisions in part 72 of title 10 of the
By application dated October 3, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19276D398), EGC submitted a request for an exemption from those provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(3) and 72.212(b)(11) that require compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 to allow CCNPP to load spent fuel with a maximum fuel pellet diameter of 0.3810 inches (0.9677 centimeters), utilizing Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW storage system. In evaluating the request, the NRC also considered, pursuant to authority in 10 CFR 72.7, exempting Exelon from similar requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and (b)(5)(i) and 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.”
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report (ADAMS Accession No. ML20115E378) to document its safety evaluation of the proposed action (
This exemption would permit CCNPP to load spent fuel with a larger fuel pellet diameter than authorized in Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1. Section 72.7 allows the Commission to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72 if the exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security. Issuance of this exemption is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is not otherwise inconsistent with NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Therefore, issuance of the exemption is authorized by law.
As discussed in the safety evaluation report and summarized in the following sections, the NRC staff has found that EGC's proposed action is acceptable and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
EGC submitted an exemption request to deviate from the maximum fuel pellet diameter for 14x14C fuel, stored in the Holtec HI-STORM FW storage system. The staff reviewed the exemption request and concludes that the proposed exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 72 will not cause the HI-STORM FW storage system to encounter conditions beyond those for which it has been evaluated and demonstrated to meet the applicable safety requirements in 10 CFR part 72. As explained below, the staff evaluated the potential thermal, radiation and criticality safety impacts of granting the exemption.
EGC stated that the small change in fuel pellet diameter, which is used in the effective fuel thermal conductivity calculations, has a second order impact on the effective fuel thermal properties, and that a larger fuel pellet diameter reduces the resistance to heat transfer by decreasing the helium gap between the fuel pellet and cladding. In addition, EGC asserted that the 14x14C fuel assembly is bounded by the WE 17x17 fuel assembly adopted in the licensing basis analyses. Staff reviewed the information provided and concluded that the impact of loading a fuel pellet with a slightly increased diameter is negligible to the thermal design functions of the loaded cask. Staff also reviewed the HI-STORM FW final safety analysis report (FSAR) and confirmed that the heat load of the 14x14C fuel assembly is bounded by the head load of the 17x17 fuel assembly.
EGC evaluated the impact of increasing the fuel pellet diameter from 0.3805 inches (0.9665 cm) to 0.3810 inches (0.9677 cm). EGC determined that the small increase in heavy metal from 438 kg to 439.15 kg caused by increasing the fuel pellet diameter is conservatively bounded by the uranium weight for the design basis fuel assembly in Table 5.2.1 of the HI-STORM FW FSAR of 469 kg. The staff reviewed this information and determined that the proposed change to the fuel pellet diameter will not significantly change the system shielding analyses in the HI-STORM FW FSAR. Further, the staff determined that the WE17X17 design basis fuel assembly in the HI-STORM FW FSAR with 469 kg of heavy metal bounds the CCNPP 14X14C fuel assemblies with 439.15 kg of heavy metal since the system shielding analyses in the FSAR also bound the expected increase in radiation from the slightly larger fuel pellets.
EGC stated that Holtec evaluated a fuel pellet diameter of 0.3805 inches (0.9665 cm) in the HI-STORM FW FSAR, to determine the effect of an upper manufacturing tolerance of 0.0005 inches (0.0013 cm) applied to the nominal value of 0.3805 inches (0.9665 cm). In that final safety analysis report, Holtec determined that the system k-effective with this larger diameter of fuel pellet is statistically the same as the system k-effective with the nominal fuel pellet diameter. Therefore, EGC stated that its proposed exemption has no effect on the criticality safety of the HI-STORM FW storage system. The staff reviewed the final safety analysis report and determined that the proposed change to the fuel pellet diameter will not result in changes to system k-effective that are statistically significant. The staff finds that this proposed exemption does not affect the ability of the HI-STORM FW storage system to meet the criticality safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72.
EGC's exemption request is not related to any aspect of the physical security or defense of the CCNPP ISFSI. Modification of the fuel pellet diameter does not affect the ISFSI security plans. Therefore, granting the exemption would not result in any potential impacts to common defense and security.
Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that under the requested exemption, the storage system will continue to meet the safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72 and the offsite dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and, therefore, will not endanger life or property. The NRC staff also found that the exemption would not endanger the common defense and security.
In determining whether the exemption is in the public interest, the staff considered the no-action alternative of denying the exemption request. Denial of the exemption request would cause CCNPP to postpone loading of spent fuel that contains the larger fuel pellet diameter until it is approved in an amendment for CoC No. 1032 or alternative loading arrangements are implemented.
EGC stated that the proposed exemption is in the public interest because it would allow CCNPP to load spent fuel in an inherently safe, passive system on schedule, which would enable CCNPP to continue to maintain full-core offload capability. The staff reviewed the information provided by EGC, and based upon the above stated information, concludes that granting the requested exemption continues to provide adequate protection of public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest.
The NRC staff also considered whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. For this proposed action, the NRC staff performed an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The environmental assessment concluded that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types or amounts of any radiological or non-radiological effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure because of the proposed action. The environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact was published on June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33204).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, this exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property
The exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of June 15, 2020.
via Teleconference.
Open.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently filed Postal Service proposal to conduct a market test of an experimental product called Extended Mail Forwarding. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3641 and 39 CFR part 3045, the Postal Service filed notice of its intent to conduct a market test of an experimental product called Extended Mail Forwarding.
On June 8, 2020, the Postal Service filed the Notice proposing the Extended Mail Forwarding market test. The Postal Service asserts that Extended Mail Forwarding will ensure customers receive mailpieces for which they are the intended recipient and which is more essential than ever before in light of the Coronavirus-19 pandemic. It states that customers will exercise greater control over their mail forwarding expiration dates with more time to update and communicate with their mailing contacts.
The Postal Service states that Extended Mail Forwarding will be
The Postal Service states that Extended Mail Forwarding will be tested in nine postal districts throughout the country that represent a cross-sample of COA requests by volume according to 2019 data.
The Postal Service plans to offer initial pricing for Extended Mail Forwarding of $19.95 for one 6-month extension, $29.95 for two 6-month extensions, and $39.98 for three 6-month extensions.
The Postal Service asserts that the proposed market test meets the requirements in 39 U.S.C. 3641 and 39 CFR part 3045. First, the Postal Service explains that Extended Mail Forwarding is “significantly different from all products offered by the Postal Service within the last two years” as required by 39 U.S.C. 3641(b)(1).
The Postal Service also asserts that the proposed service is “significantly distinct” from Commercial P.O. Box Redirect Service because that service will be available only to Commercial P.O. Box customers to redirect automated First-Class Mail letters to a P.O. Box with Caller Service using a different postal system.
Second, the Postal Service asserts that Extended Mail Forwarding “will not create an unfair or otherwise inappropriate competitive advantage for the Postal Service or any mailer” as required by 39 U.S.C. 3641(b)(2).
The Postal Service asserts that because only it forwards mail under a permanent COA request, no other business offers a similar product or service. It also asserts that Extended Mail Forwarding will have no impact on small business concerns except to provide them with the option of extending their forwarding requests if they permanently change addresses.
Third, the Postal Service states that Extended Mail Forwarding is properly categorized as market dominant as required by 39 U.S.C. 3641(b)(3).
To better understand the results of the market test, the Postal Service asserts that it will collect the following data on a quarterly basis: Number of extension requests, number of customers, ratio of individuals, families, and businesses, volume of mailpieces forwarded, and revenues.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MT2020-2 to consider matters raised by the Notice. The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3641 and 39 CFR part 3045. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2020. The filing can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission appoints Richard A. Oliver to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MT2020-2 to consider the matters raised by the Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2020.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to allow Members and Clearing Members to establish or adjust the risk settings set forth in Interpretation and Policy .03 of Exchange Rule 11.13 on a risk group identifier basis. 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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to offer Members
Recently, the Exchange adopted Interpretation and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 11.13 which provides Members certain optional risk settings.
As provided in the Original Filing, a Member can allocate responsibility for establishing and adjusting the applicable risk settings to its Clearing Member on an MPID basis via the Exchange's web portal. The proposal would allow a Member or its Clearing Member, if allocated such responsibility, to utilize “Purge Ports” to apply Gross Credit Risk Limits and/or Net Credit Risk Limits to more granular subsets of orders associated with the relevant MPID.
A “Purge Port” is a dedicated port that permits a User to simultaneously cancel all or a subset of its orders in one or more symbols across multiple logical ports
As noted above, Purge Ports enable Users to simultaneously cancel all open orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple logical ports through a single cancel message. Therefore, Purge Ports allow Members to manage risk for some subset of their business, such as by
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.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the proposal would enhance Members' and Clearing Members' ability to manage their credit risk associated with equities trading, which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposal would allow a Member or its Clearing Member, if allocated such responsibility, to utilize the existing Purge Port risk group identifier functionality to set risk profiles for up to 10 risk group identifiers per Purge Port. Each risk profile would specify the applicable Gross Credit Risk Limits and/or Net Credit Risk Limits that would be applied to the subset of orders bearing the risk group identifier. Further, the proposal would allow the automatic mass cancellation of all open orders and block new orders bearing the risk group identifier in the event of a risk limit breach. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal will allow for proactive and reactive risk management and may be useful to firms operating multiple strategies at a given time, those operating multiple groups under a single MPID with disparate risk profiles, or Sponsoring Members managing risk on behalf of a Sponsored Participant.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the public interest because the proposed functionality is a form of risk mitigation that will aid Members, and Clearing Members for firms who do not self-clear, in minimizing their risk associated with operating or clearing multiple business lines with disparate risk profiles. In turn, the introduction of such risk management functionality could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial system.
The Exchange also believes that building on the Purge Port functionality to provide the proposed changes would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because it offers enhanced use of existing functionality. This may enable more efficient use of Members' and Clearing Members' resources.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's Members and Clearing Members because use of the risk settings is optional and are not a prerequisite for participation on the Exchange, and will be available to all Members and Clearing Members as an enhancement to existing Purge Port functionality. The proposed risk settings are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Member or Clearing Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them.
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. In fact, the Exchange believes that the proposal may have a positive effect on competition because it would allow the Exchange to offer enhanced risk management functionality. Further, by providing Members and their Clearing Members more granular means to monitor and control risk, the proposed rule may increase confidence in the proper functioning of the markets and contribute to additional competition among trading venues and broker-dealers. Rather than impede competition, the proposal is designed as an innovative way to facilitate more robust risk management by Members and Clearing Members, which, in turn, could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial system. Furthermore, other exchanges are free to propose similar functionality as they see fit.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to extend the cap waiver of 1,000 contracts per leg for complex PRIME (“cPRIME”)
Exchange Rule 518(b)(7) defines a cPRIME Order as a type of complex order
The Exchange proposes to amend footnote “*” in Section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule to extend the waiver of the contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July 31, 2020. Prior to a rule filing by the Exchange (described below), the Exchange limited the cPRIME Agency Order Credit to be payable only to the first 1,000 contracts per leg for each cPRIME Agency Order in all tiers under the PCRP. On February 28, 2020, the Exchange filed, and the Commission approved [sic], the Exchange's proposal to waive the 1000 contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP from March 1, 2020 until May 31, 2020.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow (as further described below), or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to transaction and non-transaction fee changes. For example, on March 1, 2019, the Exchange filed with the Commission an immediately effective filing to decrease certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to the PCRP.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes its proposal to extend the waiver of the cap of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July 31, 2020 provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to transaction and/or non-transaction fee changes. For example, on March 1, 2019, the Exchange filed with the Commission an immediately effective filing to decrease certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to the PCRP.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to continue to waive the 1,000 contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers in the PCRP until July 31, 2020 is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because this change is for business and competitive reasons and available equally to all market participants. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any market participant would submit additional cPRIME Agency Orders in excess of 1,000 contracts per leg in light of the proposal to continue to waive the cap of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP, but believes that market participants would continue to be encouraged to submit larger orders to obtain the additional credits. The Exchange believes that this proposed change would encourage increased cPRIME Agency Order flow, which will bring greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that other market participants at the Exchange would be placed at a relative disadvantage by the proposed change to continue to waive the cap of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July 31, 2020. The proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this proposal will continue to encourage Members to submit Priority Customer cPRIME Agency Orders, which will increase liquidity and benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will continue to encourage order flow, which provides greater volume and liquidity, benefiting all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than approximately 14% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades as of May 18, 2020, for the month of May 2020.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, 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 BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to allow Members and Clearing Members to establish or adjust the risk settings set forth in Interpretation and Policy .03 of Exchange Rule 11.13 on a risk group identifier basis. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to offer Members
Recently, the Exchange adopted Interpretation and Policy .03 to Exchange Rule 11.13 which provides Members certain optional risk settings.
As provided in the Original Filing, a Member can allocate responsibility for establishing and adjusting the applicable risk settings to its Clearing Member on an MPID basis via the Exchange's web portal. The proposal would allow a Member or its Clearing Member, if allocated such responsibility, to utilize “Purge Ports” to apply Gross Credit Risk Limits and/or Net Credit Risk Limits to more granular subsets of orders associated with the relevant MPID.
A “Purge Port” is a dedicated port that permits a User to simultaneously cancel all or a subset of its orders in one or more symbols across multiple logical ports
As noted above, Purge Ports enable Users to simultaneously cancel all open orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple logical ports through a single cancel message. Therefore, Purge Ports allow Members to manage risk for some subset of their business, such as by trading strategy. The proposal would expand the existing Purge Port functionality to allow Members and Clearing Members to use the Exchange's automated risk management functionality in a similar manner. As a result, Members and Clearing Members would be able to set automated gross and net notional risk limits for particular risk group identifiers, while retaining the ability to mass cancel and/or block orders entered with that risk group identifier using current purge functionality,
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.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the proposal would enhance Members' and Clearing Members' ability to manage their credit risk associated with equities trading, which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposal would allow a Member or its Clearing Member, if allocated such responsibility, to utilize the existing Purge Port risk group identifier functionality to set risk profiles for up to 10 risk group identifiers per Purge Port. Each risk profile would specify the applicable Gross Credit Risk Limits and/or Net Credit Risk Limits that would be applied to the subset of orders bearing the risk group identifier. Further, the proposal would allow the automatic mass cancellation of all open orders and block new orders bearing the risk group identifier in the event of a risk limit breach. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal will allow for proactive and reactive risk management and may be useful to firms operating multiple strategies at a given time, those operating multiple groups under a single MPID with disparate risk profiles, or Sponsoring Members managing risk on behalf of a Sponsored Participant.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the public interest because the proposed functionality is a form of risk mitigation that will aid Members, and Clearing Members for firms who do not self-clear, in minimizing their risk associated with operating or clearing multiple business lines with disparate risk profiles. In turn, the introduction of such risk management functionality could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial system.
The Exchange also believes that building on the Purge Port functionality to provide the proposed changes would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because it offers enhanced use of existing functionality. This may enable more efficient use of Members' and Clearing Members' resources.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's Members and Clearing Members because use of the risk settings is optional and are not a prerequisite for participation on the Exchange, and will be available to all Members and Clearing Members as an enhancement to existing Purge Port functionality. The proposed risk settings are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Member or Clearing Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them.
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. In fact, the Exchange believes that the proposal may have a positive effect on competition because it would allow the Exchange to offer enhanced risk management functionality. Further, by providing Members and their Clearing Members more granular means to monitor and control risk, the proposed rule may increase confidence in the proper functioning of the markets and contribute to additional competition among trading venues and broker-dealers. Rather than impede competition, the proposal is designed as an innovative way to facilitate more robust risk management by Members and Clearing Members, which, in turn, could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the stability of the financial system. Furthermore, other exchanges are free to propose similar functionality as they see fit.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approval for the information collection described below. 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 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice to Taylor Beaumont, who may be reached over telephone at (202) 485-8910 or email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
The Department of State uses Form DS-3035 to assess the eligibility of a J-1 visa holder for a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement, and to issue a recommendation of whether the Department of Homeland Security should grant a waiver of that requirement.
Applicants will complete the DS-3035 online. An applicant's information will be downloaded into a barcode, and then a waiver case number and further instructions will be immediately issued. Next, applicants must print their online form with the barcode. Please note that the barcode must be printed in black and white only. After the DS-3035 is completed and printed out, applicants
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. On May 28, 2010, the FAA published the final rule, entitled
Written comments should be submitted by July 15, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA and sent via email to
For further questions concerning this action, contact Ms. Ammyanna Williams, Group Manager (A), Surveillance and Broadcast Services, AJM-42, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, by email at:
Title 14 CFR part 91 includes requirements for certain avionics equipment on aircraft operating in specified classes of airspace within the United States National Airspace System (NAS). As of January 2, 2020, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, all aircraft operating in the airspace identified in § 91.225 must comply with the ADS-B Out equipage and performance requirements in §§ 91.225 and 91.227.
Title 14 CFR 91.225(f) requires that each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must always operate such equipment in the transmit mode unless certain conditions are met. As such, ADS-B equipment will continuously transmit aircraft information in “real time” to a dedicated network of FAA ground receivers. There are currently two types of ADS-B equipment approved for use within the United States: 1090-megahertz (MHz) Mode S extended squitter (ES) and 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT).
ADS-B Out transmitters broadcast an equipped aircraft's position, altitude, heading, ground speed, vertical speed, call sign (flight identification), and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 24-bit aircraft address to dedicated ADS-B ground stations. As ADS-B data is automatically broadcasted by each equipped aircraft,
This network of dedicated ground stations receives and send ADS-B collected data to FAA automation systems to process and then relay information to ATC displays. ADS-B collected data is also used for enhanced safety alerting functions such as a minimum safe altitude warnings and traffic conflict alerts. Operationally, ADS-B collected information is continually integrated with radar returns to create a safer and more efficient NAS. ADS-B collected data is integrated into automation platforms at 24 FAA en route ATC facilities, which encompasses 20 continental U.S. En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)
ADS-B collected data provides (ATC) with a more accurate and timelier surveillance picture allowing ATC to make more-informed decisions, quickly and effectively. The use of ADS-B collected data has enabled more efficient aircraft separation and increased aircraft capacity in the NAS. In many areas of the NAS, ADS-B collected data provides better surveillance at lower altitudes and in areas that previously had limited-to-no radar coverage.
This collection of ADS-B broadcasted data supports the aircraft surveillance needs of the FAA. ADS-B Out moves ATC from a radar-based system to a satellite-derived aircraft location system with capabilities for reducing lateral and longitudinal separation standards. Aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out enhance the air traffic controller's awareness of aircraft in the airspace. Radars used today can take anywhere from 5 to 12 seconds to update an aircraft's position. ADS-B equipment provides ATC with updated aircraft information almost every second. This “real time” information collection enables controllers to quickly and effectively identify and resolve potentially hazardous situations. Moreover, ADS-B coverage exists at lower altitudes than some current ATC radars.
ATC is currently using ADS-B collected data to control air traffic across the nation. The collection of ADS-B Out broadcasted information from an aircraft via an automated receiver on the ground is solely done through electronic means. The ADS-B ground stations are small and easily maintained and can be placed in areas where radar use is not possible. New, state-of-the-art computer systems have been deployed to ATC facilities across the country. These systems, the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) and the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), are enabling ADS-B capabilities for FAA air traffic controllers.
As part of the renewal process, OMB requests an estimate of the hour burden imposed to the public for the collection of information. ADS-B equipment is
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, the State Route 41 Ranchos Rehabilitation Project from post mile 6.3/9.2 in Madera County, California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Som Phongsavanh, Senior Environmental Planner, Caltrans, 855 M Street Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93721, (559) 445-6447,
Effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1599; 23 CFR part 771);
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4351
3. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Map-21, Pub. L. 112-141);
4. Noise Control Act of 1979 (42 U.S.C. 4901
3. Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
4. Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201-4209);
5. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303);
6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712);
7. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108
8. Federal Highway Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C. 109);
9. FHWA Noise Standards, Policies, and Procedures (23 CFR part 772);
10. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543);
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, improving the curved alignment of State Route 20 in the County of Nevada, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Kelly McNally, Branch Chief, Caltrans Office of Environmental Management, M-2 California Department of Transportation—District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, California 95901. Office hours: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, telephone: 916-947-1097 or email
Effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Caltrans proposes to improve two non-contiguous segments of the alignment of State Route (SR) 20 in Nevada County between post miles (PM) 29.7-30.9 and 36.8-39.8 by modifying the existing horizontal and vertical curves of the roadway and adding turnouts. This project will update the roadway to current standards by increasing the curve radii, widening shoulders to 8 feet, adding turnouts for both directions, and improving the vertical profile grade. Additionally, this project will improve the clear recovery zone (CRZ) by removing obstacles and flattening slopes close to the traveled way.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, issued on April 28, 2020, and in other documents in Caltrans' project records. The FEA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Through this NOI, FRA announces its intent to prepare an EIS for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project (Project) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). WRY Tenant LLC (an affiliate of The Related Companies, LP) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) are partnering in a joint venture to seek Federal financial assistance through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program, which is administered by the Build America Bureau (Bureau). FRA is conducting the environmental analysis to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other applicable environmental laws. FRA invites the public and all interested parties to provide comments on the scope of the EIS, including the proposed purpose and need, the Proposed Action and alternatives, methodologies to be used to assess potential environmental impacts, and the approach for public and agency involvement. Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, and consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance regarding large events and mass gatherings, FRA will conduct a virtual public scoping for the Project. FRA will also hold other Project meetings virtually, including Section 106 Consulting Party meetings, and encourages submission of scoping comments for the project and other documents electronically.
Persons interested in providing written comments on the scope of the EIS must do so by July 31, 2020. All comments will also be placed on the file at
The public and other interested parties are encouraged to comment by filling out a comment form accessible via the Project's website at:
Andrea Poole, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration, via email at
WRY Tenant, LLC and Amtrak (Project Sponsors) are seeking financial assistance to fund the construction of a Platform and Tunnel Encasement (the Proposed Action) at the 13-acre Western Rail Yard site (Block 676, Lot 3) between West 30th and 33rd Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues in Manhattan, New York County, New York. The 9.8-acre structural steel and concrete Platform will serve as the roof above the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) Western Rail Yard, which is used and operated by the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) as a commuter railroad storage yard and maintenance facility. The Platform would also house other infrastructure, including critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support services for the yard, including new lighting, sprinklers, and an extensive platform ventilation system. The Tunnel Encasement would be constructed of concrete below street level in Western Rail Yard. The Tunnel Encasement would be between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 27 and 38 feet high beneath Western Rail Yard. The Tunnel Encasement in Western Rail Yard would start at the western edge of Eleventh Avenue, and extend below the project site to the northern edge of 30th Street. Together, the Tunnel Encasement below both rail yards (Eastern and Western Rail Yards) would preserve a total ROW approximately 1,400 feet long. No permanent operational components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical system, would be constructed within the Tunnel Encasement as part of the Proposed Action. The Platform would also support the privately-funded Mixed-Use Development (Overbuild) approved by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC), and adopted by the New York City Council as zoning text and map amendments to the New York City Zoning Resolution, for redevelopment of the Western Rail Yard site. This construction also supports MTA's overall business plan to generate revenue to support their operations.
FRA will prepare the EIS in compliance with NEPA, 23 U.S.C. 139, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), and 23 CFR part 771. After release and circulation of a Draft EIS for public comment, FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the Final EIS and Record of Decision, unless it determines statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuing a combined document.
The EIS will also document FRA's compliance with other applicable environmental laws and regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
The Proposed Action may affect historic properties and will be subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA. Consistent with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR part 800), FRA intends to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA with the preparation of the EIS. In response to this NOI, the public and interested parties may also provide input relevant to FRA's Section 106 review process, including providing information that
The MTA Hudson Yards (aka “John D. Caemmerer Hudson Yards”) is an electrified yard that stores 35 LIRR commuter trains daily, with a capacity of 386 train cars on 30 tracks. The train yard is divided into two sections, the Eastern Rail Yard located on Block 702 and the Western Rail Yard located on Block 676.
In 2007, MTA reached agreement with The Related Companies, LP
The FRA conducted an environmental assessment for the construction of a concrete casing beneath Hudson Yards, and issued Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2013
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to (1) cover and protect the active railroad tracks and LIRR support facilities in the Western Rail Yard so that the joint venture can provide additional new capacity for real estate development and house critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support services for the Yard, including new lighting, sprinklers, and an extensive Platform ventilation system; and (2) preserve a right-of-way through the Western Rail Yard to support the future construction of a trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New York Penn Station. The Platform is needed to support the provision of developable land area that would generate revenue for the MTA and its subsidiary agencies and modernize state-of-the-art life safety systems for the entire Western Rail Yard.
Currently, there is no capacity for development over the Western Rail Yard without construction of the Platform. The 2005 Hudson Yards rezoning included the extension of the No. 7 IRT Flushing Line subway to 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue, providing new and closer access to the subway system in this area which made private development considerably more attractive and viable in this part of Manhattan. The 2005 Hudson Yards rezoning also provided for the development of a mix of uses and densities, including a provision for open space. The Tunnel Encasement is needed to preserve right of way for new rail infrastructure to support passenger rail service in and out of New York Penn Station.
Consistent with the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, the objectives of the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project include:
• Maintain safe, continuous, and uninterrupted LIRR operations in the Western Rail Yard through the addition of critical life safety and ventilation systems and the modernization of operational facilities within Western Rail Yard;
• Support the ability to meet the revenue-generation goals of the MTA, the owner of the Western Rail Yard;
• Provide the support for the economic, social, and recreational life of the Hudson Yards area and the City; and,
• Preserve opportunities to enable future growth of passenger rail service and to maintain a functional, resilient, and improved trans-Hudson passenger rail crossing into New York Penn Station.
The Proposed Action consists of:
• A new approximately 9.8-acre Platform spanning the Western Rail Yard, including deep footings and a concrete slab to cover the active rail yard below, and reinforced building foundations for Overbuild development. Platform construction would also include the modernization of LIRR support services including: emergency electrical equipment and new critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support services, and an extensive ventilation system for the yard. In addition to the modernization
• A Tunnel Encasement in the southern portion of the site running from Eleventh Avenue to West 30th Street to preserve right-of-way for a new trans-Hudson connection into New York Penn Station.
In addition to the Proposed Action, FRA will describe and evaluate the following types of construction activities in the Draft EIS:
• Construction staging areas at the Western Rail Yard site for the construction of all of the aforementioned project components and construction activities,
• Traffic and transportation interruptions including potential localized sidewalk and traffic lane closures.
FRA will refine the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and identify alternatives that meet the purpose and need considering information obtained through the scoping process. The EIS will evaluate a No Action Alternative and reasonable and feasible Build Alternatives for the Proposed Action. FRA anticipates presenting the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS.
The EIS will consider the potential effects of the project alternatives on the social, economic, and environmental resources in the study area. The analysis will include identification of study areas; documentation of the affected environment; evaluation of direct and indirect effects of the alternatives (including permanent [operational] and temporary [construction period] effects); and identification of measures to avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts. FRA will evaluate the following resource areas:
• Land use, Land planning, and Property (acquisitions and displacements);
• Transportation (traffic, parking, transit, and pedestrian conditions);
• Air quality, Greenhouse gas emissions and Resilience
• Noise and vibration;
• Cultural Resources (including historic and archaeological resources);
• Parks and recreation areas;
• Aesthetic and visual quality;
• Contaminated materials;
• Utilities and Energy;
• Natural ecological systems (including threatened and endangered species)
• Soils and geology;
• Water resources and water quality (including floodplains);
• Coastal zone consistency;
• Socioeconomics;
• Public health;
• Environmental justice;
• Public safety and security; and
• Indirect and Cumulative effects.
Agencies within the U.S. DOT, including FRA, are subject to Section 4(f), which prohibits approval of any program or project that “uses” publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property. FRA will include in the Draft EIS a draft Section 4(f) evaluation in accordance with 23 CFR 774, if it is determined that the Proposed Action has the potential to result in the use of a Section 4(f) resource.
This NOI initiates the scoping process under NEPA, which helps guide the development of the Draft EIS. FRA invites all interested individuals, organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments are encouraged on the Proposed Action's purpose and need and alternatives to be considered in the EIS; the analyses to include in the EIS, including identification of appropriate study areas and the effects-assessment methodologies to be used; the approach for public and agency involvement; and any concerns about the anticipated impacts of the Proposed Action.
Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA of the applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the Proposed Action. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the Proposed Action and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the EIS under 40 CFR 1501.16.
FRA will coordinate with participating agencies during development of the Draft EIS consistent with 23 U.S.C. 139. FRA will also consult with Federally recognized Native American tribes and Consulting Parties identified under Section 106 of the NHPA.
The FRA will invite all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may have an interest in the Proposed Action to become participating agencies for the EIS and Consulting Parties in the Section 106 process. If an agency or tribe is not invited and would like to participate, it should contact Ms. Andrea Poole at the contact information listed above (
Issued in Washington, DC.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collections listed below, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2020.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Meena Sharma or Andrew Fair by emailing
Executive Order 13456, 73 FR 4677 (Jan. 23, 2008), directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations implementing section 721. Most recently, on January 17, 2020, the Department of the Treasury issued final regulations (85 FR 3112 and 85 FR 3158) implementing FIRRMA, including information collections related to notices and declarations filed with or submitted to the Committee regarding transactions that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business, certain non-controlling investments and certain real estate transactions involving foreign persons.
In May 2020, the Department of the Treasury launched a new CFIUS Case Management System, featuring an online public portal for external parties to submit declarations and file notices with CFIUS in a standard form. As of June 1, 2020 use of this online system is now mandatory for all CFIUS submissions and filings. The only substantive change related to the information required in order for CFIUS to review a declaration or notice is the requirement that parties use the new online public portal to submit declarations and file notices, instead of by email.
Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
(A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States;
(B) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States without the consent of that country's government;
(C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)(A) or (a)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “United States personnel” means any current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, any current or former elected or appointed official of the United States Government, and any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government;
(e) the term “personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States” means any current or former military personnel, current or former elected or appointed official, or other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of a government of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member country or a “major non-NATO ally”, as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members' Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)); and
(f) the term “immediate family member” means spouses and children.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order 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 departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Joint notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, “the Departments”) propose to amend the regulations governing credible fear determinations so that individuals found to have such a fear will have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”) (“statutory withholding of removal”), or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), adjudicated by an immigration judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) in streamlined proceedings (rather than in proceedings under section 240 of the Act), and to specify what standard of review applies in such streamlined proceedings. The Departments further propose changes to the regulations regarding asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and withholding and deferral of removal under the CAT regulations. The Departments also propose amendments related to the standards for adjudication of applications for asylum and statutory withholding.
Written or electronic comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking must be submitted on or before July 15, 2020. Written comments postmarked on or before that date will be considered timely. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight eastern time at the end of that day. Comments specific to the proposed collection of information will be accepted until August 14, 2020. All such submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0067 in the body of the submission.
If you wish to provide comments regarding this rulemaking, you must submit comments, identified by the agency name and reference RIN 1125-AA94 or EOIR Docket No. 18-0002, by one of the two methods below.
•
•
•
•
•
Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a toll-free call).
Maureen Dunn, Chief, Division of Humanitarian Affairs, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20529; telephone (202) 272-8377.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule via one of the methods and by the deadline stated above. All comments must be submitted in English, or accompanied by an English translation. The Departments also invite comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Departments in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the rule; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Personally identifying information located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set
Since World War II, the United States has sought a comprehensive solution to the issues surrounding the admission of refugees into the country and the protection of refugees from return to persecution. As an expression of a nation's foreign policy, the laws and policies surrounding asylum are an assertion of a government's right and duty to protect its own resources and citizens, while aiding those in true need of protection from harm.
In the Refugee Act of 1980 (“Refugee Act”), Public Law 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, Congress furthered implementation of the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Protocol”), Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 268, providing for a permanent procedure for the admission and protection of refugees, generally defined in domestic law as:
In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546 (“IIRIRA”), Congress established the expedited removal process, thus establishing two primary types of proceedings for determining the removability of an alien from the United States: (1) Expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), and (2) removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a (“section 240 proceedings”).
First, section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, contains the procedures for expedited removal. Under expedited removal, aliens arriving in the United States—and, in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”),
Pursuant to statute and regulations, DHS implements a screening process,
Under the current regulatory framework, if the asylum officer determines that an alien subject to expedited removal proceedings has a credible fear of persecution or torture (or, in certain instances, a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture), DHS places the alien before an immigration court for adjudication of the alien's claims by initiating section 240 proceedings.
The INA, however, instructs only that an alien who is found to have a credible fear “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” and neither mandates that an alien who demonstrates a credible fear be placed in removal proceedings in general nor in section 240 proceedings specifically. INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
The relevant regulations regarding the credible fear process, and the interplay between expedited removal and section 240 proceedings, were first implemented in 1997. Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312 (Mar. 6, 1997).
For several reasons, the Departments believe that section 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), when compared with section 235(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2), may also be read as permitting a procedure for “further consideration of [an] application for asylum” that is separate from section 240 proceedings. First, while section 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), mandates that an alien with a positive credible fear determination receive “further consideration of [his or her] application for asylum,” section 235(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2), mandates that other classes of aliens receive “a proceeding under section 1229a of this title”—
Second, an alien with a positive credible fear determination is entitled only to a further proceeding related to his or her “application for asylum.” INA 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). An asylum application's purpose is to determine whether the alien is entitled to relief or protection from removal, not whether the alien should be admitted or is otherwise entitled to immigration benefits.
Moreover, the Departments believe, for the reasons described in this rule, that it is better policy to place aliens with a positive credible fear determination in asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings rather than section 240 proceedings.
DHS has prosecutorial discretion at the outset to place an alien amenable to expedited removal instead in section 240 proceedings.
Accordingly, DOJ proposes to amend 8 CFR 1003.1, 8 CFR 1003.42(f), 8 CFR 1208.2, 8 CFR 1208.30, and 8 CFR 1235.6—and DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 208.2(c), 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5) and (f), and 8 CFR 235.6(a)(1)—so that aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution, a reasonable possibility of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of torture and accordingly receive a positive fear determination will appear before an immigration judge for “asylum-and-withholding-only” proceedings under 8 CFR 208.2(c)(1) and 8 CFR 1208.2(c)(1).
These “asylum-and-withholding-only” proceedings generally follow the same rules of procedure that apply in section 240 proceedings, but the immigration judge's consideration is limited solely to a determination on the alien's eligibility for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and withholding or deferral of removal under the CAT regulations (and, if the alien is eligible for asylum, whether he or she should receive it as a matter of discretion). 8 CFR 208.2(c)(3)(i), 1208.2(c)(3)(i). If the immigration judge does not grant the alien asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT regulations, the alien will be removed, although the alien may submit an appeal of a denied application for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT regulations to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
DOJ proposes to add language to 8 CFR 1003.42(f) to specify that an immigration judge will consider applicable legal precedent when reviewing a negative fear determination. This instruction is in addition to those currently in 8 CFR 1003.42 to consider the credibility of the alien's statements and other facts of which the immigration judge is aware. These changes codify in the regulations the current practice and provide a clear requirement to immigration judges that they must consider and apply all applicable law, including administrative precedent from the BIA, decisions of the Attorney General, decisions of the federal courts of appeals binding in the jurisdiction where the immigration judge conducting the review sits, and decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Department of Justice proposes to remove and reserve 8 CFR 1235.1, 8 CFR 1235.2, 8 CFR 1235.3, and 8 CFR 1235.5. When the Department first incorporated part 235 into 1235, it stated that “nearly all of the provisions * * * affect bond hearings before immigration judges.” Aliens and Nationality; Homeland Security; Reorganization of Regulations, 68 FR 9824, 9826 (Feb. 28, 2003). Upon further review, the Department has determined that these sections regard procedures that are specific to DHS's examinations of applicants for admission as set forth in 8 CFR 235.1, 8 CFR 235.2, 8 CFR 235.3, and 8 CFR 235.5, and do not need to be duplicated
This rule also proposes clarifying and raising the statutory withholding of removal screening standard and the torture-related screening standard under the CAT regulations for stowaways and aliens in expedited removal.
An arriving alien who is a stowaway is not eligible to apply for admission or to be admitted and shall be ordered removed upon inspection by an immigration officer. Upon such inspection if the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview under subsection (b)(1)(B). A stowaway may apply for asylum only if the stowaway is found to have a credible fear of persecution under subsection (b)(1)(B). In no case may a stowaway be considered an applicant for admission or eligible for a hearing under section 1229a of this title.
Congress has not required that consideration of eligibility for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT regulations in the “credible fear” screening process be considered in the same manner. In fact, the “credible fear” screening process as set forth in the INA makes no mention whatsoever of statutory withholding of removal or protection under the CAT regulations.
Recently, DHS began to apply the “reasonable possibility” standard of proof to determinations regarding potential eligibility for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the CAT regulations in “credible fear” screenings for aliens in expedited removal proceedings where an alien is found barred from asylum pursuant to 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3)-(4). On November 9, 2018, the Departments issued an Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) to provide that certain aliens described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3) or 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(3) who entered the United States in contravention of a covered Presidential proclamation or order are barred from eligibility for asylum (hereinafter referred to as the “Presidential Proclamation Asylum Bar IFR”). Under that rule, claims for statutory withholding and protection under the CAT regulations are analyzed under this “reasonable possibility” standard.
This proposed rule would expand the Departments' application of the “reasonable possibility” standard of proof. Specifically, the standard of proof in the “credible fear” screening process for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the CAT regulations would be raised from a significant possibility that the alien can establish eligibility for such relief or protection to a reasonable possibility that the alien would be persecuted or tortured.
Under this rule, during “credible fear” screening interviews,
Meanwhile, under this proposed rule, assessing a reasonable possibility of torture would involve considering whether there is a reasonable possibility that the alien would be tortured such that the alien should be referred for a hearing in immigration court to adjudicate potential eligibility for protection under the CAT regulations.
To be eligible for asylum under section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, an alien must ultimately prove a “reasonable possibility” of persecution upon return to his or her country.
The decision to adopt such a regulatory scheme was made on the assumption that it would not “disrupt[] the streamlined process established by Congress to circumvent meritless claims.” Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 FR at 8485.
But while the INA and the CAT regulations authorize the Attorney General and Secretary to provide for consideration of statutory withholding of removal claims and claims for CAT protection together with asylum claims or other matters that may be considered in removal proceedings, the INA does not mandate that approach,
The Departments' proposal to raise the standards of proof for assessing potential eligibility for statutory withholding of removal and withholding or deferral of removal under the CAT regulations in the “credible fear” screening context falls within the scope of the authority that Congress has granted to the Secretary and the Attorney General to carry out immigration and nationality laws.
The “reasonable possibility” standard has long been used for fear determinations made under 8 CFR 208.31 and 8 CFR 1208.31, which cover certain classes of aliens who are ineligible for asylum but who are eligible for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the CAT regulations.
Significantly, when establishing the “reasonable fear” screening process, DOJ explained that the two affected categories of aliens should be screened based on the higher reasonable fear standard because, “[u]nlike the broad class of arriving aliens who are subject to expedited removal, these two classes of aliens are ineligible for asylum,” and may be entitled only to statutory withholding of removal or protection under the CAT regulations. Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 FR at 8485. “Because the standard for establishing the likelihood of harm related to these forms of protection (a clear probability of persecution or torture) is significantly higher than the standard for asylum (a well-founded fear of persecution), the screening standard adopted for initial consideration of withholding and deferral requests in these contexts is also higher.”
The standard's long use evidences that it is consistent with the United States' non-refoulement obligations and would not prevent aliens entitled to protection under the CAT regulations from receiving it. Drawing on the established framework for considering whether to grant statutory withholding of removal or CAT protection in the reasonable fear context, this rule would establish a bifurcated screening process in which aliens subject to expedited removal will be screened for asylum under the “significant possibility” standard, and screened for statutory withholding of removal or CAT protection under the “reasonable possibility” standard.
The Departments also propose to amend 8 CFR 208.30, 8 CFR 1208.30, and 8 CFR 1003.42 to refer to the screenings of aliens in expedited removal proceedings and of stowaways for statutory withholding of removal as “reasonable possibility of persecution” determinations and the screening for withholding and deferral of removal under the CAT regulations as “reasonable possibility of torture” determinations, in order to avoid confusion between the different standards of proof. By proposing these amendments, the Departments seek to maintain operational efficiency by differentiating between screenings for forms of relief, including asylum under 8 CFR 208.30, and screenings for only statutory withholding of removal and withholding and deferral of removal under the CAT regulations under 8 CFR 208.31, because, as noted above, the two screenings apply to different populations of aliens. Currently, DHS asylum officers conduct screenings under a “credible fear” standard for, inter alia, stowaways and aliens in expedited removal proceedings who express a fear of persecution or torture, a fear of return, or an intention to apply for asylum.
In conjunction with the edits proposed to DHS's regulation in 8 CFR 208.30, DOJ proposes edits to 8 CFR 1208.30 related to the legal standard of review. Currently, after an asylum officer determines that an alien lacks a credible fear of persecution or torture, the regulation provides that an immigration judge in EOIR then reviews that determination under the credible fear standard. 8 CFR 208.30(g), 1208.30(g). DHS's proposed “reasonable possibility” screening standard for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection claims is a mismatch for EOIR's current regulation, which does not provide for a reasonable possibility review process in the expedited removal context. Therefore, DOJ proposes to modify 8 CFR 1208.30(g) to clarify that credible fear of persecution determinations will continue to be reviewed under a “credible fear” standard, but screening determinations for eligibility for statutory withholding of removal and protection under the CAT regulations will be reviewed under a “reasonable possibility” standard.
Additionally, to clarify terminology in 8 CFR 208.30(d)(2), mention of the Form M-444, Information about Credible Fear Interview in Expedited Removal Cases, would be replaced with mention of relevant information regarding the “credible fear” screening process. This
Under the proposed rule, the burden is on the alien to show that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she would be persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if removed to the country of removal. Similarly, the burden is on the alien to show there is a reasonable possibility that he or she would be tortured in the country of removal. As a result, the alien must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that he or she will suffer severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, in the country of removal and a reasonable possibility that the feared harm would fall within the definition of torture set forth in 8 CFR 208.18(a)(1)-(8) and 8 CFR 1208.18(a)(1)-(8).
A “reasonable possibility” standard is equivalent to the “well-founded fear” standard in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), which is used to determine ultimate eligibility for asylum.
While lower than the “clear probability” standard governing the merits determination for statutory withholding of removal and withholding and deferral of removal under the CAT regulations, the “reasonable possibility” standard is a well-established standard of proof that is an appropriate screening standard to identify those who have meaningful claims to such protection.
For a number of reasons, the Departments do not believe that this change would implicate reliance interests. First, the ultimate eligibility standards remain the same. Second, it is exceedingly unlikely that aliens seek statutory withholding of removal or protection under the CAT regulations based on the applicable standard of proof. Third, the proposed change would provide numerous benefits. Raising the standards of proof to a “reasonable possibility” for the screening of aliens seeking statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection would allow the Departments to better screen out non-meritorious claims and focus limited resources on claims much more likely to be determined to be meritorious by an immigration judge. Adopting a higher standard for statutory withholding and CAT screenings would not hinder the streamlined process envisioned for expedited removal. Asylum officers already receive extensive training and guidance on applying the “reasonable possibility” standard in other contexts because they are determining whether a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture exists in reasonable fear determinations pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31. In some cases, asylum officers would need to spend additional time eliciting more detailed testimony from aliens to account for the higher standard of proof; however, the overall impact on the time asylum officers spend making screening determinations would be minimal. The procedural aspects of making screening determinations regarding fear of persecution and of torture would remain largely the same. Moreover, using a higher standard of proof in the screening context for those seeking statutory withholding of removal or protection under the CAT regulations in the immigration courts allows the Departments to more efficiently and promptly distinguish between aliens whose claims are more likely or less likely to ultimately be meritorious.
DHS also proposes in 8 CFR 208.30(e)(1) to interpret the “significant possibility” standard that Congress established in section 235(b)(1)(B)(v) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). DHS's proposal would serve to promote greater clarity and transparency in credible fear of persecution determinations.
As stated in proposed in 8 CFR 208.30(e)(1), “significant possibility” means a substantial and realistic possibility of succeeding. As discussed above, this proposed definition of “significant possibility” is consistent with both case law and existing policy and practice, and allows relevant parties, including aliens, consultants, and legal representatives, to better understand the standard of proof that applies to credible fear of persecution claims. This definition is also consistent with congressional intent. The 104th Congress chose a screening standard “intended to be a low screening standard for admission into the usual full asylum process.” 142 Cong. Rec. S11491 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1996) (statement of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch). Originally, the Senate bill had proposed a “determination of whether the asylum claim was `manifestly unfounded,' while the House bill applied a `significant possibility' standard coupled with an inquiry into whether there was a substantial likelihood that the alien's statements were true.”
The Departments further propose to amend 8 CFR 208.30, 8 CFR 1208.30, and 8 CFR 1003.42 to make several additional technical and substantive amendments regarding fear interviews, determinations, and reviews of determinations. The Departments propose to amend 8 CFR 208.30(a) and 8 CFR 1208.30(a) to clearly state that the respective sections describe the exclusive procedures applicable to applicants for admission who are found inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7), and receive “credible fear” interviews, determinations, and reviews under section 235(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B).
DHS proposes to clarify the existing “credible fear” screening process in proposed 8 CFR 208.30(b), which states that if an alien subject to expedited removal indicates an intention to apply for asylum or expresses a fear of
DHS also proposes to include consideration of internal relocation in the context of proposed 8 CFR 208.30(e)(1)-(3), which outline the procedures for determining whether aliens have a credible fear of persecution, a reasonable possibility of persecution, and a reasonable possibility of torture. Considering internal relocation in the “credible fear” screening context is consistent with existing policy and practice, and the regulations addressing internal relocation at 8 CFR 208.16(c)(3)(ii) and 8 CFR 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (protection under the CAT regulations); 8 CFR 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) and 8 CFR 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (asylum); and 8 CFR 208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) and 8 CFR 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (statutory withholding). The regulatory standard that governs consideration of internal relocation in the context of asylum and statutory withholding of removal adjudications is different from the standard that considers internal relocation in the context of protection under the CAT regulations.
In addition, the Departments propose to add asylum and statutory withholding eligibility bar considerations in proposed 8 CFR 208.30(e)(1)(iii) and (e)(2)(iii), and 8 CFR 1003.42(d). Currently, 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(i) provides that if an alien, other than a stowaway, is able to establish a credible fear of persecution or torture but also appears to be subject to one or more of the mandatory eligibility bars to asylum or statutory withholding of removal, then the alien will be placed in section 240 proceedings. In proposed 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5), DHS would require asylum officers to determine (1) whether an alien is subject to one or more of the mandatory bars to being able to apply for asylum under section 208(a)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B)-(D), or the bars to asylum eligibility under section 208(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2), including any eligibility bars established by regulation under section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C);
Under the current regulations at 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5), aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture but appear to be subject to one or more of the mandatory bars are referred for section 240 proceedings. From an administrative standpoint, it is pointless and inefficient to adjudicate claims for relief in section 240 proceedings when it is determined that an alien is subject to one or more of the mandatory bars to asylum or statutory withholding at the screening stage. Accordingly, applying those mandatory bars to aliens at the “credible fear” screening stage would eliminate removal delays inherent in section 240 proceedings that serve no purpose and eliminate the waste of adjudicatory resources currently expended in vain.
If an asylum officer determines, at the “credible fear” screening stage, that an alien is subject to one or more mandatory bars, the alien would, under this rule, be permitted to request review of that determination by an immigration judge.
The bars to asylum eligibility are not identical to the bars to statutory withholding eligibility.
Additionally, under 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5), DHS currently uses (or potentially would use, pending the resolution of litigation), a “reasonable fear” standard (identical to the “reasonable possibility” standard enunciated in this rule) in procedures related to aliens barred from asylum under the two previously mentioned IFRs, as described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3)-(4). The Departments seek to make technical edits in proposed 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5), to change “reasonable fear” to “reasonable possibility” to align the terminology with the proposed changes in this rule. Similarly, DOJ proposes to make technical edits in 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(1) and 8 CFR 1003.42(d)—both of which refer to the “reasonable fear” standard in the current version of 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)—to change the “reasonable fear” language to “reasonable possibility.” These edits are purely technical and would not amend, alter, or impact the standard of proof applicable to the fear screening process and determinations, or review of such determinations, associated with the aforementioned bars.
Additionally, in proposed 8 CFR 208.2(c)(1), 8 CFR 1208.2(c)(1), 8 CFR 235.6(a)(2), and 8 CFR 1235.6(a)(2), the Departments are making technical edits to replace the term “credible fear of persecution or torture” with “a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture” to mirror the terminology used in proposed 8 CFR 208.30 and 8 CFR 1208.30. Moreover, in proposed 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(C), DOJ is making a technical edit to clarify that stowaways barred from asylum and both statutory and CAT withholding of removal may still be eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT regulations.
The Departments further propose to amend 8 CFR 208.30(g) and 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2), which address procedures for negative fear determinations for aliens in the expedited removal process. Currently, 8 CFR 208.30(g) provides that when an alien receives notice of a negative determination, the asylum officer inquires whether the alien wishes to have an immigration judge review the decision. If that alien refuses to indicate whether he or she desires such review, DHS treats this as a request for review by an immigration judge.
The Departments welcome comments on all aspects of these proposals, including the use of asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings, the definition of “significant possibility,” and the raising of the standard for statutory withholding of removal and torture-related determinations to “reasonable possibility.”
Frivolous asylum applications are a costly detriment, resulting in wasted resources and increased processing times for an already overloaded immigration system.
For the penalty in section 208(d)(6) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6), to apply, there must be a finding that an alien “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum” after receiving the notice required by section 208(d)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C 1158(d)(4)(A). In other words, the alien's asylum application must be frivolous, the application must have been knowingly made—
The statutory text does not provide a definition of “frivolous,” expressly restrict how it may be defined, or compel a narrow definition limited solely to the deliberate fabrication of material elements, though the penalty in section 208(d)(6) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6), only applies if a frivolous application is knowingly made—
Consequently, the current, narrowly-drawn definition does not appear sufficient to capture the full spectrum of claims that would ordinarily be deemed “frivolous,” nor has it been fully successful in its stated intent of discouraging knowingly and patently false claims. This result can be seen in several cases where applications that one may ordinarily understand as “frivolous” are nonetheless not captured by the current narrow regulatory definition.
Accordingly, the Departments propose to amend the definition of “frivolous” to ensure that manifestly unfounded or otherwise abusive claims are rooted out and to ensure that meritorious claims are adjudicated more efficiently so that deserving applicants receive benefits in a timely fashion. The revised regulation also reflects Congress's concern with applications that are knowingly frivolous at the time of filing, regardless of whether an alien subsequently retracts or withdraws the application.
Existing regulations provide that immigration judges and the BIA may make findings that an alien has knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application.
By allowing asylum officers to find asylum applications to be frivolous, the Departments seek to enhance the officers' ability to identify and efficiently root out frivolous applications, and to deter the filing of such applications in the first place. The current practice for handling frivolous asylum applications at the affirmative asylum application stage generally involves asylum officers making negative credibility determinations. Asylum officers may refer asylum applications to the immigration courts based on negative credibility findings, but not solely based on frivolousness.
Making a credibility determination, positive or negative, involves conducting an asylum interview. If the asylum officer identifies credibility concerns, such as inconsistencies or lack of detail, the asylum officer confronts the applicant with these concerns during the interview and gives the applicant an opportunity to explain. If the asylum officer decides to make a negative credibility determination, the officer prepares a written assessment that explains the credibility concerns, such as inconsistencies, lack of detail, or both, and discusses the reasonableness of the applicant's explanations and the relevancy of the credibility concerns to the claim.
The proposed amendments to the regulations would give asylum officers a valuable and more targeted mechanism for handling frivolous asylum applications. As noted above, when referring cases to the immigration courts based on negative credibility determinations, asylum officers may flag issues related to frivolousness for immigration judges to consider, but they cannot refer frivolous cases or deny applications solely on that basis. Allowing asylum officers to refer or deny frivolous cases solely on that basis would strengthen USCIS's ability to root out frivolous applications more efficiently, deter frivolous filings, and ultimately reduce the number of frivolous applications in the asylum system. These amendments would help the Departments better allocate limited resources and time and more expeditiously adjudicate meritorious asylum claims.
Moreover, under this proposed rule, if an asylum officer identifies indicators of frivolousness in an asylum application, the asylum officer would focus more during the interview on matters that may be frivolous. And an immigration judge who receives an asylum application with a frivolousness finding by an asylum officer would have a more robust and developed written record focused on frivolous material elements to help inform his or her ultimate decision. Thus, an asylum officer's finding that an application is frivolous would help improve the efficiency and integrity of the overall adjudicatory process.
Asylum officers are well prepared to put the proposed regulatory changes into operation. They receive extensive training on spotting indicators of frivolousness, fraud, and credibility concerns, including on reviewing and assessing written materials that may raise such concerns. In addition, asylum officers receive training on how to appropriately identify, raise, and address credibility and frivolousness concerns during interviews with asylum applicants. Thus, asylum officers are well equipped to adjudicate frivolousness in the affirmative asylum context.
Furthermore, the Departments' proposed regulatory changes are consistent with congressional intent. When the 104th Congress amended the procedures used to consider asylum applications through IIRIRA, it sought “to reduce the likelihood that fraudulent or frivolous applications will enable deportable or excludable aliens to remain in the U.S. for substantial periods.” S. Rept. No. 104-249, at 2 (1996). Allowing asylum officers, in addition to immigration judges and the BIA, to find filings frivolous would help deter aliens from filing frivolous asylum applications and reduce the likelihood that aliens with frivolous applications will be released into the United States for substantial periods of time, usually with work authorization.
The Departments also propose changes to 8 CFR 208.20 and 8 CFR 1208.20 to expand and clarify what circumstances would require an immigration judge or the BIA (and now asylum officers) to find an asylum application to be knowingly frivolous.
Consistent with the concept of frivolousness as encompassing claims that are patently without substance or merit, an application, if knowingly made, would also be considered frivolous if applicable law clearly prohibits the grant of asylum. Of course, simply because an argument or claim is unsuccessful does not mean that it can be considered frivolous.
Further, section 208(d)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A), requires that aliens receive notice of the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous application. Under the proposed regulation, an immigration judge would not need to provide an additional opportunity to an alien to account for issues of frivolousness with the claim before determining that the application is frivolous, as long as the required notice was provided. The statute is clear on its face that the only procedural requirement for finding a frivolous asylum application to be knowingly made is the provision of notice under section 208(d)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A).
The Departments note that the BIA has previously explained that “it would be a good practice for an Immigration Judge who believes that an applicant may have submitted a frivolous asylum application to bring this concern to the attention of the applicant prior to the conclusion of proceedings.”
Finally, in order to ameliorate the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous application in appropriate cases, the Departments propose a mechanism that would allow certain aliens to withdraw, with prejudice, their applications by disclaiming the applications; accepting an order of voluntary departure for a period of no more than 30 days; withdrawing, also with prejudice, all other applications for relief or protection; and waiving any rights to file an appeal, motion to reopen, and motion to reconsider. In such instances the aliens would not be subject to a frivolousness finding and could avoid the penalties associated with such a finding.
Additionally, DOJ proposes to add a new paragraph (e) to 8 CFR 1208.13 to clarify that immigration judges may pretermit and deny an application for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT regulations if the alien has not established a prima facie claim for relief or protection under the applicable laws and regulations.
The BIA previously addressed the issue of adjudicating applications for asylum without testimony in
Current regulations require a hearing on an asylum application only “to resolve
Moreover, other immigration applications are subject to pretermission without a hearing when they are not legally sufficient, and there is no reason to treat asylum applications differently.
In short, neither the INA nor current regulations require holding a full merits hearing on purely legal issues, such as prima facie legal eligibility for relief.
Under the proposed regulation, an immigration judge may pretermit an asylum application in two circumstances: (1) Following an oral or written motion by DHS, and (2) sua sponte upon the immigration judge's own authority. Provided the alien has had an opportunity to respond, and the immigration judge considers any such response, a hearing would not be required for the immigration judge to make a decision to pretermit and deny the application. In the case of the immigration judge's exercise of his or her own authority, parties would have at least ten days' notice before the immigration judge would enter such an order. A similar timeframe would apply if DHS moves to pretermit, under current practice.
To establish eligibility for asylum under the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, or statutory withholding of removal, the applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that she or he was persecuted, or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground: “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
When Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, further implementing U.S. obligations under the Refugee Protocol, it included “membership in a particular social group” in its definition of “refugee” at section 101(a)(42) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). Just a few years later, the BIA established that a particular social group is “a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic,” and that the characteristic “either is beyond the power of an individual to change or that it is so fundamental to his identity or conscience that it ought not be required to be changed.”
Although the Board did not significantly refine the formulation further until years later,
Immutability entails a common characteristic: A trait “that the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.”
The definition of “particular social group” has been the subject of considerable litigation and is a product of evolving case law, making it difficult for EOIR's immigration judges and Board members, as well as DHS asylum officers, to uniformly apply the framework.
The proposed rule would codify the longstanding requirements, as discussed above, that a particular social group must be (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct in the society in question. In addition, the particular social group must have existed independently of the alleged persecutory acts and cannot be defined exclusively by the alleged harm.
The proposed rule would further build on the BIA's standards and provide clearer guidance to adjudicators regarding whether an alleged group exists and, if so, whether it is cognizable as a particular social group in order to ensure the consistent consideration of asylum and statutory withholding claims. For example, the proposed rule
(1) Past or present criminal activity or associations,
(2) past or present terrorist activity or association;
(3) past or present persecutory activity or association;
(4) presence in a country with generalized violence or a high crime rate,
(5) the attempted recruitment of the applicant by criminal, terrorist, or persecutory groups,
(6) the targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on perceptions of wealth or affluence,
(7) interpersonal disputes of which governmental authorities were unaware or uninvolved,
(8) private criminal acts of which governmental authorities were unaware or uninvolved,
(9) status as an alien returning from the United States,
This list is nonexhaustive, and the substance of the alleged particular social group, rather than the specific form of its delineation, will be considered by adjudicators in determining whether the group falls within one of the categories on the list. Without additional evidence, these circumstances are generally insufficient to demonstrate a particular social group that is cognizable because it is immutable, socially distinct, and particular, that is cognizable because the group does not exist independently of the harm asserted, or that is cognizable because the group is defined exclusively by the alleged harm. At the same time, the regulation does not foreclose that, in rare circumstances, such facts could be the basis for finding a particular social group, given the fact- and society-specific nature of this determination. In addition to resulting in more uniform application, providing clarity to this issue will reduce the amount of time the adjudicators must spend evaluating such claims.
The proposed regulation also specifies procedural requirements specific to asylum and statutory withholding claims premised on a particular social group. While in proceedings before an immigration judge, the alien must first define the proposed particular social group as part of the asylum application or otherwise in the record. If the alien fails to do so while before an immigration judge, the alien will waive any claim based on a particular social group formulation that was not advanced.
The definition of “political opinion” has also been the subject of considerable litigation and is a product of evolving case law, making it difficult for EOIR's immigration judges and Board members, as well as DHS asylum officers, to uniformly apply the framework.
BIA case law makes clear that a political opinion involves a cause against a state or a political entity, rather than against a culture.
Nevertheless, to avoid further strain on the INA's definition of refugee, INA 1101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A),
For purposes of eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, persecution is defined as “a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.”
It is thus well-established that not all treatment that the United States regards as unfair, offensive, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional constitutes persecution under the INA.
Absent credible evidence that Government laws or policies have been or would be applied to an applicant personally, infrequent application of those laws and policies cannot constitute a well-founded fear of persecution. In other words, the mere existence of potentially persecutory laws or policies is not enough to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Rather, there must be evidence these laws or policies were widespread and systemic, or evidence that persecutory laws or policies were, or would be, applied to an applicant personally.
Given the wide range of cases interpreting “persecution” for the purposes of the asylum laws, the Departments propose adding a new paragraph to 8 CFR 208.1 and 1208.1 to define persecution and to better clarify what does and does not constitute persecution. It would provide that persecution is an extreme concept of a severe level of harm. Under the proposed amendment, persecution would not include, for example: (1) Every instance of harm that arises generally out of civil, criminal, or military strife in a country,
To establish eligibility for asylum under the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980 and the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, sec. 101 (found at INA 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)), the applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that at least one central reason for his or her persecution or well-founded fear of persecution was on account of a protected ground: Race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 refined the nexus requirement by requiring that one of the five protected grounds “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” “Reasons incidental, tangential, or subordinate to the persecutor's motivation will not suffice.”
Accordingly, the proposed rule would provide clearer guidance on situations in which alleged acts of persecution would not be on account of one of the five protected grounds. This proposal would further the expeditious consideration of asylum and statutory withholding claims. For example, the proposed rule would outline the following eight nonexhaustive situations, each of which is rooted in case law, in which the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, in general, will not favorably adjudicate asylum or statutory withholding of removal claims based on persecution:
(1) Personal animus or retribution,
(2) interpersonal animus in which the alleged persecutor has not targeted, or manifested an animus against, other members of an alleged particular social group in addition to the member who has raised the claim at issue,
(3) generalized disapproval of, disagreement with, or opposition to criminal, terrorist, gang, guerilla, or other non-state organizations absent expressive behavior in furtherance of a discrete cause against such organizations related to control of a state or expressive behavior that is antithetical to the state or a legal unit of the state,
(4) resistance to recruitment or coercion by guerilla, criminal, gang, terrorist, or other non-state organizations,
(5) the targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on wealth or affluence or perceptions of wealth or affluence,
(6) criminal activity,
(7) perceived, past or present, gang affiliation,
(8) gender,
Without additional evidence, these circumstances will generally be insufficient to demonstrate persecution
Finally, the Departments propose to make clear that pernicious cultural stereotypes have no place in the adjudication of applications for asylum and statutory withholding of removal, regardless of the basis of the claim.
Under current regulations, an applicant for asylum or statutory withholding of removal who could avoid persecution by internally relocating to another part of his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, another part of the applicant's country of last habitual residence, and who can reasonably be expected to do so, may not be granted these forms of protection.
The Departments have determined that the current regulations regarding internal relocation inadequately assess the relevant considerations in determining whether internal relocation is possible, and if possible, whether it is reasonable to expect the asylum applicant to relocate. For instance, the utility of the catch-all list of factors in 8 CFR 208.13(b)(3) and 1208.13(b)(3) is undermined by its unhelpful concluding caveats that the factors “may, or may not” be relevant to an internal relocation determination and that the factors “are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” Such caveats provide little practical guidance for adjudicators considering issues of internal relocation raised by asylum claims. Moreover, some factors—
The current regulations also outline different scenarios for assessing who bears the burden of proof in establishing or refuting the reasonableness of internal relocation. In situations in which the persecutor is the government or a government-sponsored actor, it is presumed that relocation would not be reasonable (as the persecution is presumed to be nationwide). In situations in which a private actor is the persecutor, however, there is no apparent reason why the same presumption should apply, as a private individual or organization would not ordinarily be expected to have influence everywhere in a country. Moreover, as an asylum applicant generally bears the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, it is even more anomalous to shift that burden in situations in which there is no rational presumption that the threat of persecution would occur nationwide. Consequently, the Departments have determined that the regulatory burdens of proof regarding internal relocation should be assigned more in line with these baseline assessments of whether types of persecution generally occur nationwide, while recognizing that exceptions, such as persecution by local governments or nationwide organizations, might overcome these presumptions. Thus, the Departments propose to amend the regulations to presume that for applications in which the persecutor is not a government or government-sponsored actor, internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it would not be. This presumption would apply regardless of whether an applicant has established past persecution. For ease of administering these provisions, the Departments would also provide examples of the types of individuals or entities who are private actors.
Asylum is a discretionary relief, and an alien who demonstrates that he or she qualifies as a refugee must also demonstrate that he or she deserves asylum as a matter of discretion.
The BIA in
To date, the Secretary and Attorney General have not provided general guidance in agency regulations for factors to be considered when determining whether an alien merits asylum as a matter of discretion. Nevertheless, the Departments have issued regulations on discretionary considerations for other forms of relief,
Accordingly, the Departments propose three specific but nonexhaustive factors that adjudicators must consider when determining whether an applicant merits the relief of asylum as a matter of discretion:
(1) An alien's unlawful entry or unlawful attempted entry into the United States unless such entry or attempted entry was made in immediate flight from persecution or torture in a contiguous country;
(2) subject to certain exceptions, the failure of an alien to seek asylum or refugee protection in at least one country through which the alien transited before entering the United States; and
(3) an alien's use of fraudulent documents to enter the United States, unless the alien arrived in the United States by air, sea, or land directly from the applicant's home country without transiting through any other country.
The adjudicator must consider all three factors, if relevant, during every asylum adjudication. If one or more of these factors applies to the applicant's case, the adjudicator would consider such factors to be significantly adverse for purposes of the discretionary determination, though the adjudicator should also consider any other relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether the applicant merits asylum as a matter of discretion. The Departments believe that the inclusion of the proposed factors in the rule will better ensure that immigration judges and asylum officers properly consider, in all cases, whether applicants for asylum merit the relief as a matter of discretion, even if the applicant has otherwise demonstrated eligibility for asylum.
First, an alien's unlawful entry, or attempted unlawful entry, has been a longstanding factor that adjudicators may consider as a matter of discretion.
Second, as previously explained, the Departments believe that the failure to seek asylum or refugee protection in at least one country through which an alien transited while en route to the United States may reflect an increased likelihood that the alien is misusing the asylum system as a mechanism to enter and remain in the United States rather than legitimately seeking urgent protection.
Third, an alien who uses fraudulent documents to effect entry to the United States is inadmissible, INA 212(a)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), and the Departments are concerned that the use of fraudulent documents makes the proper enforcement of the immigration laws difficult and requires an immense amount of resources. The Departments accordingly propose to consider such use of fraudulent documents a significant adverse discretionary factor for the purposes of asylum unless an applicant arrived in the U.S. directly from the applicant's home country.
Furthermore, the Departments propose nine adverse factors, the applicability of any of which would ordinarily result in the denial of asylum as a matter of discretion, similar to how discretion is considered for other applications.
Each of the nine factors addresses issues that the adjudicators might otherwise spend significant time evaluating and adjudicating. First, this rule would require a decision-maker to consider whether an alien has spent more than 14 days in any one country that permitted application for refugee, asylee, or similar protections prior to entering or arriving in the United States. Second, this rule would make transit through more than one country prior to arrival in the United States a significant adverse factor. Both of these factors are supported by existing law surrounding firm resettlement and aliens who can be removed to a safe third country.
Third, adjudicators should consider criminal convictions that remain valid for immigration purposes as significant adverse factors. A conviction remains valid for immigration purposes despite a reversal, vacatur, expungement, or modification of conviction or sentence if the alteration is not related to a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings.
Fourth, unlawful presence of more than one year's cumulative duration prior to filing an application for asylum would be considered a significant adverse factor, consistent with the unlawful presence bar, INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), and the permanent bar under section 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C).
Fifth, failure to file taxes or fulfill related obligations would be another adverse factor. Subject to some exceptions, aliens are generally required to file federal income tax returns, as either a resident or nonresident alien. 26 U.S.C. 6012, 7701(b); 26 CFR 1.6012-1(a)(1)(ii), (b).
Sixth, this rule would consider as an adverse factor having had two or more prior asylum applications denied for any reason.
Seventh, the rule would also consider as an adverse factor having withdrawn with prejudice or abandoned an asylum application. This rule would thereby disfavor abusive prior or multiple applications. Asylum applications take a significant portion of processing time and already constitute half of the docket in immigration court. This rule would minimize abuse of the system—and allow for meritorious claims to be heard more efficiently—by disfavoring repeated applications when prior
Eighth, DHS already may dismiss the case of an alien who fails to attend his or her asylum interview, without prior authorization or in the absence of exceptional circumstances. INA 208(d)(5)(A)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(v). Such an applicant may also “be otherwise sanctioned for such failure.”
Ninth, aliens who are subject to a final order of removal may file a motion to reopen their proceedings before an immigration judge to seek asylum if there is a change in country conditions and the underlying evidence of changed conditions is material and was not available or could not have been discovered at the time of the prior hearing. INA 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7). In such situations, adjudicators should consider as a significant adverse factor the failure to file such a motion within one year of the change in country conditions.
The factors set forth in this rule do not affect the adjudicator's ability to consider whether there exist extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or whether the denial of asylum would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien.
By statute, an alien who “was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States” is ineligible for asylum. INA 208(b)(2)(A)(vi), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). This bar to asylum was first included in the asylum laws by IIRIRA in 1996, but Congress added it as a prohibition to entry as a refugee from abroad in 1980. Refugee Act of 1980, sec. 201(b), 94 Stat. 103 (adding INA 207(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(1)).
DOJ first defined “firm resettlement” in the context of asylum applications in 1990. Aliens and Nationality; Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Procedures, 55 FR 30674, 30683-84 (July 27, 1990) (adding 8 CFR 208.15 to part 208 of chapter 1 of 8 CFR). At the time, DOJ did not provide an explanation for the chosen definition, although it was similar to the existing definition of firm resettlement for refugees.
Due to the increased availability of resettlement opportunities
(1) The alien either resided or could have resided in any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent but potentially indefinitely renewable legal immigration status (including asylee, refugee, or similar status, but excluding a status such as a tourist) in a country through which the alien transited prior to arriving in or entering the United States, regardless of whether the alien applied for or was offered such status,
(2) the alien physically resided voluntarily, and without continuing to suffer persecution, in any one country for one year or more after departing his country of nationality or last habitual residence and prior to arrival in or entry into the United States; or
(3) (i) the alien is a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution and the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States, or (ii) the alien was a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution, the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States, and the alien renounced that citizenship prior to or after arriving in the United States.
These proposed changes would expand the firm resettlement bar to include forms of relief that were available to an alien in a country in which he or she resided before traveling to the United States, even if the alien did not affirmatively apply for or accept such relief. If an alien was legally “entitled to permanent refuge in another country” in which the alien resided, that entitlement may result in the alien being firmly resettled there, even if the alien “fail[ed] to take advantage of [that country's] procedures for obtaining [such] relief.”
The Departments further propose to specify that the firm resettlement bar applies “when the evidence of record indicates that the firm resettlement bar may apply,” and to specifically allow both DHS and the immigration judge to first raise the issue based on the record evidence. This proposal would make clear that the alien would continue to bear the burden to demonstrate that the firm resettlement bar does not apply, consistent with 8 CFR 1240.8(d). Finally, the Departments propose that the firm resettlement of a parent or parents with whom a child was residing at the time shall be imputed to the child. Although the Departments have had no prior settled policy necessarily imputing the firm resettlement of parents to a child,
To the extent any BIA decisions relied on prior regulatory language and remain inconsistent with the proposed new regulatory language, the proposed changes would expressly overrule those BIA decisions.
In order to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the CAT regulations, an alien must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured in the country of removal.
When faced with questions of such “rogue” officials, the federal courts have generally implied from the lack of further explanation regarding the definition of “public official” that no exception excluding “rogue” officials from the definition exists. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided a particularly detailed explanation of this point:
The statute and regulations do not establish a “rogue official” exception to CAT relief. The regulations say that torture, for purposes of relief, has to be “at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” The four policemen were “public officials,” even though they were local police and state or federal authorities might not similarly acquiesce. Since the officers were apparently off-duty when they tortured Barajas-Romero, they were evidently not acting “in an official capacity,” but the regulation does not require that the public official be carrying out his official duties, so long as he is the actor or knowingly acquiesces in the acts. The regulation uses the word “or” between the phrases “inflicted by * * * a public official” and “acting in an official capacity.” The word “or” can only mean that either one suffices, so the torture need not be both by a public official and also that the official is acting in his official capacity. An “and” construction would require that the conjunction be “and.” The record leaves no room for doubt that the four policemen were public officials who themselves inflicted the torture.
The Departments propose revising 8 CFR 208.18(a)(1), (7) and 1208.18(a)(1), (7) to clarify (1) that pain or suffering inflicted by, or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official is not torture unless it is done while the official is acting in his or her official capacity (
The Departments also propose to clarify the definition of “acquiescence of a public official” at 8 CFR 208.18(a)(7) and 1208.18(a)(7).
Additionally, the rule clarifies the second part of the two-part test for acquiescence set out in the Senate's understanding in the CAT ratification documents.
The regulations at 8 CFR 208.6 and 1208.6 govern the disclosure of information contained in or pertaining to an asylum application, credible fear records, and reasonable fear records. The nondisclosure provisions in 8 CFR 208.6(a)-(b) and 1208.6(a)-(b) cover “[i]nformation contained in or pertaining to any asylum application,” records pertaining to any credible fear or reasonable fear determination, and other records kept by the Departments that indicate that a specific alien has applied for asylum or received a credible fear or reasonable fear interview or review thereof. The “asylum application” includes information pertaining to statutory withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and protection under the CAT regulations.
The Departments propose changes to 8 CFR 208.6 and 8 CFR 1208.6 to clarify that information may be disclosed in certain circumstances that directly relate to the integrity of immigration proceedings, including situations in which there is suspected fraud or improper duplication of applications or claims. An alien's decision to apply for asylum necessarily entails the alien's decision to provide the Government with information necessary to determine whether the person deserves refuge in the United States. Within the immigration system in the United States, such information does not exist in a vacuum, and there is a clear need to ensure that the confidentiality provisions are not being used to shield fraud and abuse that can only be uncovered by comparing applications and information across proceedings. Further, there is need to ensure that other types of criminal activity are not shielded from investigation and prosecution due to the confidentiality provisions. Furthermore, the proposed changes allow the information to be disclosed where it is necessary to the Government's defense of any legal action relating to the alien's immigration or custody status. Aliens routinely file suit in both district courts and courts of appeals raising an assortment of challenges to their immigration and custody status. Although the current regulation allows disclosure where the suit arises from the adjudication of an asylum application or of which the asylum application “is a part,” there is no clear exception covering disclosures in other civil immigration litigation in which it is necessary for the Government to disclose this information in order to fully defend the Government's position.
As such, the Department proposes to amend 8 CFR 208.6 and 8 CFR 1208.6 to specify that to the extent not already specifically permitted, and without the necessity of seeking the exercise of the Attorney General's or Secretary's discretion under paragraphs 208.6(a) and 1208.6(a), respectively, the Government may disclose
The Departments are proposing severability provisions in each of the new 8 CFR parts. The Departments believe that the provisions of each new part function sensibly independent of other provisions. However, to protect the goals for which this rule is being proposed, the Departments are codifying their intent that the provisions be severable so that, if necessary, the regulations can continue to function without a stricken provision.
The Departments have reviewed this regulation in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation affects only individual aliens and the Federal Government.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule is anticipated not to be a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The proposed rule is considered by the Departments to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the regulation has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The proposed rule would change or provide additional clarity for adjudicators across many issues commonly raised by asylum applications and would potentially streamline the overall adjudicatory process for asylum applications. Although the proposed regulation would provide clarity to asylum law and operational streamlining to the credible fear review process, the proposed regulation does not change the nature of the role of an immigration judge or an asylum officer during proceedings for consideration of credible fear claims or asylum applications. Notably, immigration judges will retain their existing authority to review
Immigration judges and asylum officers are already trained to consider all relevant legal issues in assessing a credible fear claim or asylum application, and the proposed rule does not propose any changes that would make adjudications more challenging than those that are already conducted. For example, immigration judges already consider issues of persecution, nexus, particular social group, frivolousness, firm resettlement, and discretion in assessing the merit of an asylum application, and the provision of clearer standards for considering those issues in the proposed regulation does not add any operational burden or increase the level of operational analysis required for adjudication. Accordingly, the Departments do not expect the proposed changes to increase the adjudication time for immigration court proceedings involving asylum applications or for reviews of negative fear determinations.
Depending on the manner in which DHS exercises its prosecutorial discretion for aliens potentially subject to expedited removal, the facts and circumstances of each individual alien's situation, and the Departments' interpretation and implementation of the relevant regulations by individual adjudicators, the proposed changes may decrease the number of cases of aliens subject to expedited removal that result in a full hearing on an application for asylum. In all cases, however, an alien will retain the opportunity to request immigration judge review of DHS's initial fear determination.
The Departments propose changes that may affect any alien subject to expedited removal who makes a fear claim and any alien who applies for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT regulations. The Departments note that the proposed changes are likely to result in fewer asylum grants annually due to clarifications regarding the significance of discretionary considerations and changes to the definition of firm resettlement. However; because asylum applications are inherently fact-specific, and because there may be multiple bases for denying an asylum application, neither DOJ nor DHS can quantify precisely the expected decrease. As of April 24, 2020, EOIR had 527,927 cases pending with an asylum application. In FY 2019, at the immigration court level, EOIR granted 18,816 asylum applications and denied 45,285 asylum applications. An additional 27,112 asylum applications were abandoned, withdrawn, or otherwise not adjudicated. As of January 1, 2020, USCIS had 338,931 applications for asylum and for withholding of removal pending.
The data in this report only include approvals or denials (
The Departments expect that the aliens most likely to be impacted by this rule's provisions are those who are already unlikely to receive a grant of asylum under existing law. Assuming DHS places those aliens into expedited removal proceedings, the Departments assess that it will be more likely that they would receive a more prompt adjudication of their claims for asylum or withholding of removal than they would under the existing regulations. Depending on the individual circumstances of each case, this rule would mean that such aliens would likely not remain in the United States—for years, potentially—pending resolution of their claims.
An alien who is ineligible for asylum may still be eligible to apply for the protection of withholding of removal
Overall, the Departments assess that operational efficiencies will likely result from these proposed changes, which could, inter alia, reduce the number of meritless claims before the immigration courts, provide the Departments with the ability to more promptly grant relief or protection to qualifying aliens, and ensure that those who do not qualify for relief or protection are removed more efficiently than they are under current rules.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
DOJ and DHS invite comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 14, 2020. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0067 in the body of the submission. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for purposes of publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Fees, Freedom of Information, Immigration, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to amend 8 CFR parts 103, 208, and 235 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1356b, 1372; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Motions to reopen or reconsider proceedings or decisions on benefit requests in other than special agricultural worker and legalization cases—
(1) * * *
(i)
(d) The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 CFR part 2.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i) Interpersonal animus or retribution;
(ii) Interpersonal animus in which the alleged persecutor has not targeted, or manifested an animus against, other members of an alleged particular social group in addition to the member who has raised the claim at issue;
(iii) Generalized disapproval of, disagreement with, or opposition to criminal, terrorist, gang, guerilla, or other non-state organizations absent expressive behavior in furtherance of a discrete cause against such organizations related to control of a state or expressive behavior that is antithetical to the state or a legal unit of the state;
(iv) Resistance to recruitment or coercion by guerilla, criminal, gang, terrorist or other non-state organizations;
(v) The targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on wealth or affluence or perceptions of wealth or affluence;
(vi) Criminal activity;
(vii) Perceived, past or present, gang affiliation; or,
(viii) Gender.
(2) [Reserved]
(g)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) An alien found to have a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture in accordance with § 208.30, and §§ 1003.42 or 1208.30 of this title.
(a)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Information contained in or pertaining to any asylum application, records pertaining to any credible fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.30, and records pertaining to any reasonable fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.31, shall not be disclosed without the written consent of the applicant, except as permitted by this section or at the discretion of the Secretary.
(b) The confidentiality of other records kept by DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review that indicate that a specific alien has applied for asylum, received a credible fear or reasonable fear interview, or received a credible fear or reasonable fear review shall also be protected from disclosure, except as permitted in this section. DHS will coordinate with the Department of State to ensure that the confidentiality of those records is maintained if they are transmitted to Department of State offices in other countries.
(d)(1) Any information contained in an application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, any relevant and applicable information supporting that application, any information regarding an alien who has filed such an application, and any relevant and applicable information regarding an alien who has been the subject of a reasonable fear or credible fear determination may be disclosed:
(i) As part of an investigation or adjudication of the merits of that application or of any other application under the immigration laws,
(ii) As part of any state or federal criminal investigation, proceeding, or prosecution;
(iii) Pursuant to any state or federal mandatory reporting requirement;
(iv) To deter, prevent, or ameliorate the effects of child abuse;
(v) As part of any proceeding arising under the immigration laws, including proceedings arising under the Act; and
(vi) As part of the Government's defense of any legal action relating to the alien's immigration or custody status including petitions for review filed in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1252.
(2) If information may be disclosed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the disclosure provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall not apply.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the disclosure of information contained in an application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, information supporting that application, information regarding an alien who has filed such an application, or information regarding an alien who has been the subject of a reasonable fear or credible fear determination:
(1) Among employees and officers of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, or a U.S. national security agency having a need to examine the information for an official purpose; or
(2) Where a United States Government employee or contractor has a good faith and reasonable belief that disclosure is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime, the furtherance of an ongoing crime, or to ameliorate the effects of a crime.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3)
(ii) In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless DHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
(iii) Regardless of whether an applicant has established persecution in the past, in cases in which the persecutor is not the government or a government-sponsored actor, or otherwise is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be unreasonable to relocate.
(iv) For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(iii) of this section, persecutors who are private actors—including persecutors who are gang members, rogue officials, family members who are not themselves government officials, or neighbors who are not themselves government officials—shall not be considered to be persecutors who are the government or government-sponsored absent evidence that the government sponsored the persecution.
(d)
(1)
(i) An alien's unlawful entry or unlawful attempted entry into the United States unless such entry or attempted entry was made in immediate flight from persecution in a contiguous country;
(ii) The failure of an alien to apply for protection from persecution or torture in at least one country outside the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited before entering the United States unless:
(A) The alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;
(B) The alien demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or
(C) Such country or all such countries were, at the time of the transit, not parties to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and
(iii) An alien's use of fraudulent documents to enter the United States, unless the alien arrived in the United States by air, sea, or land directly from the applicant's home country without transiting through any other country.
(2)(i) The Secretary, except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, will not favorably exercise discretion under section 208 of the Act for an alien who:
(A) Immediately prior to his arrival in the United States or en route to the United States from the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence, spent more than 14 days in any one country unless:
(
(
(
(B) Transits through more than one country between his country of citizenship, nationality, or last habitual residence and the United States unless:
(
(
(
(C) Would otherwise be subject to § 208.13(c) but for the reversal, vacatur, expungement, or modification of a conviction or sentence unless the alien was found not guilty;
(D) Accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States prior to filing an application for asylum;
(E) At the time the asylum application is filed with DHS has:
(
(
(
(F) Has had two or more prior asylum applications denied for any reason;
(G) Has withdrawn a prior asylum application with prejudice or been found to have abandoned a prior asylum application;
(H) Failed to attend an interview regarding his asylum application with DHS, unless the alien shows by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(
(
(I) Was subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and did not file a motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions within one year of those changes in country conditions.
(ii) Where one or more of the adverse discretionary factors set forth in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section are present, the Secretary, in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving
(a) An alien is considered to be firmly resettled if:
(1) The alien either resided or could have resided in any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent, potentially indefinitely renewable legal immigration status (including asylee, refugee, or similar status but excluding status such as of a tourist) in a country through which the alien transited prior to arriving in or entering the United States, regardless of whether the alien applied for or was offered such status;
(2) The alien physically resided voluntarily, and without continuing to suffer persecution or torture, in any one country for one year or more after departing his country of nationality or last habitual residence and prior to arrival in or entry into the United States; or
(3)(i) The alien is a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution and the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States, or
(ii) The alien was a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution, the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States, and the alien renounced that citizenship after arriving in the United States.
(b) The provisions of 8 CFR 1240.8(d) shall apply when the evidence of record indicates that the firm resettlement bar may apply. In such cases, the alien shall bear the burden of proving the bar does not apply. Either DHS or the immigration judge may raise the issue of the application of the firm resettlement bar based on the evidence of record. The firm resettlement of an alien's parent(s) shall be imputed to the alien if the resettlement occurred before the alien turned 18 and the alien resided with the alien's parents at the time of the firm resettlement unless the alien establishes that he or she could not have derived any permanent legal immigration status or any potentially indefinitely renewable temporary legal immigration status (including asylee, refugee, or similar status but excluding status such as of a tourist) from the alien's parent.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)(3)
(ii) In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless DHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under the totality of the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
(iii) Regardless of whether an applicant has established persecution in the past, in cases in which the persecutor is not the government or a government-sponsored actor, or otherwise is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be unreasonable to relocate.
(iv) For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, persecutors who are private actors, including but not limited to persecutors who are gang members, rogue officials, or family members who are not themselves government officials or neighbors who are not themselves government officials, shall not be considered to be persecutors who are the government or government-sponsored absent evidence that the government sponsored the persecution.
(a) * * *
(1) Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity. Pain or suffering inflicted by a public official who is not acting under color of law (“rogue official”) shall not constitute pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity, although a different public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity could instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in the pain or suffering inflicted by the rogue official.
(7) Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. Such awareness requires a finding of either actual knowledge or willful blindness. Willful blindness means that the public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity was aware of a high probability of activity constituting torture and deliberately avoided learning the truth; it is not enough that such public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity was mistaken, recklessly disregarded the truth, or negligently failed to inquire. In order for a public official to breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent activity constituting torture, the official must have been charged with preventing the activity as part of his or her duties and have failed to intervene. No person will be deemed to have
(a) For applications filed on or after April 1, 1997, an applicant is subject to the provisions of section 208(d)(6) of the Act only if the alien received the notice required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act and a final order by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals specifically finds that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. An alien knowingly files a frivolous asylum application if:
(1) The application is described in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) The alien filed the application with either actual knowledge, or willful blindness, of the fact that the application was described in paragraph (c) in this section.
(b) For applications filed on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], an asylum officer may determine that the applicant knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and may refer the applicant to an immigration judge on that basis, so long as the applicant has received the notice required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act. Such finding will be made only if the asylum officer is satisfied that the applicant has had sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim. For any application referred to an immigration judge, an asylum officer's determination that an application is frivolous will not render an applicant permanently ineligible for immigration benefits unless an immigration judge or the Board makes a finding of frivolousness as described in paragraph 1208.20(c).
(c) For purposes of this section, beginning on [effective date of final rule], an asylum application is frivolous if it:
(1) Contains a fabricated essential element;
(2) Is premised upon false or fabricated evidence unless the application would have been granted without the false or fabricated evidence;
(3) Is filed without regard to the merits of the claim; or
(4) Is clearly foreclosed by applicable law.
(d) If the alien has been provided the warning required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act, he or she need not be given any additional or further opportunity to account for any issues with his or her claim prior to the entry of a frivolousness finding.
(e) An asylum application may be found frivolous even if it was untimely filed.
(f) A withdrawn asylum application may also be found frivolous unless:
(1) The alien wholly disclaims the application and withdraws it with prejudice;
(2) The alien is eligible for and agrees to accept voluntary departure for a period of no more than 30 days pursuant to section 240B(a) of the Act;
(3) The alien withdraws any and all other applications for relief or protection with prejudice; and
(4) The alien waives his right to appeal and any rights to file, for any reason, a motion to reopen or reconsider.
(g) For purposes of this section, a finding that an alien knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application shall not preclude the alien from seeking withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Arrived in the United States concurrently with the principal alien; and
(2) Desires to be included in the principal alien's determination. However, any alien may have his or her evaluation and determination made separately, if he or she expresses such a desire.
(d)
(1) If the officer conducting the interview determines that the alien is unable to participate effectively in the interview because of illness, fatigue, or other impediments, the officer may reschedule the interview.
(2) At the time of the interview, the asylum officer shall verify that the alien has received in writing the relevant information regarding the fear determination process. The officer shall also determine that the alien has an understanding of the fear determination process.
(3) The alien may be required to register his or her identity.
(4) The alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing prior to the interview or any review thereof, and may present other evidence, if available. Such consultation shall be at no expense to the Government and shall not unreasonably delay the process. Any person or persons with whom the alien chooses to consult may be present at the interview and may be permitted, in the discretion of the asylum officer, to present a statement at the end of the interview. The asylum officer, in his or her discretion, may place reasonable limits on the number of persons who may be present at the interview and on the length of the statement.
(5) If the alien is unable to proceed effectively in English, and if the asylum officer is unable to proceed competently in a language the alien speaks and understands, the asylum officer shall arrange for the assistance of an interpreter in conducting the interview. The interpreter must be at least 18 years of age and may not be the alien's attorney or representative of record, a witness testifying on the alien's behalf, a representative or employee of the alien's country of nationality, or, if the alien is stateless, the alien's country of last habitual residence.
(6) The asylum officer shall create a summary of the material facts as stated by the alien. At the conclusion of the interview, the officer shall review the summary with the alien and provide the alien with an opportunity to correct any errors therein.
(e) Procedures for determining credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, and reasonable possibility of torture.
(1) An alien establishes a credible fear of persecution if there is a significant possibility the alien can establish eligibility for asylum under section 208 of the Act. “Significant possibility” means a substantial and realistic possibility of succeeding. When making such a determination, the asylum officer shall take into account:
(i) The credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim;
(ii) Such other facts as are known to the officer, including whether the alien could avoid any future harm by relocating to another part of his or her country, if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the alien to do so; and
(iii) The applicability of any bars to being able to apply for asylum or to eligibility for asylum set forth at section 208(a)(2)(B)-(C) and (b)(2) of the Act, including any bars established by regulation under section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
(2) An alien establishes a reasonable possibility of persecution if there is a reasonable possibility that the alien would be persecuted on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in the country of removal. When making such determination, the officer will take into account:
(i) The credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim;
(ii) Such other facts as are known to the officer, including whether the alien could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to another party of the proposed country of removal and, under all circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so; and
(iii) The applicability of any bars at section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
(3) An alien establishes a reasonable possibility of torture if there is a reasonable possibility that the alien would be tortured in the country of removal, consistent with the criteria in §§ 208.16(c), 208.17, and 208.18. The alien must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that he or she will suffer severe pain or suffering in the country of removal, and that the feared harm would comport with the other requirements of § 208.18(a)(1) through (8). When making such a determination, the asylum officer shall take into account:
(i) The credibility of the statements made by alien in support of the alien's claim, and
(ii) Such other facts as are known to the officer, including whether the alien could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured.
(4) In all cases, the asylum officer will create a written record of his or her determination, including a summary of the material facts as stated by the alien, any additional facts relied on by the officer, and the officer's determination of whether, in light of such facts, the alien has established a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture. An asylum officer's determination will not become final until reviewed by a supervisory asylum officer.
(5)(i)(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(5)(ii) through(iii), (e)(6), or (e)(7) of this section, if an alien would be able to establish a credible fear of persecution but for the fact that the alien is subject to one or more of the mandatory bars to applying for asylum or being eligible for asylum contained in section 208(a)(2)(B)-(D) and (b)(2) of the Act, including any bars established by regulation under section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act, then the asylum officer will enter a negative credible fear of persecution determination with respect to the alien's eligibility for asylum.
(B) If an alien described in paragraph (e)(5)(i)(A) of this section is able to establish either a reasonable possibility of persecution (including by establishing that he or she is not subject to one or more of the mandatory bars to eligibility for withholding of removal contained in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act) or a reasonable possibility of torture, then the asylum officer will enter a positive reasonable possibility of persecution or torture determination, as applicable. The Department of Homeland Security shall place the alien in asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 208.2(c)(1) for full consideration of the alien's claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or withholding or deferral of removal under the regulations issued pursuant to the implementing legislation for the Convention Against Torture.
(C) If an alien described in paragraph (e)(5)(i)(A) of this section fails to establish either a reasonable possibility of persecution (including by failing to establish that he or she is not subject to one or more of the mandatory bars to eligibility for withholding of removal contained in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act) or a reasonable possibility of torture, the asylum officer will provide the alien with a written notice of decision, which will be subject to immigration judge review consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the fear findings under the reasonable possibility standard instead of the credible fear of persecution standard described in paragraph (g) of this section and in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
(ii) If the alien is found to be an alien described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3), then the asylum officer shall enter a negative credible fear determination with respect to the alien's application for asylum. The Department shall nonetheless place the alien in asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 208.2(c)(1) for full consideration of the alien's claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or for withholding or deferral of removal under the regulations issued pursuant to the implementing legislation for the Convention Against Torture, if the alien establishes, respectively, a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture. However, if an alien fails to establish, during the interview with the asylum officer, a reasonable possibility of either persecution or torture, the asylum officer will provide the alien with a written notice of decision, which will be subject to immigration judge review consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the fear of persecution findings under the reasonable possibility standard instead of the credible fear standard described in paragraph (g) and in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
(iii) If the alien is found to be an alien described in § 208.13(c)(4), then the asylum officer shall enter a negative credible fear determination with respect to the alien's application for asylum. The Department shall nonetheless place the alien in asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 208.2(c)(1) for full consideration of the alien's claim for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or withholding of deferral of removal under the regulations issued pursuant to the implementing legislation for the Convention Against Torture if the alien establishes, respectively, a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture. However, if an alien fails to establish, during the interview with the asylum officer, a reasonable possibility of either persecution or torture, the asylum officer will provide the alien with a written notice of decision, which will be subject to immigration judge review consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the fear of persecution findings under the reasonable possibility standard instead of the credible fear standard described in paragraph (g) and in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
(6) Prior to any determination concerning whether an alien arriving in the United States at a U.S.-Canada land border port-of-entry or in transit through the U.S. during removal by Canada has a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture, the asylum officer shall conduct a threshold screening interview to determine whether such an alien is ineligible to apply for asylum pursuant to section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act and subject to removal to Canada by operation of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada For Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries (“Agreement”). In conducting this threshold screening interview, the asylum officer shall apply all relevant interview procedures outlined in paragraph (d) of this section, provided, however, that paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall not apply to aliens described in this paragraph (e)(6). The asylum officer shall advise the alien of the Agreement's exceptions and question the alien as to applicability of any of these exceptions to the alien's case.
(ii) If the alien establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she qualifies for an exception under the terms of the Agreement, the asylum officer shall make a written notation of the basis of the exception, and then proceed immediately to a determination concerning whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture under paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) An alien qualifies for an exception to the Agreement if the alien is not being removed from Canada in transit through the United States and:
(iv) As used in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(B), (C) and (D) of this section only, “legal guardian” means a person currently vested with legal custody of such an alien or vested with legal authority to act on the alien's behalf, provided that such an alien is both unmarried and less than 18 years of age, and provided further that any dispute with respect to whether an individual is a legal guardian will be resolved on the basis of U.S. law.
(7) When an immigration officer has made an initial determination that an alien, other than an alien described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section and regardless of whether the alien is arriving at a port of entry, appears to be subject to the terms of an agreement authorized by section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and seeks the alien's removal consistent with that provision, prior to any determination concerning whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of torture, the asylum officer shall conduct a threshold screening interview to determine whether the alien is ineligible to apply for asylum in the United States and is subject to removal to a country (“receiving country”) that is a signatory to the applicable agreement authorized by section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act, other than the U.S.-Canada Agreement effectuated in 2004. * * *
(ii) If the alien establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she qualifies for an exception under the terms of the applicable agreement, or would more likely than not be persecuted on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or tortured, in the receiving country, the asylum officer shall make a written notation to that effect, and may then proceed to determine whether any other agreement is applicable to the alien under the procedures set forth in this paragraph (e)(7). If the alien establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she qualifies for an exception under the terms of each of the applicable agreements, or would more likely than not be persecuted on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or tortured, in each of the prospective receiving countries, the asylum officer shall make a written notation to that effect, and then proceed immediately to a determination concerning whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of torture, under paragraph (d) of this section.
(f)
(1) DHS shall issue a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge for asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 208.2(c)(1).
(2) Parole of the alien may be considered only in accordance with section 212(d)(5) of the Act and 8 CFR 212.5 of this chapter.
(g)
(i) If the alien requests such review, DHS shall arrange for detention of the alien and serve him or her with a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for review of the negative fear determination in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(ii) If the alien is not a stowaway and does not request a review by an immigration judge, DHS shall order the alien removed with a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, after review by a supervisory officer.
(iii) If the alien is a stowaway and the alien does not request a review by an immigration judge, DHS shall complete removal proceedings in accordance with section 235(a)(2) of the Act.
(2) Review by immigration judge of a negative fear determination.
(i) Immigration judges shall review negative fear determinations as provided in 8 CFR 1208.30(g).
(ii) DHS shall provide the record of any negative fear determinations being reviewed, including copies of the Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, the asylum officer's notes, the summary of the material facts, and other materials upon which the determination was based, to the immigration judge with the negative fear determination.
(f)
(g)
(1) If the immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer's determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the case shall be returned to DHS for removal of the alien. No appeal shall lie from the immigration judge's decision.
(2) If the immigration judge finds that the alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien may submit an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
(i) The immigration judge shall consider only the alien's application for withholding of removal under 8 CFR 1208.16 and shall determine whether the alien's removal to the country of removal must be withheld or deferred.
(ii) Appeal of the immigration judge's decision whether removal must be withheld or deferred lies with the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the alien or DHS appeals the immigration judge's decision, the Board shall review only the immigration judge's decision regarding the alien's eligibility for withholding or deferral of removal under 8 CFR 1208.16.
8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Public Law 108-458); Public Law 112-54.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If an immigration officer verifies that an alien subject to expedited removal under section 235(b)(1) of the Act has been admitted as a lawful permanent resident or refugee, or granted asylum, or, upon review pursuant to § 235.3(b)(5)(iv), an immigration judge determines that the alien was once so admitted or granted asylum, provided that such status has not been terminated by final administrative action, and the Service initiates removal proceedings against the alien under section 240 of the Act.
(2) * * *
(i) If an asylum officer determines that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture, and the alien requests a review of that determination by an immigration judge; or
(iii) If an immigration officer refers an applicant in accordance with the provisions of 8 CFR 208.30 or 8 CFR 208.31.
(c) The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Attorney General proposed to amend 8 CFR parts 1003, 1208 and 1235 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No.
(b) * * *
(9) Decisions of Immigration Judges in asylum proceedings pursuant to § 1208.2(b) and (c) of this chapter.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(d)
(2) If the alien is determined to be an alien described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3) or 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(3) and is determined to lack a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture under 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(ii), the Immigration Judge shall first review de novo the determination that the alien is described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(3) or 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(3) prior to any further review of the asylum officer's negative fear determination.
(3) If the alien is determined to be an alien described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(4) and is determined to lack a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture under 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(iii), the immigration judge shall first review de novo the determination that the alien is described in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or 8 CFR 1208.13(c)(4) prior to any further review of the asylum officer's negative fear determination.
(e)
(f)
(2) No appeal shall lie from a review of a negative fear determination made by an Immigration Judge, but the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion, may direct that the Immigration Judge refer a case for the Attorney General's review following the Immigration Judge's review of a negative fear determination.
(3) In any case the Attorney General decides, the Attorney General's decision shall be stated in writing and shall be transmitted to the Board for transmittal and service as provided in § 1003.1(f). Such decision by the Attorney General may be designated as precedent as provided in § 1003.1(g).
(g)
(h) * * *
(1)
(3) * * * However, if the asylum officer has determined that the alien may not or should not be removed to a third country under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act and subsequently makes a negative fear determination, an immigration judge has jurisdiction to review the negative fear finding as provided in this section.
(i) The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Public Law 110-229.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i) Interpersonal animus or retribution;
(ii) Interpersonal animus in which the alleged persecutor has not targeted, or manifested an animus against, other members of an alleged particular social group in addition to the member who has raised the claim at issue;
(iii) Generalized disapproval of, disagreement with, or opposition to criminal, terrorist, gang, guerilla, or other non-state organizations absent expressive behavior in furtherance of a discrete cause against such organizations related to control of a state or expressive behavior that is antithetical to the state or a legal unit of the state;
(iv) Resistance to recruitment or coercion by guerilla, criminal, gang, terrorist or other non-state organizations;
(v) The targeting of the applicant for criminal activity for financial gain based on wealth or affluence or perceptions of wealth or affluence;
(vi) Criminal activity;
(vii) Perceived, past or present, gang affiliation; or,
(viii) Gender.
(2) [Reserved]
(g)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) An alien found to have a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture in accordance with § 208.30 of this title, § 1003.42 of this chapter or § 1208.30.
(a)
(b) The confidentiality of other records kept by DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review that indicate that a specific alien has applied for asylum, received a credible fear or reasonable fear interview, or received a credible fear or reasonable fear review shall also be protected from disclosure, except as permitted in this section. DHS will coordinate with the Department of State to ensure that the confidentiality of those records is maintained if they are transmitted to Department of State offices in other countries.
(d)(1) Any information contained in an application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, any relevant and applicable information supporting that application, any information regarding an alien who has filed such an application, and any relevant and applicable information regarding an alien who has been the subject of a reasonable fear or credible fear determination may be disclosed:
(i) As part of an investigation or adjudication of the merits of that application or of any other application under the immigration laws,
(ii) As part of any state or federal criminal investigation, proceeding, or prosecution;
(iii) Pursuant to any state or federal mandatory reporting requirement;
(iv) To deter, prevent, or ameliorate the effects of child abuse;
(v) As part of any proceeding arising under the immigration laws, including proceedings arising under the Act; and
(vi) As part of the Government's defense of any legal action relating to the alien's immigration or custody status, including petitions for review filed in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1252.
(2) If information may be disclosed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the disclosure provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall not apply.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the disclosure of information contained in an application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, any relevant and applicable information supporting that application, information regarding an alien who has filed such an application, or information regarding an alien who has been the subject of a reasonable fear or credible fear determination:
(1) Among employees of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, or a U.S. national security agency having a need to examine the information for an official purpose; or
(2) Where a United States government employee or contractor has a good faith and reasonable belief that disclosure is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime, the furtherance of an ongoing crime, or to ameliorate the effects of a crime.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3)
(ii) In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless the Department of Homeland Security establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
(iii) Regardless of whether an applicant has established persecution in the past, in cases in which the persecutor is not the government or a government-sponsored actor, or otherwise is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be unreasonable to relocate.
(iv) For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, persecutors who are private actors—including persecutors who are gang members, officials acting outside their official capacity, family members who are not themselves government officials, or neighbors who are not themselves government officials—shall not be considered to be persecutors who are the government or government-sponsored absent evidence that the government sponsored the persecution.
(d)
(1)
(i) An alien's unlawful entry or unlawful attempted entry into the United States unless such entry or attempted entry was made in immediate flight from persecution in a contiguous country;
(ii) The failure of an alien to apply for protection from persecution or torture in at least one country outside the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited before entering the United States unless:
(A) The alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;
(B) The alien demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or
(C) Such country or countries were, at the time of the transit, not parties to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and
(iii) An alien's use of fraudulent documents to enter the United States, unless the alien arrived in the United States by air, sea, or land directly from the applicant's home country without transiting through any other country.
(2)(i) The Attorney General, except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, will not favorably exercise discretion under section 208 of the Act for an alien who:
(A) Immediately prior to his arrival in the United States or en route to the United States from the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence, spent more than 14 days in any one country unless:
(
(
(
(B) Transits through more than one country between his country of citizenship, nationality, or last habitual residence and the United States unless:
(
(
(
(C) Would otherwise be subject to paragraph (c) of this section but for the reversal, vacatur, expungement, or modification of a conviction or sentence unless the alien was found not guilty;
(D) Accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States prior to filing an application for asylum;
(E) At the time the asylum application is filed with the immigration court or is referred from DHS has:
(
(
(
(F) Has had two or more prior asylum applications denied for any reason;
(G) Has withdrawn a prior asylum application with prejudice or been found to have abandoned a prior asylum application;
(H) Failed to attend an interview regarding his or her asylum application with DHS, unless the alien shows by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(
(
(I) Was subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and did not file a motion to reopen to seek asylum based on changed country conditions within one year of the changes in country conditions.
(ii) Where one or more of the adverse discretionary factors set forth in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section are present, the Attorney General, in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which an alien, by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrates that the denial of the application for asylum would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien, may favorably exercise discretion under section 208 of the Act, notwithstanding the applicability of paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section. Depending on the gravity of the circumstances underlying the application of paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, a showing of extraordinary circumstances might still be insufficient to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion under section 208 of the Act.
(e)
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, upon his or her own authority, an immigration judge shall, if warranted by the record, pretermit and deny any application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation if the alien has not established a prima facie claim for relief or protection under applicable law, provided that the immigration judge shall give the parties at least 10 days' notice prior to entering such an order. An immigration judge need not conduct a hearing prior to pretermitting and denying an application under this paragraph (e)(2) but must consider any filings by the parties within the 10-day period before making a decision.
(a) An alien is considered to be firmly resettled if:
(1) The alien either resided or could have resided in any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent but potentially indefinitely renewable legal immigration status (including asylee, refugee, or similar status but excluding a status such as a tourist) in a country through which the alien transited prior to arriving in or entering the United States, regardless of whether the alien applied for or was offered such status;
(2) The alien physically resided voluntarily, and without continuing to suffer persecution, in any one country for one year or more after departing his country of nationality or last habitual residence and prior to arrival in or entry into the United States; or
(3)(i) The alien is a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution and the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States; or
(ii) The alien was a citizen of a country other than the one where the alien alleges a fear of persecution, the alien was present in that country prior to arriving in the United States, and the alien renounced that citizenship prior to or after arriving in the United States.
(b) The provisions of 8 CFR 1240.8(d) shall apply when the evidence of record indicates that the firm resettlement bar may apply. In such cases, the alien shall bear the burden of proving the bar does not apply. Either the Department of Homeland Security or the immigration judge may raise the issue of the application of the firm resettlement bar based on the evidence of record. The firm resettlement of an alien's parent(s) shall be imputed to the alien if the resettlement occurred before the alien turned 18 and the alien resided with the alien's parents at the time of the firm resettlement unless he or she could not have derived any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent legal immigration status potentially indefinitely renewable (including asylee, refugee, or similar status but excluding status such as of a tourist) from the alien's parent.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3)
(ii) In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless the DHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
(iii) Regardless of whether an applicant has established persecution in the past, in cases in which the persecutor is not the government or a government-sponsored actor, or otherwise is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be unreasonable to relocate.
(iv) For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(iii) of this section, persecutors who are private actors, including persecutors who are gang members, officials acting outside their official capacity, or family members who are not themselves government officials or neighbors who are not themselves government officials, shall not be considered to be persecutors who are the government or government-sponsored absent evidence that the government sponsored the persecution.
(a) * * *
(1) Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity. Pain or suffering inflicted by a public official who is not acting under color of law (“rogue official”) shall not constitute pain or suffering inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity, although a different public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity could instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in the pain or suffering inflicted by the rogue official.
(7) Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. Such awareness requires a finding of either actual knowledge or willful blindness. Willful blindness means that the public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity was aware of a high probability of activity constituting torture and deliberately avoided learning the truth; it is not enough that such public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity was mistaken, recklessly disregarded the truth, or negligently failed to inquire. In order for a public official to breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent activity constituting torture, the official must have been charged with preventing the activity as part of his or her duties and have failed to intervene. No person will be deemed to have breached a legal responsibility to intervene if such person is unable to intervene, or if the person intervenes but is unable to prevent the activity that constitutes torture.
(a) For applications filed on or after April 1, 1997, an applicant is subject to
(1) The application is described in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(2) The alien filed the application with either actual knowledge, or willful blindness, of the fact that the application was described in paragraph (b).
(b) For applications filed on or after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], an asylum officer may determine that the applicant knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and may refer the applicant to an immigration judge on that basis, so long as the applicant has received the notice required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act. Such finding will only be made if the asylum officer is satisfied that the applicant has had sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim. For applications referred to an immigration judge, an asylum officer's determination that an application is frivolous will not render an applicant permanently ineligible for immigration benefits unless an immigration judge or the Board makes a finding of frivolousness as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) For purposes of this section, beginning on [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], an asylum application is frivolous if it:
(1) Contains a fabricated essential element;
(2) Is premised upon false or fabricated evidence unless the application would have been granted without the false or fabricated evidence;
(3) Is filed without regard to the merits of the claim; or
(4) Is clearly foreclosed by applicable law.
(d) If the alien has been provided the warning required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act, he or she need not be given any additional or further opportunity to account for any issues with his or her claim prior to the entry of a frivolous finding.
(e) An asylum application may be found frivolous even if it was untimely filed.
(f) A withdrawn asylum application may be found frivolous unless:
(1) The alien wholly disclaims the application and withdraws it with prejudice;
(2) The alien is eligible for and agrees to accept voluntary departure for a period of no more than 30 days pursuant to section 240B(a) of the Act;
(3) The alien withdraws any and all other applications for relief or protection with prejudice; and
(4) The alien waives his right to appeal and any rights to file, for any reason, a motion to reopen or reconsider.
(g) For purposes of this section, a finding that an alien filed a knowingly frivolous asylum application shall not preclude the alien from seeking withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation.
The provisions of part 1208 are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in part 1208 is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(e)
(g)
(ii) If the alien is determined to be an alien described as ineligible for asylum in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or § 1208.13(c)(4) and is determined to lack a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture under 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(v), the immigration judge shall first review de novo the determination that the alien is described as ineligible for asylum in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or § 1208.13(c)(4). If the immigration judge finds that the alien is not described as ineligible for asylum in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or § 1208.13(c)(4), then the immigration judge shall vacate the order of the asylum officer, and DHS may commence asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 1208.2(c)(1). If the immigration judge concurs with the determination that the alien is an alien described as ineligible for asylum in 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) or § 1208.13(c)(4), the immigration judge will then review the asylum officer's negative decision regarding reasonable possibility made under 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(v) consistent with paragraph (g)(2) of this section, except that the immigration judge will review the fear of persecution findings under the reasonable possibility standard instead of the credible fear of persecution standard described in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(2)
(ii) The record of the negative fear determination, including copies of the Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, the asylum officer's notes, the summary of the material facts, and other materials upon which the determination was based shall be provided to the immigration judge with the negative fear determination.
(iii) A fear hearing will be closed to the public unless the alien states for the record or submits a written statement that the alien is waiving that requirement; in that event the hearing shall be open to the public, subject to the immigration judge's discretion as provided in 8 CFR 1003.27.
(iv) Upon review of the asylum officer's negative fear determinations:
(A) If the immigration judge concurs with the determination of the asylum officer that the alien has not established a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture, the case shall be returned to DHS for removal of the alien. The immigration judge's decision is final and may not be appealed.
(B) If the immigration judge finds that the alien, other than an alien stowaway, establishes a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture, the immigration judge shall vacate the Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and DHS may commence asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings under § 1208.2(c)(1), during which time the alien may file an application for asylum and withholding of removal in accordance with § 1208.4(b)(3)(i). Such application shall be considered de novo in all respects by an immigration judge regardless of any determination made under this paragraph.
(C) If the immigration judge finds that an alien stowaway establishes a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of torture, or reasonable possibility of torture, the alien shall be allowed to file an application for asylum and for withholding of removal before the immigration judge in accordance with § 1208.4(b)(3)(iii). The immigration judge shall decide the application as provided in that section. Such application shall be considered de novo in all respects by an immigration judge regardless of any determination made under this paragraph. Such decision on that application may be appealed by either the stowaway or DHS to the Board of Immigration Appeals. If a denial of the application for asylum and for withholding of removal becomes final, and deferral of removal has not otherwise been granted pursuant to § 1208.17(a), the alien shall be removed from the United States in accordance with section 235(a)(2) of the Act. If an approval of the application for asylum, withholding of removal, or, as pertinent, deferral of removal becomes final, DHS shall terminate removal proceedings under section 235(a)(2) of the Act.
(f)
(g)
(1) If the immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer's determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the case shall be returned to DHS for removal of the alien. No appeal shall lie from the immigration judge's decision.
(2) If the immigration judge finds that the alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien may submit an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Such application shall be considered de novo in all respects by an immigration judge regardless of any determination made under this paragraph.
(i) The immigration judge shall consider only the alien's application for withholding of removal under § 1208.16 and shall determine whether the alien's removal to the country of removal must be withheld or deferred.
(ii) Appeal of the immigration judge's decision whether removal must be withheld or deferred lies with the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the alien or DHS appeals the immigration judge's
8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Public Law 108-458); Title VII of Public Law 110-229.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.
8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Public Law 108-458).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If an immigration officer verifies that an alien subject to expedited removal under section 235(b)(1) of the Act has been admitted as a lawful permanent resident or refugee, or granted asylum, or, upon review pursuant to § 235.3(b)(5)(iv) of this title, an immigration judge determines that the alien was once so admitted or granted asylum, provided that such status has not been terminated by final administrative action, and the Service initiates removal proceedings against the alien under section 240 of the Act.
(2) * * *
(i) If an asylum officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, reasonable possibility of persecution, or reasonable possibility of torture, and the alien requests a review of that determination by an immigration judge; or
(iii) If an immigration officer refers an applicant in accordance with the provisions of § 208.30 or § 208.31.
(c) The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in this part is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.