Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit 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.
Office of Management and Budget.
Guidance.
This document announces the availability of the 2020 Compliance Supplement (2020 Supplement) for the Office of Management and Budget's uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements regulations. This document also offers interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 2020 Supplement.
The 2020 Supplement replaces the 2019 Supplement and applies to fiscal year audits beginning after June 30, 2019. All comments to the 2020 Supplement must be in writing and received by October 10, 2020.
Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. Comments will be reviewed and addressed, when appropriate, in the 2021 Compliance Supplement. Electronic mail comments may be submitted to:
The 2020 Supplement is available online on the OMB home page at
Recipients and auditors should contact their cognizant or oversight agency for audit, or Federal awarding agency, as appropriate under the circumstances. The Federal agency contacts are listed in appendix III of the Supplement. Subrecipients should contact their pass-through entity. Federal agencies should contact Gil Tran at
The 2020 Supplement (2 CFR part 200, subpart F, appendix XI) adds 3 new programs, deletes 6 expired programs and provides updates on many other programs, where necessary. Consistent with the President's Management Agenda, Cross Agency Priority (CAP) goal number 8, “Results-Oriented Accountability for Grants,” Federal awarding agencies are encouraged to begin a paradigm shift in grants management from one heavy on compliance to a balanced approach that includes establishing measurable program and project goals and analyzing data to improve results. To that end, the 2020 Compliance Supplement continues the reduction of the compliance areas for auditor review in part 2, Matrix from a maximum of twelve to six, which was first implemented in the 2019 Supplement, and requires a review for performance reporting for 29 programs under part 4. OMB will work with Federal awarding agencies in future Supplements that will further emphasize the review on performance. This year's Supplement also includes guidance related to Coronavirus administrative relief included in the four OMB memoranda in appendix VII of the Supplement. OMB plans to work with Federal awarding agencies to identify the new COVID-19 programs with special compliance and reporting requirements that will be included as an Addendum to this Supplement, as appropriate. OMB intends to balance the review of both compliance and performance goals for these new COVID-19 programs.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On August 9, 2019, as a result of a petition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and data received in response to that petition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to withdraw the test procedure for conventional cooking tops established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In this final rule, DOE withdraws the test procedure for conventional cooking tops under EPCA. DOE has determined that the conventional cooking tops test procedure is not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle and is overly burdensome to conduct.
The effective date of this rule is September 17, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 8, 2011 and December 17, 2012.
The docket is available for review at
The docket web page can be found at
Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Email:
DOE includes the following industry standards, previously incorporated by reference into 10 CFR part 430:
(1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005-06).
(2) IEC 62301 Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
See Section IV.M. for a further discussion of these standards.
Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 include definitions for “cooking products,” which cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity, or microwave energy as the source of heat; as well as specific types of cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, and other cooking products. DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for cooking products are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i), respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for cooking products and relevant background information regarding DOE's determination to withdraw the test procedures for conventional cooking tops.
Title III, Part B
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops are codified at appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix I”).
DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in a final rule published in the
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (
On January 30, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (78 FR 6232, the “January 2013 TP NOPR”) proposing amendments to appendix I that would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products;
On December 3, 2014, DOE published an SNOPR (the “December 2014 TP SNOPR”), in which DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to specify different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR 37954.
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the “June 2015 NOPR”) proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR, DOE received a significant number of comments raising issues with the repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR and in separate interviews conducted with consumer cooking product manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and sell products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, “Household electric appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for measuring performance” (“IEC Standard 60350-2”) for measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated their view that the test methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all electric cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use test loads that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates also recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops that is more representative of actual cooking performance than the hybrid test block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For these reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
DOE published an additional test procedure SNOPR on August 22, 2016 (81 FR 57374) (the “August 2016 TP SNOPR”) that proposed amendments to the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the feedback from interested parties discussed above and based on the additional testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure rulemaking, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference the relevant sections of European standard EN 60350-2:2013, which provide a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. The test method specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test vessel whose size is selected based on the diameter of the surface unit under test. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual energy consumption and the integrated annual energy consumption to account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use, as it favored conventional ovens with low thermal mass and did not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the “December 2016 TP Final Rule”) repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens for the reasons discussed, and adopting the test procedure amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that, among other things: (1) Incorporated by reference the relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013, which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops; (2) extended the water-heating test method specified in EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops; and (3) clarified that the 20-minute simmering period starts when the water
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
The following sections of this preamble respond to comments received on the August 2019 NOPR and during the NOPR public meeting.
In this rule, DOE withdraws the test procedure for conventional cooking tops because testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using that test procedure yields inconsistent results. As a result, the outcomes of such testing are unreliable and it is unduly burdensome to leave that test procedure in place and require cooking top tests be conducted using that test method without further study to resolve those inconsistencies.
The current test procedure in appendix I for cooking tops measures the integrated annual energy consumption of both gas and electric cooking tops. The integrated annual energy consumption comprises active mode energy consumption of each surface unit on the cooking top, as well as the combined low-power mode energy consumption of the cooking top. In general, to measure the active mode energy consumption of each surface unit, a specified amount of water is heated in a vessel at maximum power (“heat-up” period) until a threshold temperature is reached, and then the power is turned down such that the water is left to simmer at just above 90 degrees Centigrade (°C) for 20 minutes (“simmering” period). The active mode energy consumption is the measured energy used during the entire heat-up and simmering periods.
DOE published its August 2019 NOPR proposing to withdraw the current test procedure for conventional cooking tops as a result of testing data AHAM submitted in its petition and in subsequent comments that was inconsistent with DOE's own testing results. With respect to gas cooking tops, AHAM's round robin testing of four laboratories showed a level of lab-to-lab variation in the cooking top gas energy consumption among four different cooking top models (3.02%, 3.63%, 9.67%, and 7.99%) that AHAM stated is higher than the acceptable level of variation, which it assumed to be 2 percent. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4)
AHAM also asserted in the petition that DOE did not properly evaluate element cycling in electric cooking tops, which could affect the repeatability of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 34) As discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE conducted testing of ten electric cooking tops to investigate issues raised in AHAM's petition.
As further discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also performed multiple tests on a single electric cooking top surface unit addressing the issue of element cycling in response to AHAM's petition.
DOE recognized that both its tests and AHAM's were conducted by skilled technicians who understand both the product and test requirements. DOE tentatively concluded in the August 2019 NOPR that the differences in its testing results and the results achieved by AHAM suggested that additional investigation of repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure was warranted. DOE stated its belief that the differences in test results were indicative of the test not being representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. 84 FR 39215.
In support of DOE's August 2019 NOPR to withdraw the cooking tops test procedure, AHAM re-submitted its prior comments on its petition as well as new comments that its test data demonstrate that DOE's cooking top test procedure does not produce accurate, reproducible, and representative results, and is overly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 2) With regard to representativeness, AHAM asserted that the test procedure is not representative of consumer use as required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), particularly for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4, Exhibit B at pp. 2-3) AHAM stated that, among other things, small burners are not typically used for boiling water, but that is what DOE's cooking tops test procedure measures.
Additionally, AHAM presented data indicating that the conventional cooking tops test procedure may not be reproducible across labs for both gas and electric cooking tops. AHAM submitted data showing that repeated attempts by experienced technicians to follow the test procedure led to inaccurate results. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 2, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33) AHAM responded to stakeholder comments that AHAM's data is faulty because DOE's most recent testing on the repeatability of test results for electric cooking tops, summarized in Table I of this rule and in Table III.1 of the August 2019 NOPR, demonstrated the test procedure is not highly variable. AHAM clarified that, while their testing results are similar to DOE's with regard to repeatability, DOE has not evaluated reproducibility like AHAM has, and those lab-to-lab results form a significant basis upon which AHAM relies in its petition. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM asserted that the results of its round-robin testing showed high levels of lab-to-lab variation, demonstrating that the test procedure is not reproducible. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33) AHAM argued that test procedures must be reproducible, at different laboratories and with different technicians, in order to be considered reasonably designed under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA.
AHAM additionally commented that the consensus standard working group in Europe has also indicated that, after gaining experience with its electric test—upon which DOE had based its electric cooking top test and gas cooking top test—significant variation is being seen in the simmer portion of the test. AHAM believes this further highlights the need for DOE to withdraw its cooking top test procedure until a more accurate test procedure is available and has been vetted through round-robin testing in the United States. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
With regard to test burden, AHAM presented data that the existing test procedure is unduly burdensome to conduct as written, as it takes about 20 hours for an average four burner cooking top and the test procedure requires testing of every single burner
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Appliances (GEA) submitted comments in support of AHAM's positions. Whirlpool commented that the test procedure has so much variation that the reported energy performance values are not accurate or meaningful for consumers to use. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) Whirlpool further asserted that the test procedure is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, as it must be monitored almost continuously with frequent manual adjustments made by the technician. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) At the conventional cooking tops public meeting held on October 9, 2019, Whirlpool stated that testing to the requirements of the test procedure would be a substantial laboratory requirement, the cost of which has not been captured. Whirlpool estimated it would have to build approximately six new laboratories to enable it to conduct testing of its products. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 34-35) GEA echoed AHAM's comments that its members were careful when conducting the previous testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and that it is the test procedure itself and unaccounted for differences in various cooking technologies that contribute to the higher-than-expected variation in test results. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA reiterated its prior comments that the test procedure is unduly burdensome, in terms of the required testing time and resources necessary to complete such testing. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) Additionally, GEA commented that future changes to the U.S. safety standards for electric cooking tops may adversely impact results from the cooking tops test procedure. GEA stated that future improvements in the relevant safety standards, if any, could also negatively impact the repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness of the cooktop test procedure. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
In response to the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also received a joint submission from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs)) and a joint submission from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), California Energy Commission and Natural Resources Defense Council (Joint Advocates). These stakeholders were opposed to the withdrawal of the conventional cooking tops test procedure. The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposed withdrawal is beyond its statutory authority, arguing that EPCA only authorizes DOE to prescribe or amend test procedures, not withdraw them without replacement. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 1) The CA IOUs and the Joint Advocates similarly commented that DOE's proposal to withdraw the cooking tops test procedure is not supported by DOE's own investigation and testing. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) Both stakeholders noted that, in light of AHAM's 2018 petition, DOE re-verified its water-based test procedure efficacy and found that the coefficient of variation for each surface unit's energy consumption did not exceed two percent of all units in the sample, which suggest the test procedure is repeatable for electric cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates commented that even if there are outstanding questions around repeatability or reproducibility, these have no bearing on whether the test procedure is representative or unduly burdensome to conduct. The Joint Advocates, with similar comments from the CA IOUs, stated that DOE provides no evidence in the August 2019 NOPR that the test procedure is not representative of consumer use nor any evidence that the test itself is unduly burdensome. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates commented that withdrawing the test procedure prior to additional testing and publication of the results for stakeholder comment would be unwarranted and harmful to consumers. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) Further, the Joint Advocates stated that withdrawing the test procedure would be unwarranted because, in the absence of performance standards for cooking tops, manufacturers are not currently required to use the test procedure.
The CA IOUs similarly requested that DOE consider conducting additional round-robin testing in an effort to further understand the overall variation in results and to further explore the reasons for the discrepancies with results achieved via DOE testing and other industry testing, particularly for gas cooking tops in light of AHAM's limited sample size for these products. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that, at the NOPR public meeting, AHAM suggested that ambient conditions impact the repeatability of the test procedure. In response, the CA IOUs provided in their written comments that ambient conditions are specified in the test procedure, and thus in a controlled laboratory atmosphere, unexpected changes in a controlled conditioned space should not be the cause for significant changes in the performance results from one test run to another. Therefore, the CA IOUs suggested that the true causes for discrepancies in the test results remain mostly unknown. In the absence of additional energy performance data and analysis to further understand why this test procedure may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and electric cooking tops, the CA IOUs deemed the withdrawal of the test procedure to be premature.
The CA IOUs further commented that they continue to support the water-based test procedure, believing it to be a straightforward representation of residential cooking top use, regardless of fuel type (gas or electric). They noted that the water heating method has been widely adopted in Europe and elsewhere, and they asserted that the 20-minute simmer portion of the test is representative of an “average household cooking duration.” The CA IOUs are not aware of any vetted operational studies or reports suggesting gas cooking tops are not used for heating and/or maintaining a liquid (
Recognizing that any additional performance testing can be burdensome, the CA IOUs commented that once manufacturers and third-party test laboratories acquire all required testing materials to accurately and effectively run the test procedure, the burden is far less considerable. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 3) Lastly, the Joint Advocates argued that DOE's statement in the August 2019
As previously stated, test procedures promulgated by DOE must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy efficiency of a conventional cooking top during a representative average use cycle or period of use as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The Federal test procedure must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Reproducible test procedures are necessary to ensure that testing results are consistent from test-to-test and lab-to-lab, especially for compliance testing. Variability in test results indicates the test procedure is not representative of consumer use, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. To ensure that the cooking tops test procedure measures energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use, DOE concludes that further investigation is necessary. Before DOE can determine any appropriate test procedure for use in developing a subsequent energy conservation standard, DOE must conduct additional testing and gather additional data, including testing at additional laboratories, and publish such data for public comment.
Because DOE determines the cooking tops test procedure is not representative, the testing cost and testing time associated with the test procedure are unnecessarily burdensome and cannot be justified. There is currently no performance-based energy conservation standard for conventional cooking tops, and so a test procedure is required only if manufacturers are making representations of energy efficiency. DOE finds there is no benefit to either consumers or manufacturers to leave in place a test procedure for which there are substantial questions as to the test's accuracy and reliability for making efficiency representations. Moreover, from a market perspective, there is harm in requiring manufacturers to incur the cost of a test procedure for communicating energy efficiency to consumers that yields inaccurate results.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA, DOE has the authority to withdraw a test procedure that is not representative of an average use cycle or period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct. Under this authority, DOE is able to withdraw test procedure rules that it discovers are faulty. DOE similarly invoked this authority when it repealed the conventional oven test procedure in the December 2016 TP Final Rule because it did not accurately represent consumer use. Notably, DOE received no objection to its authority to repeal the oven test procedure in that proceeding. 81 FR 91418, 91423-91424. Moreover, the APA provides any party with the right to petition for, among other things, the repeal of a rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e). AHAM has sought repeal of the cooking tops test procedure by submitting a petition under this APA authority. DOE is following the process required by the APA, by undertaking this rulemaking proceeding to repeal the cooking tops test procedure. See
AHAM submitted test results conducted by skilled technicians that is inconsistent with DOE's own testing results to date regarding the test procedure for conventional cooking tops. Because of the inconsistency, which indicates the test procedure is not reproducible, DOE determines that the conventional cooking tops test procedure does not accurately represent consumer use and is unduly burdensome. DOE therefore withdraws the conventional cooking tops test procedure in this final rule. A design standard for conventional cooking tops still remains, which does not require a test procedure. DOE will continue collecting testing data for conventional cooking tops to determine any appropriate test procedure for use in developing any subsequent energy conservation standard.
This final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” The E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated that it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed the withdrawal of the cooking tops test procedure under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 2017 NAICS code for cooking tops is 335210, small electrical appliance manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335210 is 1,500 employees. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. DOE primarily used the Compliance Certification Database in DOE's Compliance Certification Management System for cooking products to create a list of companies that sell cooking tops. DOE identified a total of 24 distinct companies that sell cooking tops in the United States.
DOE reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities met the SBA's definition of “small business” and screened out any companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign-owned and operated. Based on this review, DOE identified 12 domestic manufacturers of cooking tops that are potential small businesses.
This final rule withdraws the conventional cooking tops test procedure for manufacturers. This does not increase manufacturer's testing burden or add any costs to any manufacturers, small or large. For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule does not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.
Manufacturers of cooking tops must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for cooking products, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for cooking products. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it does 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. EPCA governs and prescribes federal preemption of state regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each federal agency to assess the effects of federal regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause 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 (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule does not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule does not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action to withdraw the conventional cooking tops test procedure is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
In this final rule, DOE maintains the incorporation of reference of the following test standards: (1) IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005-06), section 5; and (2) IEC 62301 Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01), sections 4 and 5. These standards include test conditions and testing procedures for measuring the average standby mode and average off mode power consumption of microwaves and were previously incorporated by reference in appendix I.
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
In this final rule, DOE also removes the test standard published by the
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 17, 2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 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
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(i)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
(1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates on a continuous basis.
2.1
2.1.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.1.1
2.3
2.4
2.4.1
2.5
2.6
2.6.1
2.6.1.1
2.6.2
2.6.2.1
3.1.
3.1.1
3.1.1.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.3
3.3.1 For microwave ovens except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product, record the average standby mode power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby mode, as determined in section 3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in standby mode. Record the average off mode power, POM, for the microwave oven off mode power test, as determined in section 3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in off mode.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the outer race of bearing migrating out of the aileron pivot fork on the control column. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 7, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 7, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by September 7, 2020.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD No. DCA/750XL/33A, dated February 7, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
DCA/750XL/33A is prompted by a report of finding the outer race of bearing P/N NA4901-2RSR migrating out of an aileron pivot fork on a control column of a 750XL aircraft. The [CAA] AD is issued to introduce retaining washers to the aileron pivot bearings in accordance with the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/115 issue 3, dated 21 January 2019. This issue 3 MSB introduces alternate washer P/N AN960-516 for P/N AN960-516L. The issue 2 MSB introduced alternate bolts for P/N NAS6605D60.
The original design of the aileron pivot bearings did not have the retaining hardware. After the design was revised and the retaining hardware was added to the design drawing, production did not follow the drawing. As a result, aileron pivot bearings were installed on the affected airplanes without retaining hardware. Without the retaining hardware, the outer race of the bearing can slip out of the aileron pivot fork, which may lead to excessive play in the control column.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
The FAA reviewed Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/115, Issue 3, dated January 21, 2019; Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS 7, Issue B, dated November 27, 2018; and Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS18, Issue NC, dated December 13, 2018. The service bulletin contains procedures for inspecting the aileron pivot fork end bearing assemblies of the starboard and port control columns for security and installing retaining washers and a bolt secured with a castellated nut and split pin. The service drawings contain the specifications of the required washers. 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 also reviewed Pacific Aerospace Drawing Number BOL6603 thru 6620, Issue A, dated December 19, 2018. This drawing contains the specifications for bolts that may be used in the aileron pivot fork end bearing assemblies.
The MCAI requires a daily inspection of the bearing assemblies and allows either a mechanic or a pilot rated for this airplane to perform these inspections. This AD does not require these daily inspections.
The MCAI requires installation of the retaining hardware within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS). The aileron pivot fork bearing could migrate out of position at any time during any flight operation. Because this AD does not require the daily visual inspections until the retaining hardware is installed, the FAA has determined that a shorter compliance time is necessary to address the unsafe condition. Therefore, this AD requires installing the retaining hardware within 10 hours TIS or 15 days, whichever occurs first.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because it evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the aileron pivot fork bearing could slip out of the control column at any time during flight and cause excessive play in the control column. This condition could result in loss of airplane control. Therefore, the corrective actions are required by this AD within 10 hours TIS or 15 days, whichever occurs first. The risk assessment received by the FAA, and reconfirmed in July of 2020, indicates that urgent action is required. Thus, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that it will take 3 work-hours per product to install the
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,050, or $275 per product.
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.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 7, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 220, 8001, and 8002, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the outer race of bearing migrating out of the aileron pivot fork on the control column. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the aileron pivot fork bearing from slipping out of the control column during flight. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could cause excessive play in the control column with consequent loss of airplane control.
Unless already done, within 10 hours time-in-service after September 7, 2020 (the effective date of this AD) or within 15 days after September 7, 2020 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, install retaining hardware on each aileron pivot fork bearing assembly fork end on the starboard and port control columns in accordance with Part B-Installation-hardware of the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/115, Issue 3, dated January 21, 2019; Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS 7, Issue B, dated November 27, 2018; and Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS18, Issue NC, dated December 13, 2018.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
Special flight permits are not permitted for this AD.
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD No. DCA/750XL/33A, dated February 7, 2019; and Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number BOL6603 thru 6620, Issue A, dated December 19, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/115, Issue 3, dated January 21, 2019.
(ii) Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS 7, Issue B, dated November 27, 2018.
(iii) Pacific Aerospace Limited Drawing Number WAS18, Issue NC, dated December 13, 2018.
(3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 7843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
(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 superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-14-05 for Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2017-14-05 required replacing certain right-hand (RH) hydraulic pumps and was prompted by reports of broken screws that attach the cover of the hydraulic pump. This new AD requires replacing certain left-hand (LH) and RH hydraulic pumps. This AD was prompted by reports of broken bolts that attach the cover of the hydraulic pump. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 22, 2020.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972-641-0000 or 800-232-0323; fax 972-641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-14-05, Amendment 39-18949 (82 FR 31899, July 11, 2017) (“AD 2017-14-05”). AD 2017-14-05 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters with certain serial-numbered LH and RH hydraulic pumps part number (P/N) FR65WEO2005-175A installed. The SNPRM published in the
The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2016-0264-E, dated December 22, 2016, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model SA 330 J helicopters. EASA advises of reports of broken screws that attach the cover of the hydraulic pump. A subsequent investigation revealed that hydrogen was introduced into a batch of screws delivered between July 1, 2015, and November 1, 2016, causing the screws to become brittle and lack sufficient strength. These screws were installed in a batch of hydraulic pumps, P/N FR65WEO2005-175A, identified by certain serial numbers (S/Ns). As a result, the EASA AD requires replacing the hydraulic pumps.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but did not receive any comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. SA330-29.12, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016, which specifies removing Nexter Mechanics hydraulic pumps P/N FR65WEO2005-175A with certain S/Ns. If both the RH and LH hydraulic pumps have an affected P/N and S/N, the service information specifies replacing the RH hydraulic pump before further flight and the LH hydraulic pump within 110 flying hours or 6 months. If only one hydraulic pump has an affected P/N and S/N, the service information specifies replacing it within 110 flying hours or 6 months. The service information also specifies that, for 6 months after receipt of the service information, an affected hydraulic pump must be “returned to conformity” by complying with Nexter Mechanics Alert Service Bulletin No. NM/INGE/16-140, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016, before installation.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 24 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the
Replacing a hydraulic pump takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $2,500 for an estimated cost of $2,670 per hydraulic pump.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters, certificated in any category, with a left-hand (LH) or a right-hand (RH) hydraulic pump part number FR65WEO2005-175A with a serial number 4108, 4141, 4177, 4227, 4241, 4284, 4377, 4422, 4570, 4573, 4574, 4641, 4649, 4668, 4766, 4802, 4821, 4831, 4837, 4888, 4896, 4946, 4985, 5023, 5071, 5304, 5366, 5376, 5409, 5442, 5486, 5599, 5630, 94075/01, or 94048/01 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a bolt attaching the hydraulic pump cover. This condition could result in loss of fluid from the hydraulic pump, resulting in loss of the hydraulic system and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
This AD replaces AD 2017-14-05, Amendment 39-18949 (82 FR 31899, July 11, 2017) (“AD 2017-14-05”).
This AD becomes effective September 22, 2020.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For helicopters with both a LH and RH hydraulic pump that is listed in paragraph (a) of this AD installed:
(i) Within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) from July 26, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-14-05), replace the RH hydraulic pump with an airworthy hydraulic pump that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(ii) Within 110 hours TIS from the effective date of this AD, replace the LH hydraulic pump with an airworthy hydraulic pump that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(2) For helicopters with either a LH or RH hydraulic pump that is listed in paragraph (a) of this AD installed, within 110 hours TIS from the effective date of this AD, replace the hydraulic pump with an airworthy hydraulic pump that is not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(3) After July 26, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-14-05), do not install on any helicopter a hydraulic pump that is listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. SA330-29.12, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016, and Nexter Mechanics Alert Service Bulletin No. NM/INGE/16-140, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 972-641-0000 or 800-232-0323; fax 972-641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) AD No. 2016-0264-E, dated December 22, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2913, Hydraulic Pump (Electric/Engine) Main.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2018-04-09 for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrectly marked and annunciated low oil-pressure indication warnings. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 22, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 22, 2020.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of April 12, 2018 (83 FR 9793, March 8, 2018).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by removing AD 2018-04-09, Amendment 39-19205 (83 FR 9793, March 8, 2018) (AD 2018-04-09) and adding a new AD. AD 2018-04-09 applied to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes and was based on MCAI issued by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand. The SNPRM published in the
The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) (pilot's operating handbook (POH)) with updated provisions, clarify that the pressure switch for the low oil pressure light may be replaced or modified, and retain the requirement to replace the oil pressure/temperature indicator. The NPRM was based on the CAA's revision to its previous MCAI, CAA AD DCA/750XL/19A, dated April 26, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to mandate the AFM revisions and also to include an option to modify certain oil pressure switches. The MCAI states: DCA/750XL/19A revised to introduce revision 30 March 2018 for PAL 750XL POH AIR3237, and clarify the AD requirements.
After issuing the NPRM, the FAA discovered an error in the title of one of the flight manuals to be revised. The SNPRM proposed to correct the error. The FAA is issuing this AD to require new revisions of the existing AFM, clarify the requirement to replace or modify the pressure switch for the low oil pressure light, and retain the requirement to replace a certain oil pressure/temperature indicator.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA identified an incorrect Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code of 57 for Wing in paragraph (d), Subject, of the SNPRM. The FAA has changed paragraph (d), Subject, of this AD to identify the correct ATA Code of 79 for Engine Oil.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for the correction to the ATA Code. The FAA has determined that this change:
• Is consistent with the proposal in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Does not add any burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
The FAA reviewed Pacific Aerospace Temporary Revision Instruction Letter, dated October 2017, which includes Pacific Aerospace Temporary Revisions XL/POH/00/001, XL/POH/02/001, and XL/POH/03/001; and Pacific Aerospace Revision Instruction Letter, dated March 2018, which includes Pacific Aerospace POH AIR 3237 Revision, dated March 30, 2018, for 750XL airplanes. For the applicable configurations, the service information includes revisions to the AFM that corrects the incorrect instrument markings.
The FAA also reviewed Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/088, dated August 11, 2017, which was previously approved for incorporation by reference on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 9793, March 8, 2018), and describes procedures for replacement or modification of the low oil-pressure light, pressure switch, and indicator. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $500 per product.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $14,740, or $670 per product.
Since this AD requires the same actions as AD 2018-04-09, the costs of compliance remain the same and do not impose any additional costs on U.S. operators.
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 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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 22, 2020.
This AD replaces AD 2018-04-09, Amendment 39-19205 (83 FR 9793, March 8, 2018) (2018-04-09).
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to 217, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 79: Engine Oil.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrectly marked and annunciated low oil-pressure indication warnings. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent engine oil pressure from dropping below safe limits, which could cause possible engine damage or failure.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD, as applicable:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
Refer to CAA MCAI AD No. DCA/750XL/19A, dated April 26, 2018, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at:
(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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 22, 2020 (the effective date of this AD):
(i) Pacific Aerospace Temporary Revision Instruction Letter, dated October 2017.
(ii) Pacific Aerospace Revision Instruction Letter, dated March 2018.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 9793, March 8, 2018).
(i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/088, dated August 11, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
(6) 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. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-2, V-77, V-138, V-218, V-246 and V-398; amends low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-251; establishes low altitude RNAV route T-348, and removes VOR Federal airway V-411 in the vicinity of Waukon, IA. The Air Traffic Service (ATS) route modifications, establishment, and removal are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Waukon, IA, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID). The Waukon VOR provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes and is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0004 in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and low altitude RNAV 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 VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish low altitude RNAV route T-389 extending from the Farmington, MO, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) NAVAID to the KOETZ, WI, waypoint. After the NPRM published, the FAA discovered that the first three T-389 route points overlapped the same three route points in an existing low altitude RNAV route, T-251; thus creating a situation where the proposed T-389 and existing T-251 would overlap between the Farmington, MO, VORTAC and the RIVRS, IL, waypoint (intersection (INT) in the T-251 description). The proposed T-389 would then extended northward from the RIVRS, IL, waypoint to the KOETZ, WI, waypoint.
The FAA supports establishing a low altitude RNAV T-route between the Farmington, MO, VORTAC and the KOETZ, WI, waypoint as proposed in the NPRM. However, to avoid having two T-routes overlap providing redundant RNAV routing over the same area and to preserve a T-route number for future use elsewhere in the NAS, the FAA has determined it better to amend the existing T-251 by extending it from the RIVRS, IL, INT over the same routing proposed in the NPRM to the KOETZ waypoint instead of establishing T-389 to accomplish the same. By amending T-251, the FAA saves the T-389 route number for future use.
As such, this rule is amending T-251 by extending the existing T-route from the RIVRS, IL, INT northward to the KOETZ, WI, waypoint over the same route points proposed for T-389 in the NPRM, and not using the T-389 route number at this time. Additionally, this rule amends the RIVRS, IL, INT route point in the T-251 description to reflect it as a waypoint instead of an intersection.
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-2, V-77, V-138, V-218, V-246, and V-398; modifying low altitude RNAV route T-251; establishing low altitude RNAV route T-348; and removing VOR Federal airway V-411. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Waukon, IA, VOR/DME has made this action necessary.
The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
The low altitude RNAV route change and establishment are outlined below.
All radials in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-2, V-77, V-138, V-218, V-246 and V-398; amending low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-251; establishing low altitude RNAV route T-348, and removing VOR Federal airway V-411 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Waukon, IA, VOR/DME NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; to Nodine, MN. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.
From San Angelo, TX; Abilene, TX; INT Abilene 047° and Wichita Falls, TX, 204° radials; Wichita Falls; INT Wichita Falls 028° and Will Rogers, OK, 216° radials; Will Rogers; INT Will Rogers 002° and Pioneer, OK, 201° radials; Pioneer; Wichita, KS; INT Wichita 042° and Topeka, KS, 236° radials; Topeka; St Joseph, MO; Lamoni, IA; Des Moines, IA; Newton, IA; to Waterloo, IA.
From Riverton, WY; 35 miles, 80 miles 107 MSL, 16 miles 85 MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; Cheyenne, WY; to Sidney, NE. From Grand Island, NE; INT of Grand Island 099° and Lincoln, NE, 267° radials; Lincoln; Omaha, IA; INT Omaha 032° and Fort Dodge, IA, 222° radials; Fort Dodge; to Mason City, IA.
From International Falls, MN; Grand Rapids, MN; to Gopher, MN.
From Janesville, WI; to Dubuque, IA.
From Aberdeen, SD, via INT Aberdeen 101° and Watertown, SD, 312° radials; Watertown; Redwood Falls, MN; to Rochester, MN.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-55 and V-271; amends Area Navigation (RNAV) routes T-217 and T-265; and removes VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450 in the vicinity of Muskegon, MI. The air traffic service (ATS) route amendments are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes. This VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0189 in the
Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2019-1105 in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and 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 ATS routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The RNAV route T-215 identifier listed in the Title and in the “Summary” section of the NPRM was an editorial error. The correct route identification for the proposed RNAV route amendment addressed in the NPRM is T-217 and was correct as presented in the “Background,” “The Proposal,” and the regulatory text sections. As such, the RNAV route identifier listed in the Title and “Summary” section should reflect “T-217” instead of “T-215”. This editorial correction is included in this action.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-55 and V-271, modify RNAV routes T-217 and T-265, and remove VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
The RNAV route changes are outlined below.
The radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-55 description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-55 and V-271, modifying RNAV routes T-217 and T-265, and removing VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; Gipper, MI; Keeler, MI; to Pullman, MI. From Park Rapids, MN; Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand Forks 239° and Bismarck, ND, 067° radials; to Bismarck.
From Manistee, MI; to Escanaba, MI.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.
These regulations are effective September 15, 2020, through September 15, 2021. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11E is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2020, through September 15, 2021.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
Sarah A. Combs, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2019, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations § 71.1, effective September 15, 2019, through September 15, 2020. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11D in full text as proposed rule documents in the
This document incorporates by reference FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, in § 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11E, effective September 15, 2020, through September 15, 2021. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11E in full text as proposed rule documents in the
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this action: (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. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.11E is effective September 15, 2020, through September 15, 2021. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the
Order 7400.11D” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11E.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is revising its regulations to reflect changes to the Agency's organizational structure, including the reorganization of the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). The revisions update addresses and replace references to the district officials with references to division officials. The rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.
This rule is effective August 18, 2020.
Holli Kubicki, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-4557.
ORA has reorganized to align field activities by FDA-regulated commodity (
The regulations specified in this rule have been revised to replace references to the ORA Official, including “District Director” with references to the ORA division official, including “Division Director,” to reflect the ORA program alignment. In addition, we have updated the references to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, updated several addresses, and have made minor conforming amendments and
We are making these technical amendments to revise descriptions of FDA officials designated to perform certain functions. The amendments are technical and editorial in nature and should not be construed as modifying any substantive standards.
Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Section 553 of the APA exempts “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from proposed rulemaking (
FDA has determined that this rulemaking meets the notice and comment exemption requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (B). FDA's revisions make technical or non-substantive changes that pertain solely to the designation of FDA officials, and do not alter any substantive standard. FDA does not believe public comment is necessary for these minor revisions.
The APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as “provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule” (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). A delayed effective date is unnecessary in this case because the amendments do not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. As a result, affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Therefore, FDA finds good cause for the amendments to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic products, Imports, Radiation protection, Surety bonds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 1 and 1005 are amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1333, 1453, 1454, 1455, 4402; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 342, 343, 350c, 350d, 350e, 350j, 350k, 352, 355, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 360ccc-2, 362, 371, 373, 374, 379j-31, 381, 382, 384a, 384b, 384d, 387, 387a, 387c, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262, 264, 271; Pub. L. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594, 668-69; Pub. L. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885, 3889.
(b) The term
When a sample of an article offered for import has been requested by the division director, FDA shall provide to the owner or consignee prompt notice of delivery of, or intention to deliver, such sample. Upon receipt of the notice, the owner or consignee shall hold such article and not distribute it until further notice from the division director or U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the results of examination of the sample.
* * * Billing for reimbursement should be made by the owner or consignee to the Food and Drug Administration division where the shipment was offered for import. * * *
(a) If it appears that the article may be subject to refusal of admission or that the article is a drug that may be subject to destruction under section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the division director shall give the owner or consignee a written or electronic notice to that effect, stating the reasons therefor. * * *
(b) * * * If such application is not submitted at or prior to the hearing on refusal of admission, the division director shall specify a time limit, reasonable in the light of the circumstances, for filing such application.
(c) If the article is a drug that may be subject to destruction under section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the division director may give the owner or consignee a single written or electronic notice that provides the notice of refusal of admission and the notice of destruction of an article described in paragraph (a) of this section. The division director may also combine the hearing on refusal of admission with the hearing on destruction of the article described in paragraph (a) of this section into a single proceeding.
Application for authorization to relabel or perform other action to bring the article into compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or to render it other than a food, drug, device, or cosmetic may be filed only by the owner or consignee, and shall:
(a) When authorization of a proposal under § 1.95 is granted by the division director, the applicant shall be notified of authorization, in writing, which may include:
(3) That the operations are to be carried out under the supervision of an officer of the Food and Drug Administration or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as appropriate;
(b) Upon receipt of a written request for extension of time to complete such operations, containing reasonable grounds therefor, the division director may grant such additional time as he or she deems necessary.
(c) An authorization may be amended upon a showing of reasonable grounds therefor and the filing of an amended application for authorization with the division director.
(d) If ownership of an article covered by an authorization changes before the
(a) The bond requirements under section 801(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be satisfied by the owner or consignee executing, on the appropriate U.S. Customs and Border Protection form, a single-transaction or continuous bond, containing a condition for the redelivery of the merchandise or any part thereof upon demand of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and containing a provision for the performance of conditions as may legally be imposed for the relabeling or other action necessary to bring the article into compliance with the act or rendering it other than a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, in such manner as is prescribed for such bond in the customs regulations in force on the date of request for authorization. The bond shall be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(b) U.S. Customs and Border Protection may cancel the liability for liquidated damages incurred under the above-mentioned provisions of such a bond, if U.S. Customs and Border Protection receives an application for relief therefrom, upon the payment of a lesser amount or upon such other terms and conditions as shall be deemed appropriate under the law and in view of the circumstances, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall not act under this regulation unless the Food and Drug Administration division director is in full agreement with the action.
(b) Per diem in lieu of subsistence of the supervising officer when away from his or her home station, as provided by law.
(c) The charge for the services of the supervising officer, which shall include administrative support, shall be computed at a rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the hourly rate of regular pay of a grade GS-11/4 employee, except that such services performed by a customs officer and subject to the provisions of the act of February 13, 1911, as amended (sec. 5, 36 Stat. 901, as amended (19 U.S.C. 267)), shall be calculated as provided in that act.
(d) The charge for the service of the analyst, which shall include administrative and laboratory support, shall be computed at a rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the hourly rate of regular pay of a grade GS-12/4 employee. The rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the equivalent hourly rate of regular pay of the supervising officer (GS-11/4) and the analyst (GS-12/4) is computed as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For human drug products, biological products, and devices regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research—Office of Drug Security, Integrity and Response, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
(iii) For devices—DRP2: Division of Establishment Support, Office of Regulatory Programs, Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1423, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
(c) If FDA determines that FDA PNSI or the Operational and Administration System for Import Support (OASIS) is not working, FDA will post prominent notification and instructions at
21 U.S.C. 360ii, 360mm.
* * * Billing for reimbursement should be made by the owner or consignee to the Food and Drug Administration division where the shipment was offered for import. * * *
(b) Per diem in lieu of subsistence of the supervising officer when away from his or her home station, as provided by law;
(c)(1) The charge for the services of the supervising officer, which shall include administrative support, shall be computed at a rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the hourly rate of regular pay of a grade GS-11/4 employee, except that such services performed by a customs officer and subject to the provisions of the act of February 13, 1911, as amended (section 5, 36 Stat. 901, as amended (19 U.S.C. 267)), shall be calculated as provided in that act.
(2) The charge for the services of the analyst, which shall include administrative and laboratory support, shall be computed at a rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the hourly rate of regular pay of a grade GS-12/4 employee.
(3) The rate per hour equal to 267 percent of the equivalent hourly rate of regular pay of the supervising officer (GS-11/4) and the analyst (GS-12/4) is computed as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to revise a current mailing address and to add an email address to the previously codified contact information for use by distributors of an animal feed containing a veterinary feed directive (VFD) drug or a combination VFD drug. This technical amendment is being made to improve the accuracy and completeness of the regulations.
This rule is effective August 18, 2020.
Isabel Pocurull, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-221), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5877,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to revise a current mailing address and to add an email address to the previously codified contact information for use by distributors of an animal feed containing a VFD drug or a combination VFD drug.
This final rule sets forth a technical amendment to the regulations to improve the accuracy and completeness of the regulations, and as such does not impose any burden on regulated entities. Although denominated a rule pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.
(c) * * *
(7) The notifications cited in paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of this section must be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Division of Animal Feeds (HFV-220), 12225 Wilkins Ave., Rockville, MD 20852, Fax: 240-453-6882, or email (via attachment):
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting amendments.
On April 20, 2020, the Coast Guard published a correcting amendment that corrected errors in the coordinates describing the boundaries of the special anchorage areas in the Passagassawakeag River in the vicinity of Belfast, ME. Unfortunately, that correcting amendment also contained errors for two of the coordinates describing the boundaries of Special Anchorage Area A. This document corrects those errors.
Effective August 18, 2020.
If you have questions about this document, call or email Mr. Craig D. Lapiejko, Coast Guard First District Waterways Management Branch, telephone 617-223-8351, email
On April 20, 2020, the Coast Guard published a correcting amendment titled “Anchorage Regulations; Passagassawakeag River, Belfast, ME; Corrections” (85 FR 21773). This amendment corrected the coordinates to Special Anchorage Area A and Special Anchorage Area B in the Passagassawakeag River, Belfast Bay, Belfast, Maine.
On April 23, 2020, the Coast Guard was made aware of a discrepancy with two of the coordinates describing the boundaries of Special Anchorage Area A by a cartographer from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In the notice of proposed rulemaking we published to start the process of designating these special anchorage areas, we made it clear that they are intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions and to promote safe and efficient travel in the navigable channel of the Passagassawakeag River to the mouth of Belfast Bay (82 FR 46004, October 3, 2017). The potential of vessels anchoring in the navigable channel is contrary to waterway safety and coordinates identifying any portion of Special Anchorage Area A in the navigable channel are errors that must be corrected promptly to reduce the risk of vessel collisions in the navigable channel. As we stated in the final rule, we made no changes from the proposed rule (84 FR 32269, 32270, July 8, 2019). This document corrects two of the coordinates in 33 CFR 110.4(d)(1) describing the boundaries of Special Anchorage Area A in the Passagassawakeag River.
We find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make this correction effective on its date of publication. Delaying its effective date would continue the risk of vessel collisions in the navigable channel based on errors in the coordinates describing the special anchorage areas.
Anchorage Regulations.
Accordingly, 33 CFR part 110 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
33 U.S.C. 471, 2071; 46 U.S.C. 70034; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Missouri on January 14, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA revise a state regulation approved in the SIP related to sulfur emissions from industrial, commercial, or institutional boilers or process heaters in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The revisions to this rule include adding incorporations by reference to other state rules, including definitions specific to the rule, and wording changes that are administrative in nature and do not change the interpretation of the rule or the applicability of the rule. The EPA's approval of this rule revision is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on September 17, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0277. All documents in the docket are listed on the
William Stone, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7714; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The EPA is approving the revisions to 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-5.570,
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 25, 2018, to July 26, 2018. Missouri received sixteen comments from the EPA during the state public comment period. Missouri responded to all comments as noted in the state submission included in the docket for this action, and made revisions to the rule concerning incorporation by reference of Federal regulations or other testing methods, removal of definitions that were inconsistent with Federal definitions, and several non-substantive changes to the text of the regulation. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's request to amend 10 CSR 10-5.570.
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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 October 19, 2020. Filing a
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces the deletion of the Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site (Site) located in Jacksonville, Florida, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective August 18, 2020.
The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.
Leigh Lattimore, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW—MS9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-8768, email:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site, Jacksonville, Florida. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was July 16, 2020. One public comment was
The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the Preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FMCSA rescinds the requirement that drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating in interstate commerce submit, and motor carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect DVIRs). This final rule removes an information collection burden without adversely impacting safety.
Effective September 17, 2020.
Mr. José Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-5541,
For access to docket FMCSA-2019-0075 to read background documents and comments received, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
This rule affects all passenger carriers currently subject to 49 CFR 396.11, Driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIR). As a result of the Agency's ongoing effort to evaluate existing regulations for necessity and effectiveness, FMCSA rescinds the requirement that drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating in interstate commerce submit, and motor carriers retain, DVIRs when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect DVIRs). This final rule removes an information collection burden without impacting safety adversely.
Current regulations require drivers employed by passenger carriers—except drivers for private (nonbusiness) passenger carriers, driveaway-towaway operations, or those operating only one CMV—to report on the DVIR any vehicle defects noted or discovered during a driving day that would affect the safe operation of the CMV or result in a mechanical breakdown. Drivers must submit this report to the employing passenger carrier so that repairs can be made. Prior to this final rule, § 396.11(a)(2) required drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs to file the DVIR even if there were no vehicle defects to report. Motor carriers were required to maintain the original DVIR, the certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver's review for 3 months from the date the written report was prepared. This final rule eliminates the need for a driver to file, and a motor carrier to maintain, a no-defect DVIR.
The Agency estimates that passenger-carrying CMV drivers spend approximately 2.4 million hours each year completing no-defect DVIRs, and that the final rule will result in potential cost savings of $74 million per year. There is no discernible safety benefit to this no defect DVIR burden. The Agency estimates that this rulemaking will result in reduced government-imposed costs, and therefore is a deregulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (issued January 30, 2017, and published February 3, 2017, at 82 FR 9339).
This final rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)), both of which are broadly discretionary.
The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) may prescribe requirements for the following:
• Qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier (section 31502(b)(l)) and
• Qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation (section 31502(b)(2)).
This rulemaking is based on the Secretary's authority under section 31502(b)(1) and (2).
The 1984 Act authorizes the Secretary to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 31136(a)
This rule implements, in part, the Administrator's authority under section 31136(a)(l) to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely. The final rule is also based on the broad recordkeeping and implementation authority of section 31133(a)(8) and (10). This final rule addresses only CMV equipment and reporting requirements. It does not address the question whether drivers' responsibilities affect their ability to operate CMVs safely (section 31136(a)(2)). The provisions of the 1984 Act dealing with the physical condition of drivers (section 31136(a)(3) and (4)) do not apply.
Finally, to ensure that operators of CMVs are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a CMV in violation of a regulation, the rule eliminates only the requirement that drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs prepare no-defect DVIRs; it retains the rule requiring reports when there are defects or deficiencies, as well as the requirement for motor carriers to take appropriate action on receipt of the report. Because the rule removes a regulatory burden criticized by both drivers and motor carriers (and irrelevant to passenger brokers or tour groups), there is virtually no possibility that the driver of a passenger-carrying CMV would be coerced to violate the rule itself. A passenger carrier may require a driver to continue filing no-defect DVIRs, even in the absence of a regulatory requirement, as a condition of employment to perform duties not required by part 396, which would therefore not constitute coercion to violate a safety regulation.
On November 12, 2019, FMCSA published in the
FMCSA solicited comments to the NPRM for a 60-day period, ending on January 13, 2020. The Agency received a total of 12 comments from: United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Western Trails Charter & Tours (Western Trails), Freedom Excursions by Scully (Freedom Excursions), Coach USA, American Bus Association (ABA), and seven individuals. No public meeting was requested or held.
Eight commenters favored the proposal. Most pointed to the potential savings in time and paperwork.
UMA supported the proposed rule, stating that “Elimination of this burdensome regulation will readily reduce regulatory cost with no discernable reduction of safety in the passenger carrier industry.” UMA added that, while some passenger carriers will continue to require drivers to prepare and submit no-defect DVIRs, elimination of the regulatory requirement to do so will improve the effectiveness of investigations and safety audits because enforcement personnel will not have to review no-defect DVIRs.
Western Trails and four individuals stated that the rule would eliminate an unnecessary paperwork burden that has little safety benefit.
ABA stated that “In general, we support the elimination of unnecessary administrative burdens for motorcoach and other passenger carriers, which DVIRs appear to present,” and noted that “the retention of unnecessary and non-actionable documentation is a burden ripe for evaluation under the U.S. Department's new final rule codifying reforms to the Department's rulemaking procedures.”
Coach USA did not support the proposed rule, stating that it will continue to require its drivers to prepare and submit no-defect DVIRs and will continue to retain those DVIRs, regardless of FMCSA's decision. Coach USA stated if a driver is not required to complete and submit a DVIR, it has no way of confirming that the driver completed the required vehicle inspections. Coach USA noted that eliminating the requirement to prepare no-defect DVIRs “would leave a significant gap in Coach USA's vehicle maintenance process through which vehicle condition information (even a lack of defects/deficiencies) is directly communicated by drivers to dispatch/maintenance operations.”
Additionally, Coach USA contends that drivers may become complacent with respect to performing the required inspections if the requirement to prepare a no-defect DVIR is eliminated, and that “the DVIR serves a vital recordkeeping purpose to document drivers' completion of all required inspections.” Coach USA expressed concerns that other passenger carriers may not retain no-defect DVIRs, and that a resulting increase in bus crashes could negatively affect the public's perception of the bus industry.
One individual commenter indicated that the failure to generate no-defect DVIRs in the passenger-carrier industry, where a CMV is often operated by several drivers in a single day, would make it difficult to identify the driver who failed to file a DVIR when a defect is discovered at the end of the day. Because of this difference in operations, the commenter suggested eliminating no-defect DVIRs only where one driver operates the same vehicle for consecutive days.
Two individual commenters cited concerns that eliminating no-defect
FMCSA emphasizes that the Agency is not foregoing the fundamental requirements of part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, nor is it changing any other element of the inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements of part 396. Drivers are still required to perform pre-trip evaluations of equipment condition and complete DVIRs if any defects or deficiencies are discovered or reported during the day's operations. Motor carriers are still required to have systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance (including preventative maintenance) programs and to maintain records to prove measures are being taken to reduce, to the extent practicable the risk of mechanical problems occurring while the vehicle is in operation. In addition, motor carriers are still required to review DVIRs that list defects or deficiencies and to take appropriate action before the vehicle is dispatched again. The Agency retains the requirement that carriers complete periodic or annual inspections and maintain documentation for the individuals who perform periodic inspections and brake-related inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks. Furthermore, these CMVs remain subject to inspections.
Importantly, FMCSA did not propose to prohibit passenger carriers from requiring their drivers to prepare DVIRs, even when the driver has no vehicle defects to report. All motor carriers, including passenger carriers, are free to continue to require no-defect DVIRs.
Coach USA's concern about a possible reduction in safety, resulting from the failure of drivers to conduct required inspections and thus failing to detect unsafe conditions, is like concerns noted in opposition to the 2014 rule
The MCMIS data also show that the vehicle out-of-service rate for passenger-carrying vehicles is approximately 6.6 percent annually—consistently less than one-third of the corresponding vehicle out-of-service rate for trucks. From this data, it is clear that motor carriers of passengers—because of the nature of their operations and the sensitive cargo they transport—have established and implemented comprehensive inspection, repair and maintenance programs that help ensure that their vehicles are in safe and proper operating condition at a rate that far exceeds that of other CMVs. As noted above, implementation of the 2014 rule eliminating no-defect DVIRs for trucks has not resulted in a reduced level of maintenance and safety or a higher percentage of vehicle and out-of-service violations. Given that passenger-carrying vehicles have a significantly lower vehicle out-of-service rate generally, the Agency does not believe that extending to them the same relief from the preparation and retention of no-defect DVIRs will result in any degradation in safety.
FMCSA recognizes that passenger-carrying CMVs are often operated by several drivers in a single day, but § 396.11(a) requires every driver to (1) perform a post-trip inspection of each vehicle operated during the day and (2) prepare a DVIR, if defects or deficiencies are discovered by or reported to the driver. The Agency does not believe that amendments are necessary to address operating scenarios in which a CMV is operated by multiple drivers in a single day.
With respect to the concerns about civil liability, FMCSA emphasizes that it is not eliminating the fundamental requirements of part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, nor is it changing any other element of the inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements of part 396. The rule does not change the requirement for CMV drivers to conduct pre- and post-trip vehicle inspections, nor does it change the requirement for CMV drivers to report defects or deficiencies that were found by or reported to them.
UMA commented that § 396.13(b) requires that, before driving a motor vehicle, a driver must “review the last driver vehicle inspection report.”
FMCSA notes that this requirement was established at a time when a DVIR was required at the completion of every day, regardless of whether defects or deficiencies were discovered by or reported to the driver. However, with the adoption of this final rule, a DVIR from the previous trip will now be available for review by a driver prior to operation of a vehicle only if (1) defects or deficiencies were discovered by or reported to the previous driver or (2) a motor carrier voluntarily opts to require its drivers to prepare no-defect DVIRs. Given that a large percentage of vehicles may not have a DVIR from the previous trip for a driver to review prior to operation, FMCSA is amending § 396.13(b) to clarify that before driving
The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences among nations.
This final rule amends the last sentence in 49 CFR 396.11(a)(2) that currently provides that the driver of a passenger-carrying CMV subject to this regulation must prepare a report even if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver; the drivers of all other commercial motor vehicles are not required to prepare a report if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver. FMCSA revises the sentence to provide that drivers are not required to prepare a report if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver. This final rule also amends 49 CFR 396.13(b) to require drivers, before driving a motor vehicle, to “[r]eview the driver vehicle inspection report if required by § 396.11(a)(2)(i).”
Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, this final rule does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders. In addition, this rule is not significant within the meaning of DOT regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)).
Under § 396.11, interstate passenger carriers (except private (nonbusiness) carriers, driveaway-towaway operations, or those operating only one CMV) must require their drivers to prepare a DVIR at the completion of work each day for each vehicle operated that covers at a minimum:
The report must list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation or result in mechanical breakdown. The driver of a passenger-carrying vehicle must prepare and submit the report even if no defect or deficiency is identified and the carrier must retain the report for 3 months from the date the written report was prepared.
Passenger carriers have used various means of compliance with this requirement including paper DVIRs and associated processes for tracking and filing (
FMCSA does not have information on the ratio of electronic versus paper-based DVIR processes used by passenger carriers. Regardless of the means of compliance, the burden associated with the requirement to complete no-defect DVIRs is estimated at 155 seconds per report in the most recent approved supporting statement for Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 2126-0003.
The supporting statement to the ICR estimated that there are 247,496 passenger-carrying CMVs in operation and subject to the DVIR requirements. As such, the no-defect DVIR rule imposes a substantial time and paperwork burden on passenger carriers with no discernible safety benefit.
In 2014, the Agency estimated cost savings associated with eliminating the requirement for no-defect DVIRs for property-carrying CMVs. As that rule is analogous to this final rule, the analysis follows the same approach. The Agency's 2018 approved supporting statement for ICR 2126-0003 states that there are 247,496 passenger-carrying CMVs for which DVIRs must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed.
Consistent with the methodology of the supporting statement and the 2014 analysis, the Agency assumes that each of these vehicles is used 65 percent of the days of the year, and that 95 percent of DVIRs are no-defect DVIRs for which it estimated a burden of 155 seconds. Therefore, the Agency estimated a paperwork burden of 2,401,747 hours [247,496 vehicles × (0.65 × 365) × 0.95 × 155 = 8,646,288,229 seconds or 2,401,747 hours]. Using a labor rate of $31 per hour,
Therefore, this final rule will result in potential cost savings of $74 million per year (Table 1).
In the 2019 NPRM, the Agency acknowledged that some carriers might continue to require their drivers to submit no-defect DVIRs, thereby lowering the estimated cost savings. The Agency received feedback from one commenter, Coach USA, indicating it would continue to require no-defect DVIRs. FMCSA has opted to present the impact on cost savings of Coach USA's decision for illustrative purposes only. The Agency considered adjusting the total estimate of cost savings from this
Coach USA indicated that it operates 2,800 motorcoaches. Using the same formula described above with an updated population of 244,696 vehicles (247,496 − 2,800 = 244,696), we estimate the paperwork burden at 2,374,575 hours.
The final rule benefits relate to the change in crash risk, if any, that would result from allowing a defect-based DVIR approach. The Agency has no information to suggest that preparation, submission, and review of no-defect DVIRs produce a greater level of safety than that of a defect-based approach. Further, no degradation in safety attributable to the 2014 elimination of the no-defect DVIR requirement for trucks has been observed. Both the baseline approach and the defect-based approach ensure that vehicles are inspected so that defects are noted and addressed. Therefore, the Agency estimates that this final rule will maintain the same level of safety.
E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 13771 requires that, for every one new regulation issued by an Agency, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. Final implementation guidance addressing the requirements of E.O. 13771 was issued by OMB on April 5, 2017. The OMB guidance defines what constitutes an E.O. 13771 regulatory action and an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, provides procedures for how agencies should account for the costs and cost savings of such actions, and outlines various other details regarding implementation of E.O. 13771. An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule has a total cost less than zero, and therefore is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
The present value of the cost savings of this rule, measured on an infinite time horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, expressed in 2016 dollars, and discounted to 2020 (the year the rule goes into effect and cost savings would first be realized), is $1 billion. On an annualized basis, these cost savings are $71 million. For E.O. 13771 accounting, the April 5, 2017, OMB guidance requires that agencies also calculate the costs and cost savings discounted to year 2016.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies try to minimize any adverse effects on these entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), the Agency estimates this final rule will have a positive economic impact on small entities in the form of cost savings through the elimination of 2.4 million paperwork burden hours, or 155 seconds per report.
In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to the proposed rule, FMCSA invited comment from members of the public who believed the proposed action would create a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. No comments were submitted by these entities to indicate that this reduction of 155 seconds is significant.
As stated in the IRFA of the proposed rule, the Agency does not have data on company affiliations, NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes, revenues, or employees with which to determine how many of these carriers are small entities, or to directly estimate the rule's impact on them. Therefore, FMCSA examined the impact to small entities using a conservative per-vehicle approach illustrated below.
FMCSA estimates that the average savings per vehicle will be $298 per year. The total savings of burden hours for this rule is 2,401,747, which applies to 247,496 vehicles. With an average annual time savings of 9.7 hours per vehicle (2,401,747 hours ÷ 247,496 vehicles), we estimate the average annual cost savings to be $298 per vehicle (9.7 hours × wage rate of $31).
Assuming drivers work 8 hours per day for 65 percent of the days in a year,
Using the low-range estimate of $58,000/year, if the average savings per vehicle is $298 per year, this final rule will produce savings of no more than 0.5 percent ($298 ÷ $58,000) of the average annual revenue needed to support one employee.
The RFA does not define a threshold for determining whether a specific regulation results in a significant impact. However, the SBA (Small Business Administration), in guidance to government agencies, provides some objective measures of significance that the agencies can consider using.
Given the average annual per-vehicle impact of $298, a small entity would need to have average annual revenues of less than $29,800 per vehicle to experience an impact greater than 1 percent of average annual revenue, which is an average annual revenue that is smaller than would be required for a firm to support one employee. The savings of $298 per vehicle relative to minimum necessary revenues of $58,000 per vehicle represent 0.5 percent, and as such, are below a 1 percent threshold of significance. Consequently, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $165 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2018 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final rule would not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss its effects elsewhere in this preamble.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FMCSA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rule reduces the burden hours for the “Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance” ICR, OMB control number 2126-0003. This ICR comprises ten individual information collections, each corresponding to a different area of the inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements. This rule affects only the ICR section dealing with burden hours associated with no-defect DVIRs for passenger-carrying vehicles.
In 2018, based on data from its MCMIS and Licensing and Insurance Systems, FMSCA concluded that there were 247,496 passenger-carrying CMVs. Consistent with past analyses of this ICR, the Agency assumed that these CMVs are used on average 65 percent of the year.
FMCSA has divided the DVIR process into two steps. The Agency estimated that the first step, filling out a DVIR, to takes 2 minutes, 30 seconds. The Agency estimated that the second step, reviewing and signing a DVIR, to takes 20 seconds, when defects are reported, and 5 seconds when no defects are reported. When there are no defects to note, there is nothing to review on the DVIR, and the form requires only a signature. The Agency estimates that 5 percent of DVIRs note defects and 95 percent of DVIRs note no defects.
This rule eliminates the burden hours associated with no-defect DVIRs for passenger-carrying CMVs, resulting in an annual reduction of 2,401,747 burden hours (247,496 CMVs × 65% utilization × 365 days × 95% of CMVs × 155 seconds ÷ 3,600 seconds per hour). The monetary value of this annual burden reduction, calculated using an hourly labor cost of $31, is $73,665,012 million (2,401,747 hours × $31, per hour).
A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
Additionally, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment to evaluate the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not create a privacy risk.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the Agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
FMCSA analyzed this final rule consistent with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.E.O.
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 396 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(a) * * *
(2)
(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report if required by § 396.11(a)(2)(i); and
(c) Sign the report to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
NMFS is correcting regulations implemented through a final rule that integrates Atlantic chub mackerel as a stock in the fishery under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. This notice corrects regulatory instructions to ensure that regulations are implemented as intended.
This final rule is effective September 3, 2020.
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141.
In FR Doc. 2020-15969 appearing on page 47103 in the
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Notification of referendum.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible first handlers and importers of mangos to determine whether they favor continuance of the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding a national mango research and promotion program and whether frozen mangos continue to be covered under the program.
The referendum will be conducted from September 21, 2020 through October 9, 2020. Ballots delivered to AMS via express mail or electronic means must show proof of delivery no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on October 9, 2020.
Copies of the Mango Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order) may be obtained from: Referendum Agent, Promotion and Economics Division (PED), Specialty Crops Program (SCP), AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915, facsimile: (202) 205-2800.
Marlene Betts, Marketing Specialist, PED, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-5057, or electronic mail:
Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (1996 Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to: (1) Ascertain whether the continuance of the Order is favored by eligible first handlers and importers covered under the program, and (2) ascertain whether the continuance of frozen mangos as a covered commodity in the Order is favored by eligible first handlers and importers (including frozen mango importers) covered under the program.
The second question is being included on the ballot because the Order was amended on February 21, 2019 (84 FR 5335) to add frozen mangos as a covered commodity. Therefore, importers of frozen mangos are currently paying an assessment of one cent ($0.01) per pound on frozen mangos. In addition, the National Mango Board membership was expanded from 18 to 21 with the addition of two seats for importers of frozen mangos and one seat for a foreign processor. The Department has determined that it is appropriate to conduct a referendum with two separate questions on the ballot in order to determine whether frozen mangos should continue as a covered commodity under the Order and whether first handlers and importers favor the continuation of the Order.
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from January 1 through December 31, 2019. Frozen importers began to be assessed under the Order on July 22, 2019, and therefore are eligible to vote since they imported during the representative period. First handlers who received 500,000 or more pounds of fresh mangos from producers and importers who imported 500,000 or more pounds of fresh mangos or 200,000 or more pounds of frozen mangos into the United States during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to §§ 1206.43 and 1206.202 for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. The Department will provide the option for electronic ballots. The referendum shall be conducted by express mail and electronic ballot from September 21, through October 9, 2020. Further details will be provided in the ballot instructions.
Section 518(d) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7417) authorizes continuance referenda. Under § 1206.71(b) of the Order, the Department must conduct a referendum every five years to determine whether first handlers and importers of mangos favor the continuation of the Order.
The Department will determine the results of the two referendum questions separately. The Department would continue the program if continuance is favored by a majority of first handlers and importers voting in the referendum. In addition, the Department would retain the provisions of the Order that added frozen mangos to the program and increased the size of the Board if favored by a majority of fresh first handlers and importers and frozen importers voting in the referendum. The provisions would also be retained if favored by a majority of frozen importers voting in the referendum. If not favored, the Department would conduct rulemaking to remove these provisions from the Order.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. Based on assessment and Customs data, it has been estimated that there are approximately 5 first handlers and 100 importers of fresh mangos and 70 importers of frozen mangos who will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Marlene Betts, Marketing Specialist and Heather Pichelman, Director, Promotion and Economics Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1206.100 through 1206.108, which were issued pursuant to the 1996 Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.
The referendum agents will distribute the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known eligible first handlers who received 500,000 or more pounds of fresh mangos from producers and to importers who imported 500,000 or more pounds of fresh mangos or 200,000 or more of frozen mangos into the United States during the representative period, prior to the first day of the voting period.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Mango promotion, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that would amend the animal disease regulations to provide for a National List of Reportable Animal Diseases, along with reporting responsibilities for animal health professionals that encounter or suspect cases of communicable diseases and disease agents. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on April 2, 2020 (85 FR 18471) is reopened. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 21, 2020.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Jason Baldwin, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. B, Fort Collins CO 80526; (970) 494-7225.
On April 2, 2020, we published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before June 1, 2020. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2017-0002. The comment period will now close on August 21, 2020. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We will also consider all comments received between June 2, 2020 (the day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of this notice.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 15 U.S.C. 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will conduct a virtual meeting. The committee is established consistent with and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor on a broad range of forest issues. Board information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via Adobe Connect along with two conference call lines: one line will be for participants, and one line will be for the public for listen only. Detailed instructions on how to attend the meeting virtually will be sent out via email along with a news release approximately one week prior to the meeting.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss:
The meeting is open to the public. Individuals wishing to provide comments with regards to this meeting's agenda and for comments to be included with the meeting minutes/records, comments must be submitted in writing by September 17, 2020. Anyone who would like to bring related letters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture.
Approval of notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to extend without change, a currently approved information collection entitled, “Research, Education, and Extension project online reporting tool (REEport).”
Written comments on this notice must be received by October 19, 2020 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Robert Martin, Records Officer; email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
following address:
Done at Washington, DC.
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 Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. Committee meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Rhode Island State Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call, on Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (EDT). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's project on licensing for formerly incarcerated individuals.
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. (EDT).
Conference Call-In Information: 1-800-437-2398; Conference ID: 6978023
Mallory Trachtenberg at
This meeting is available to the public through the telephone number and conference ID listed above. Callers can
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
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 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central Time, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights topics in the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central Time.
David Barreras, Designated Federal Official, at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Chicago 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 meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:30 a.m. (ET) on Tuesday, September 1, 2020. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss plans to conduct review of the Committee's civil rights project on disparate school discipline of West Virginia public school students of color, students with disabilities and students who identify as or are perceived to be LBGTQ.
Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. (ET).
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-367-2403 and conference call ID number: 2629531. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-367-2403 and conference call ID number: 2629531.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the Public Comments section of the Agenda. They are also invited to submit written comments, which must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after the 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 Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that meetings of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on the following dates: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 and Tuesday, September 1, 2020. The purpose of the meetings is to continue working on its project on health care disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee may hear from advocates and others on the topic.
Public Call-in Information: 1-866-575-6539 and conference ID: 3918108.
Barbara Delaviez at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-866-575-6539 and conference ID: 3918108. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-866-575-6539 and conference ID: 3918108.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez 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,
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 South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. (CDT), via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is project planning for the Committee's topic on maternal health disparities of Native American women.
Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (CDT)
Public Call-In Information: Dial: 1-800-367-2403; conference ID: 9800799
TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.
Mallory Trachtenberg,
Members of the public may listen to the
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 and provide the FRS operator with Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-800-367-2403; conference ID: 9800799. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days of the meeting date. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at the FACA Link and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. 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
• How children received instruction in a distance-format, if at all;
• how much digital and internet access children had, if at all;
• how much live interaction children had with teachers, if at all; and
• how much time was spent on distance learning.
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
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Louisville & Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting an expansion of Subzone 29I on behalf of Hyster-Yale Group, Inc., in Berea, Kentucky. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 12, 2020.
Subzone 29I currently consists of the following sites: Site 1 (52 acres) 2200 Menelaus Road, Berea; and, Site 3 (13.77 acres) 353 Walnut Meadow Road, Berea. The proposed expansion would add 3.57 acres to existing Site 1. No authorization for expanded production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Aker Solutions, Inc. (Aker) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Mobile, Alabama. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 7, 2020.
Aker already has authority to produce undersea umbilicals (approved as Kvaerner Oilfield Products), flying leads (steel tube; hydraulic), cobra head terminations, various assemblies (umbilical termination; subsea distribution; mud mat), and various jumpers (integrated controls; hydraulic bridge) within FTZ 82. The current request would add a foreign-status material/component to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Aker from customs duty payments on the foreign-status material/component used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material/component noted below, Aker would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the above listed finished products (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.7%). Aker would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The material/component sourced from abroad is polymers of vinyl chloride (PVC) (duty rate 3.1%). The request indicates that the material/component is subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 104 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved with regard to the portion of Burke County adjacent to the Savannah CBP port of entry, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
On April 14, 2020, Lilly del Caribe, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7K, in Carolina, Puerto Rico.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18F on behalf of Lam Research Corporation in Hayward, California. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 10, 2020.
Subzone 18F consists of the following sites: Site 1 (29.28 acres)—4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, Alameda County; Site 4 (14.82 acres)—1 and 101 Portola Avenue, Livermore, Alameda County; Site 5 (7.3 acres)—7364 Marathon Drive and 7150 Patterson Pass Road, Unit G, Livermore, Alameda County; Site 7 (0.91 acres)—6757 Las Positas Road, Livermore, Alameda County; Site 8 (0.44 acres)—7888 Marathon, Drive, Livermore, Alameda County; Site 9 (1.6 acres)—41707 Christy Street, Fremont, Alameda County; Site 11 (1.19 acres)—4050 Starboard Drive, Fremont, Alameda County; Site 12 (0.98 acres)—7650 Marathon Drive, Livermore, Alameda County; Site 13 (3.49 acres)—6551 West Schulte Road, Tracy, San Joaquin County; and, Site 14 (8.56 acres)—1201 Voyager Street, Livermore, Alameda County. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the subzone to include an additional site (2.77 acres) located at 20427 Corsair Boulevard, Hayward, Alameda County, which would be designated as Site 15. The expanded subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings—monthly webinars.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as part of its BroadbandUSA program, promotes innovation and economic growth by supporting efforts to expand broadband access and meaningful use across America. BroadbandUSA serves local and state governments, industry and nonprofits that seek to expand broadband connectivity and promote digital inclusion. BroadbandUSA will host a series of webinars on a monthly basis to engage the public and stakeholders with information to accelerate broadband connectivity, improve digital inclusion, strengthen policies and support local priorities. The Practical Broadband Conversations webinar series will provide an ongoing source of information on a range of topics being addressed by BroadbandUSA, including, but not limited to, best practices for improving broadband deployment, digital inclusion, workforce skills, smart communities, and economic development.
BroadbandUSA will hold the webinars from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the third Wednesday of every month, beginning October 21, 2020 and continuing through September 15, 2021, with the exception of December 2020 and August 2021.
This is a virtual meeting. NTIA will post the registration information on its BroadbandUSA website,
Christopher Holt, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4872, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4884; email:
NTIA's BroadbandUSA program serves as a trusted and neutral strategic advisor, collaborating with federal, state and local government, and industry leaders working to advance smart city and broadband initiatives designed to attract new employers, create quality jobs, improve educational opportunities, increase health outcomes and advance public safety.
BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect state and local stakeholders to other federal agencies and funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption
NTIA's BroadbandUSA team convenes events around the country to bring together government, industry and non-profit personnel working to expand broadband connectivity and improve digital inclusion and workforce skills. These webinars are among the events BroadbandUSA uses to share broadband information with the public, broadband stakeholders, tribal, local and state governments and federal programs.
Details on specific webinar topics and webinar registration information will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website,
The public is invited to participate in these webinars. General questions and comments are welcome at any time during webinars via email to
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice, request for public comments.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is seeking comments and recommendations for possible revisions to questions asked on the NTIA internet Use Survey. This long-running survey of individuals and households covers a range of topics related to digital inclusion and other internet policy issues, including the adoption of different types of devices and internet access technologies, locations of internet use, online activities, and challenges preventing some Americans from taking full advantage of the internet. This Notice and Request for Public Comments is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input as to what question additions, revisions, or deletions NTIA should consider in updating the survey instrument.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 17, 2020.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Rafi Goldberg, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4375; Email:
Since 1994, NTIA has partnered with the U.S. Census Bureau to produce the NTIA internet Use Survey (approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0060-0021), an important source of data for informing solutions to digital inclusion and other internet-related public policy challenges. This long-running survey of individuals and households covers a range of topics related to digital inclusion and other internet policy issues, including the adoption of different types of devices and internet access technologies, locations of internet use, online activities, and challenges preventing some Americans from taking full advantage of the internet. The survey is administered as a periodic supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey that includes approximately 50,000 households across all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The CPS is the source of certain national labor force statistics, including the unemployment rate. The Census Bureau uses a combination of in-person and live telephone interviews to gather data on every individual living in each surveyed household, including both demographic and labor force information. By contracting with the Census Bureau to field the NTIA internet Use Survey as a CPS Supplement, NTIA benefits from the CPS's existing infrastructure and sophisticated design, as well as the Census Bureau's considerable expertise.
The main goal of the NTIA internet Use Survey is to inform evidence-based analysis and development of internet policy generally, and particularly to support solutions that increase digital inclusion and bridge the digital divide. NTIA staff use the resulting data internally and in publications to help inform policymakers; relevant NTIA publications can be found at
Over the last 25 years, NTIA has continually sought to update the questions asked on the NTIA internet Use Survey as the technologies Americans use to communicate, learn, work, and participate in the digital economy—and the terms used to describe those technologies—evolve, and as new policy challenges emerge. NTIA and many external data users also value the ability to track changes in internet use and related metrics over
Before submitting a draft survey instrument for testing, NTIA is soliciting feedback from the public as to how it might further improve the questions asked in the survey—including, but not limited to, anyone who has used the survey data or is interested in doing so. NTIA intends to build on previous work by adding, deleting, or modifying questions asked in the 2019 NTIA internet Use Survey, preserving where possible the ability to track changes over time while also improving the efficacy and utility of the survey instrument. Interested parties can find the most recent survey instrument at
NTIA invites all suggestions of possible survey instrument changes to submit for cognitive testing. The following questions serve as a non-exhaustive guide to some of the survey design issues commenters may wish to address:
1. Should NTIA be aware of any past or future planned uses of data from the NTIA internet Use Survey? If so, which survey questions or topics were or would be most important to accomplishing this work?
2. What questions, if any, should NTIA propose adding to the NTIA internet Use Survey? New questions could either expand on an existing topic,
3. Which existing questions, if any, should NTIA consider modifying for future editions of the NTIA internet Use Survey? NTIA may modify the text of an existing survey question in a range of situations, including when recent developments suggest a need for new terminology or answer choices, or when a different question structure may reduce respondent burden or improve the resulting data. Commenters may suggest changes in general terms or by proposing specific question text. If desired, parties may also comment on any potential impacts to time-series comparisons.
4. Which existing questions, if any, should NTIA consider removing from the NTIA internet Use Survey? Reasons NTIA may consider removing a question include, but are not limited to, lack of practical utility (or lesser utility compared with potential new questions), challenges to collecting accurate data through a household survey, or events obviating the continued need for a previously important question. Please comment on any challenges that may result from question removal, including the loss of time-series comparisons.
5. In addition to questions discussed above, are there any questions or general issues related to the NTIA internet Use Survey that should be of particular focus during the cognitive testing process? The Census Bureau will test the entire draft survey instrument, creating an opportunity to assess the performance of all questions individually and collectively.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the extension of a proposed collection of certain information by the agency. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0059, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be
David Steinberg, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5102; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate electronic, or other forms of information technology,
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Project Implementation Evaluation Sponsor Survey for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Kelly Daly at 202-606-6849 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled CNCS Grant Application for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this Notice to the Attention: CNCS Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of Notice publication.
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Amy Borgstrom, at (202) 606-6930 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Sunshine Act Notice; Notice of Public Meeting Agenda; Correction
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission published a document in the
Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email:
In the
September 2, 2020, 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Electricity Advisory Committee's (EAC) charter has been renewed for a two-year period, beginning on August 7, 2020.
Mr. Chris Lawrence, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 586-5260; email:
The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery on programs to modernize the Nation's electric power system. Additionally, the renewal of the EAC has been determined to be essential to conduct Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, adhering to the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver; request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver and interim waiver from ECR International, Inc. (“ECR”), which seeks a waiver for specified furnace fan basic models, which are belt-driven, single-speed, and designed for use in “heat-only” applications, from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of furnace fans. DOE also gives notice of an Interim Waiver Order that requires ECR to test and rate the specified furnace fan basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning ECR's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure, as well as the alternate test procedure specified in the interim waiver granted by DOE, to inform DOE's final decision on ECR's waiver request.
The Interim Waiver Order is applicable August 18, 2020. Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before September 17, 2020.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email:
DOE is publishing ECR's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), absent any information for which ECR requested treatment as confidential business information. DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by September 17, 2020, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and the alternate test procedure specified in the Interim Waiver Order. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Ronald J. Passafaro,
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 17, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 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
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)); and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for furnace fans is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix AA, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnace Fans” (“Appendix AA”).
Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the performance of the product type in a manner representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).
As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On February 20, 2019, ECR filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to furnace fans set forth in Appendix AA.
In that filing, ECR asserts that the furnace fan models specified in its petition, which are belt-driven, single-speed, and designed for “heating-only” applications, have design characteristics that prevent testing of the basic model according to the test procedure prescribed in Appendix AA. ECR claims these basic models are factory-equipped for operation at an external static pressure (“ESP”) of 0.20” w.c. and cannot operate within the ESP range of 0.65”-0.70” w.c. required in Appendix AA. ECR states that the higher ESP required for the test reduces airflow, which in turn increases the temperature rise to the high temperature limit, which results in the unit shutting off before the test can be completed. ECR provided laboratory test data during the course of follow-up communications on May 24, 2019, June 3, 2019, August 5, 2019, and November 11, 2019, showing that the basic models for which a waiver is requested shut off at various ESPs ranging from 0.30”-0.60” w.c., depending on the particular basic model, with the units shutting down at an average ESP of 0.47” w.c.
ECR further asserts that the test procedure does not sufficiently account for the lower ESPs encountered by heating-only systems that only have one airflow-control setting, as compared to combined heating/cooling systems. ECR states that combined heating/cooling systems operate at higher ESP than heat-only systems due to the installation of an evaporator coil, and typically require different blower speeds for heating operation and cooling operation. ECR provided information on the operating conditions for two field installations of belt-driven, single-speed furnaces that are intended for heating-only operation, showing field ESP readings that are lower than the ESP required by Appendix AA.
Based on the assertions in ECR's petition, DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the furnace fan models for which ECR is seeking a waiver contain a design characteristic that prevents them from being tested due their inability to operate at the ESP requirement specified in the DOE test procedure at Appendix AA.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistency is important when manufacturers make representations about the energy efficiency of their furnace fans, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an
ECR seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific furnace fan basic models. Specifically, ECR requests that the specified models be tested under the current Appendix AA, with the following modifications: (1) In section 8.6.1, the ESP requirement is instead the factory-equipped ESP, increased by 0.08” w.c. to accommodate the fact that furnaces are tested for Fan Energy Rating (“FER”) without the air filter under Appendix AA; (2) sections 8.6.2
DOE has reviewed ECR's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by ECR, and the related data that ECR provided in support of its petition. DOE also reviewed data and analyses collected and conducted in support of the final rule establishing the furnace fan test procedure. Specifically, DOE reviewed the May 15, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) (77 FR 28674), the April 2, 2013 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNOPR”) (78 FR 19606), and the January 3, 2014 final rule (79 FR 500). In establishing the current test procedure for furnace fans, DOE examined field ESP data from numerous studies and found that typical field ESP often exceeds the ESP for which furnace fans are designed and factory-equipped. 79 FR 500, 506 (Jan. 3, 2014). In the NOPR, based on review of available studies looking at field operating conditions, DOE initially determined that for “heating-only” furnaces, an ESP of 0.50” w.c. would provide test results representative of an average use cycle. 77 FR 28674, 28686 (May 15, 2012). This is consistent with the range of ESP conditions under which the specified furnace fans are capable of operating (
Based on DOE's prior analyses of “heating-only” furnace fans and the data submitted by ECR, DOE is now requiring that the basic models specified in the Interim Waiver Order be initially tested at 0.50″-0.55″ w.c., rather than the 0.28″ w.c. suggested by ECR (which is the factory-equipped ESP of 0.20″ w.c. for the basic models for which a waiver has been requested, increased by 0.08″ w.c. to account for the use of an air filter in the field). However, given the difficulty that a number of the specified ECR basic models may have in operating at the ESP level, the alternate test procedure further specifies that if the unit under test shuts down prior to completion of the test, the ESP range is incrementally reduced by 0.05″ w.c., and the test is to be re-run. This process is repeated until a range is reached at which the test can be conducted to its conclusion, with a minimum allowable ESP range of 0.30-0.35″ w.c., which corresponds to the lowest ESP at which shut-off occurred in the ECR data.
The rationale for using an ESP range of 0.50″-0.55″ w.c., or the highest ESP that the model is capable of operating at during testing, rather than that suggested by ECR, is that the field data previously analyzed by DOE shows that 0.50″ w.c. is representative of field conditions for heating-only furnaces. The ESP value specified in the Interim Waiver Order is lower than that required by the furnace fans test procedure at section 8.6.1.2 of Appendix AA (
The alternate test procedure does not waive the requirements of section 8.6.3 of Appendix AA because, as DOE discussed in the furnace fans test procedure final rule published on January 3, 2014, that section is not applicable to the basic models specified in the Interim Waiver Order (
Regarding the testing in section 8.6.2 of Appendix AA, DOE notes that the testing required under that section is different than that required under section 8.6.1.2 (and section 8.6.3) of Appendix AA, in that the burner would be firing only in testing performed under the latter. Because the burner must be firing during the section 8.6.1.2 testing and must be off during the section 8.6.2 testing, it is possible that
Based on DOE's review and the preceding discussion, the alternate test procedure as specified in the Interim Waiver Order appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the energy consumption of the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing problems associated with ECR's testing of these basic models. Consequently, DOE has determined that ECR's petition for waiver likely will be granted in part. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant ECR immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that:
(1) ECR must test and rate the following furnace fan basic models with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2):
(2) The alternate test procedure for the ECR basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for furnace fans prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix AA (“Appendix AA”), except that the external static pressure (“ESP”) is adjusted in section 8.6.1.2 of Appendix AA as described below. All other requirements of Appendix AA and DOE's relevant regulations remain applicable. The change to section 8.6.1.2 reads as follows:
8.6.1.2.
(3)
(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.
(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and information provided by ECR are valid, and on the condition that ECR makes no representation on any public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, nameplates,
(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release ECR from the various requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. ECR may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of furnace fans. Alternatively, if appropriate, ECR may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g).
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2020.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
Under the current pilot project license, which expires on December 31, 2021, Verdant installed, tested, and then removed a total of five turbine-generator units. Verdant also proposes to install three turbine-generator units attached to one triframe mount in late 2020 (
The proposed project would be constructed in three phases: Install B-1 (under the existing pilot license, as noted above), Install B-2 (three triframe mounts with a total of nine turbine-generator units), and Install C (one triframe mount with three turbine-generator units). The project would consist of a maximum of fifteen 35-kilowatt, 5-meter-diameter axial flow turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 0.525 megawatt. Each of the five triframe mounts would be connected via underwater cables to an existing control room and a proposed shoreline switchgear vault, and via an overhead transmission line (for the first two triframe mounts) and an underground transmission line (for the remaining three triframe mounts) to a point of interconnection.
The project would operate using the natural tidal currents of the East River, during both ebb and flood tidal periods. As the direction of tidal flow changes, each turbine-generator unit would rotate (or yaw) to align the rotor to the direction of flow, through a passive system caused by hydrodynamic forces on the turbine-generator unit. The annual generation is expected to be from 840 to 1,200 megawatt-hours.
m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process.
The Commission, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the RITE 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 propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document 1 (SD1) issued August 12, 2020.
Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Spencer Mountain Hydropower, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process, and provided public notice of its request, on June 30, 2020. In a letter dated August 12, 2020, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Spencer Mountain Hydropower, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the North Carolina
l. With this notice, we are designating Spencer Mountain Hydropower, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Spencer Mountain Hydropower, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2607-015. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by June 30, 2023.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on July 31, 2020, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, NE 68124, filed an application in Docket No. CP20-503-000, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations thereunder, requesting the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, modify, replace and operate certain compression and pipeline facilities, with appurtenances, located in various counties in Minnesota. All relevant information is more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, or by calling (402) 398-7103.
Specifically, Northern proposes to: (1) Construct an 0.80-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline extension and an 0.63-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop; (2) replace an 0.08-mile-long, 8-inch-diameter branch line with an equivalent length of 12-inch-diameter pipeline; (3) construct a new 11,153 hp gas-fired turbine greenfield compressor station; (4) install an additional 1,100 hp electric-driven reciprocating compressor unit at its Pierz Compressor Station; and (5) construct various appurtenances, all located within Minnesota.
On December 6, 2019, the Commission staff granted Northern's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF20-1-000 to staff activities involving the Project. Now, as of the filing of this application on July 31, 2020, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP20-503-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or section 7 proceeding.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on a renewal of currently approved information collection, FERC-523 (Application for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities).
Comments on the collection of information are due October 19, 2020.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC20-20-000) by one of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's website:
•
• Effective 7/1/2020, delivery of filings other than by eFiling or the U.S. Postal Service should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the information contained in filings to determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or liability by the public utilities and licensees who submit these applications.
The specific application requirements and filing format are found at 18 CFR part 34, and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. This information is filed electronically.
Take notice that on August 5, 2020, Western Area Power Administration submitted an amended tariff filing per: UGP_PSMBP-ED_WAPA188 Errata Correction-20200805 to be effective 10/1/2020.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 19, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice.
On a temporary basis, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission will be sending its issuances through electronic mail and will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile transmissions.
Applicable: August 13, 2020.
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935;
Until January 1, 2021, case issuances of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), including inter alia notices, decisions, and orders, will be sent only through electronic mail. This includes notices, decisions, and orders described in 29 CFR 2700.4(b)(1), 2700.24(f)(1), 2700.45(e)(3), 2700.54, and 2700.66(a). Further, FMSHRC will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(2). If possible, all filings should be e-filed as described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(1).
30 U.S.C. 823.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) is suspending all in-person hearings, settlement judge conferences, and mediations until January 1, 2021.
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.
In view of the risks presented by the novel coronavirus COVID-19, the Commission's Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“OCALJ”) is, effective August 13, 2020, suspending all in-person hearings, settlement judge conferences, and mediations until January 1, 2021.
At the discretion of the presiding administrative law judge and in coordination with the parties, hearings may proceed by videoconference or by telephone. Similarly, settlement judge conferences and mediations may be held by videoconference or by telephone. If the parties agree that an evidentiary hearing is not needed, cases may also be presented for a decision on the record.
The parties will be notified if the hearing needs to be rescheduled. OCALJ will reassess the risks presented by in-person hearings prior to January 1, 2021, and issue a subsequent order informing the public as to whether the suspension of in-person hearings will continue.
The presiding administrative law judge may be contacted with questions regarding this notice.
30 U.S.C. 823.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The 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
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 3, 2020.
1.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-Day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed revision for the information collection requirements related to Evaluation of the Administration for Community Living's American Indian, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiian Programs (OAA Title VI).
Submit written comments on the collection of information by September 17, 2020.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kristen Hudgins, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is requesting approval for a revised data collection associated with the Evaluation of the Administration for Community Living's (ACL) American Indian, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian Programs (Older Americans Act [OAA] Title VI; short title: Evaluation of the Title VI Programs). OAA Title VI establishes grants to Native Americans for nutrition services, supportive services, and family caregiver support services. The purpose of Title VI is “to promote the delivery of supportive services, including nutrition services, to American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians that are comparable to services provided under Title III” (42 U.S.C. 3057), which provides nutrition, caregiver and supportive services to the broader U.S. population. Title VI is comprised of three parts; Part A provides nutrition and supportive services to American Indians and Alaska Natives, Part B provides nutrition and supportive services to Native Hawaiians, and Part C provides caregiver services to any programs that have Part A/B.
The evaluation will consist of removing one and adding a new data collection activity. ACL is requesting to revise the currently approved data collection under OMB 0985-0059 by removing the caregiver survey and adding a follow-up tribal program staff interview. The proposed revisions also include removing annual performance reporting data elements from the currently approved IC under OMB 0985-0059 to the OMB approved Title VI Annual Performance Report under OMB 0985-0007.
A notice was published in the
For review, please visit the ACL website
Administration for Community Living, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of intent to award a single-source non-competing continuation application.
This is a Notice of Intent to Award a Single-Source Non-Competing Continuation Application to Fund Grant Number 90ABRC, the University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, for an additional 12 months.
Aiesha Gurley, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201,
The Administration for Community Living announces an award of a single non-competing continuance grant 90ABRC to The University of Southern California to administer the National Center on Elder Abuse Resource Center. The University of Southern California administers the National Center on Elder Abuse which will provide up-to-date information on research, training, promising practices, news and resources on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation to professionals and the public.
The NCEA synthesizes and disseminates high quality research on elder abuse to encourage the translation of elder abuse research into practice.
The NCEA provides advice and resources to professionals, researchers, advocates and families around the nation by providing individual assistance via our helpline, website and social media.
The NCEA understands, evaluates, and informs policy development to ensure public policy is better aligned with effective practices concerning older adults and elder abuse.
The NCEA compiles training and awareness materials to further the field for those interested in the identification and prevention of elder abuse.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 19, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
CVM's Guidance for Industry (GFI) #79, “Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine”
CVM encourages applicants to begin the resolution of science-based disputes with discussions with the review team/group, including the Team Leader or Division Director. The Center prefers that differences of opinion regarding science or science-based policy be resolved between the review team/group and the applicant. If the matter is not resolved by this preferred method, then CVM recommends that the applicant follow the procedures found in GFI #79.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, September 24, 2020, 11:00 a.m. to September 24, 2020, 2:30 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting name from “National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Provocative Question 7” to “National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel SEP-7: Research Answers to NCI Provocative Questions”. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0013 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0030 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Form 255 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1202 (Chapter 98, Subchapters IV and XVI) and provided for by 19 CFR 145.12, 145.43, 148.110, 148.113, 148.114, 148.115 and 148.116. A sample of this form can be viewed at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 19, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0117 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2010-0014. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 19, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
(USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 19, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0029 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0042. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed 30 days after the date of this publication in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona. The surveys announced in this notice are necessary for the management of lands administered by the agency indicated.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Protests of these surveys should be sent to the Arizona State Director at the above address.
Gerald Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (602) 417-9558;
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of the Seventh Standard Parallel North through Range 8 East, the Second Guide Meridian East through Township 28 North, the south and west boundaries and the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 28 North, Range 8 East, accepted August 4, 2020, for Group 1183, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary and subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 34, and the metes-and-bounds survey in section 34, Township 14 North, Range 11 East, accepted August 4, 2020, for Group 1202, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south and west boundaries, and the metes-and-bounds survey of a portion of the Pusch Ridge Wilderness boundary within the Coronado National Forest, Township 11 South, Range 16 East, accepted August 4, 2020, for Group 1203, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
A person or party who wishes to protest against these surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within 30 days after the protest is filed. Before including your address, or other personal information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Humboldt River Field Office, Winnemucca, Nevada, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed expansion to the Relief Canyon gold mining operation in Pershing County, Nevada. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues to be considered in the EIS, and serves to initiate public consultation, as required under the National Historic Preservation Act.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. Comments on issues to be considered in the EIS may be submitted in writing until September 17, 2020. The dates and locations of two virtual scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers and the BLM website at:
You may submit comments related to the Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Jean Black, telephone: (775) 623-1500, email:
Gold Acquisition Corporation (GAC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Pershing Gold Corporation, itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Americas Gold and Silver Corporation, proposes an expansion to the existing Relief Canyon Gold Mine. The mine is located in Pershing County, Nevada, approximately 16 miles east-northeast of Lovelock, Nevada. The proposed expansion is located within GAC's authorized plan boundary and proposes to modify the existing plan as follows:
• Create roughly 576 acres of new surface disturbance on public and private land including re-disturbance of about 137 acres of previously disturbed vegetation communities.
• Expand the footprint of the existing approved pit area by approximately 84 acres (68 acres of public land and 16 acres of private land) with resultant elimination of a portion of existing Waste Rock Storage Facility (WRSF) 4.
• Mine to final pit bottom elevation of 4,420 feet above mean sea level (ft amsl), which will involve continued mining below the water table, and result in a post-mining pit lake that is predicted to reach an equilibrium elevation of 4,887 ft amsl roughly 50 years after completion of mining.
• Construct a dewatering conveyance pipeline and Rapid Infiltration to re-infiltrate up to 900 gallons per minute of mine dewatering water during the last 3 months of proposed Phase II mining.
• Install up to 50 vertical and horizontal drains in the pit wall to ensure pit slope stability and supplement pit dewatering operations.
• Convert up to 50 exploration drill holes located in and adjacent to the pit as vertical or near vertical drains and/or piezometer to monitor water levels to ensure pit slope stability and supplement pit dewatering operations.
• Expand WRSFs, heap leach pads, and construct process ponds, new growth media stockpiles, diversion ditches for stormwater control, and ancillary facilities.
• Expand yard and crusher-conveyor areas, roads, and fences.
• Close and reclaim all project facilities at the completion of Phase II.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to identify relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. The BLM has identified some preliminary issues associated with the Project:
(a) Formation of a pit lake and associated groundwater sink after completion of mining activities: The average pre-mining water table elevation was estimated to be 5,130 feet ft amsl, and the resultant pit lake is predicted to have a recovered surface elevation of 4,887 ft amsl;
(b) Potential impacts to wildlife habitat: The extended mine life and increased disturbance could affect wildlife including Golden Eagles. The BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will work cooperatively to analyze the affects the proposed project may have to Golden Eagle nests and territories.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the NHPA as provided in 42 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Native American tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency. Comments and materials, we receive, as well as supporting documentation that we use in preparing the EIS, will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Winnemucca District Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request in your comment that your personal identifying information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Proposed Official Filing.
The plats of survey for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved, including appeals.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
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. 6) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the investigation as to all respondents based on a settlement agreement. The investigation is terminated.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 27, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) of Osaka, Japan and Sharp Electronics Corporation of Montvale, New Jersey (collectively, “Complainants”). 85 FR 31807-08 (May 27, 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 liquid crystal display devices, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,245,329; 7,372,533; 8,022,912; 8,451,204; and 8,847,863. The Commission's notice of investigation names as respondents Vizio Inc. of Irvine, California; Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xianyang”) of Shaanxi, China; TPV Technology, Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong; TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; TPV International (USA), Inc. of Austin, Texas; Trend Smart America, Ltd. of Lake Forest, California; and Trend Smart CE Mexico S.R.L. De D.V. of Baja, California (collectively, “Respondents”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation.
On July 27, 2020, Complainants and Respondents jointly moved to terminate the investigation based on a patent license agreement between Sharp and Xianyang that resolves all issues as to all Respondents in the investigation.
On July 29, 2020, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 6), granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on the patent license agreement. The ID finds that the motion for termination satisfied Commission Rules 210.21(a)(2) and (b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(2), (b)(1)) and that termination of the investigation is not contrary to the public interest. No party petitioned for review.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 12, 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.
By order of the Commission.
Department of Labor.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 17, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202-693-0456, or by email at
Request for 20 CFR 718 specifies that certain information relative to the medical condition of a claimant who is alleging the presence of pneumoconiosis be obtained as a routine function of the claim adjudication process. The medical specifications in the regulations have been formatted in a variety of forms to promote efficiency and accuracy in gathering the required data. These forms were designed to meet the need to gather medical evidence. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Department of Labor.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of the Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 17, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202-693-0456, or by email at
Form CA-1032 is used to obtain information from claimants receiving compensation for an extended period of time. This information is necessary to ensure that compensation being paid is correct. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comment concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Overhead and Gantry Cranes.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 19, 2020.
Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The paperwork provisions of the Standard specify requirements for: marking the rated load of cranes; preparing certification records to verify the inspection of the crane hooks, hoist chains, and rope; and preparing reports of rated load tests for repaired hooks or modified cranes. Records and reports must be maintained and disclosed upon request.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply-for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting to retain the current burden hour estimate of 321,345 hours.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Weeks of August 17, 24, 31, September 7, 14, 21, 28, October 5, 12, 19, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 17, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 24, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 31, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 7, 2020.
10:00 a.m. Agency's Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (Public Meeting). (Contact: Luis Betancourt: 301-415-6146).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
10:00 a.m. Transformation at the NRC—Milestones and Results (Public Meeting). (Contact: Maria Arribas-Colon: 301-415-6026).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 21, 2020.
9:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business Lines and Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (Public Meeting). (Contact: Candace de Messieres: 301-415-8395).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
10:00 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting). (Contact: Celimar Valentin-Rodriquez: 301-415-7124).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 12, 2020.
10:00 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital and Equal Employment Opportunity (Public Meeting). (Contact: Randi Neff: 301-287-0583).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
1:00 p.m. All Employees Meeting with the Commissioners (Public Meeting).
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.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Death Benefit Payment Rollover Election, RI 94-7.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 17, 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, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0218) was previously published in the
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,
RI 94-7 provides Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) surviving spouses and former spouses with the means to elect payment of FERS rollover-eligible benefits directly or to an Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA), eligible employer plan or Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, First-Class Package International Service & Commercial ePacket contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 12, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Phlx Options 8, related to the Phlx Trading Floor, to memorialize its current Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery provisions.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Phlx proposes to amend its Trading Floor rules at Options 8, Section 26, Trading Halts, to memorialize its current Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery provisions.
Today, Phlx has a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan for its Trading Floor (“BCP”), which BCP provides for a back-up physical location at The Philadelphia Navy Yard, in the event that the physical Trading Floor, currently located at 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, becomes unavailable. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 26 to add a new section “g” to memorialize its current Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery plans. The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules at Options 8, Section 26 to amend the title of the Rule from “Trading Halts” To “Trading Halts, Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery.” The Exchange proposes to state within Options 8, Section 26 at new section (g) that, “The Exchange may activate its business continuity and disaster recovery plans to maintain fair and orderly markets in the event of a System failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstance that may threaten the ability to conduct business on the Exchange.” The Exchange proposes to state with new (g) that the following provisions shall apply with respect to the Exchange's Trading Floor:
(1)
(2)
(3)
These provisions above, are contemplated today by Phlx's BCP and enacted pursuant to Phlx's emergency authority within By-Law Article VII, Section 7-5.
Current Phlx Rules at Options 8, Section 1(a) specify, “The Options 8 Rules shall apply to Exchange options transactions by and among members and member organizations physically located on the Exchange's options trading floor, including the trading
In the event that the Trading Floor becomes unavailable, Phlx would act under its emergency authority, within Phlx By-Law Article VII, Section 7-5, to enact its BCP. Phlx Floor Members would be notified of the enactment of a BCP with an Options Trader Alert. The Options Trader Alert would provide details regarding the relocation to the Back-Up Trading Floor, including timing and contact information for any additional questions. The Back-Up Trading Floor would have the same capability to utilize FBMS as the primary Trading Floor today. The Options 8 Trading Rules would remain in effect and surveillance staff would relocate to the Back-Up Trading Floor along with Floor Members. The Exchange would operate the Back-Up Trading Floor in the same manner as to the primary Trading Floor.
Similarly, in order to relocate back to the primary Trading Floor, Floor Members would be notified with an Options Trader Alert of the timing to relocate to the primary location.
The Exchange proposes to provide, within proposed Options 8, Section 26(g)(1), that, in the event of loss of the Trading Floor, if the physical location designated as the “Trading Floor” becomes unavailable, Phlx will enact its BCP and utilize the Philadelphia Navy Yard as its “Back-Up Trading Floor.” Further, Phlx proposes to provide within Options 8, Section 26(g)(2) in the event that the Back-Up Trading Floor becomes unavailable or inoperable, the Exchange will only operate its electronic market and will not operate a Trading Floor. The Exchange will operate only its electronic market until the Exchange's Trading Floor facility is operational. Open outcry trading will not be available in the interim. Finally, the Exchange proposes to note within Options 8, Section 26(g)(3) that this rule does not preclude the Exchange from conducting business, in the event the Trading Floor and Back-Up Trading Floor are rendered inoperable, pursuant to Options 4, Section 10. Current Options 4, Section 10, Back-Up Trading Arrangements, outlines rules applicable to hosting Phlx at another exchange in the event Phlx is disabled.
The Exchange proposes to add the aforementioned provisions, from its BCP, within proposed Options 8, Section 26(g) to make clear to its floor market participants the potential outcomes for the Trading Floor in the event of a disruption.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal adds provisions from Phlx's current BCP to proposed Options 8, Section 26(g), to make clear to its floor market participants the potential outcomes for the Trading Floor in the event of a disruption. Today, Phlx would act under its emergency authority, within Phlx By-Law Article VII, Section 7-5, to enact its BCP. Pursuant to the BCP, Phlx could relocate to its Back-Up Trading Floor in the event the primary Trading Floor was inoperable, only operate its electronic market (if the Back-Up Trading Floor were inoperable) or conduct business pursuant to Options 4, Section 10 under a Backup Trading Arrangement.
In the event that the Trading Floor becomes unavailable, Phlx would act under its emergency authority, within Phlx By-Law Article VII, Section 7-5, to enact its BCP. Phlx Floor Members would be notified of the enactment of a BCP with an Options Trader Alert. The Options Trader Alert would provide details regarding the relocation to the Back-Up Trading Floor, including timing and contact information for any additional questions. The Back-Up Trading Floor would have the same capability to utilize FBMS as the primary Trading Floor today. The Options 8 Trading Rules would remain in effect and surveillance staff would relocate to the Back-Up Trading Floor along with Floor Members. The Exchange would operate the Back-Up Trading Floor in the same manner as to the primary Trading Floor. Similarly, in order to relocate back to the primary Trading Floor, Floor Members would be notified with an Options Trader Alert of the timing to relocate to the primary location.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 26 to add a new section (g) to memorialize its current Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery plans does not impose an undue burden on competition. The proposal adds provisions from the BCP to proposed Options 8, Section 26(g) to make clear to its floor market participants the potential outcomes for the Trading Floor in the event of a disruption, which exist today.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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.
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 is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15g-2 (The “Penny Stock Disclosure Rule”) requires broker-dealers to provide their customers with a risk disclosure document, as set forth in Schedule 15G, prior to their first non-exempt transaction in a “penny stock.” As amended, the rule requires broker-dealers to obtain written acknowledgement from the customer that he or she has received the required risk disclosure document. The amended rule also requires broker-dealers to maintain a copy of the customer's written acknowledgement for at least three years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place. Rule 15g-2 also requires a broker-dealer, upon request of a customer, to furnish the customer with a copy of certain information set forth on the Commission's website.
The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers, to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in “penny stocks” before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed during the course of an examination by the Commission.
The Commission estimates that approximately 182 broker-dealers are engaged in penny stock transactions and that each of these firms processes an average of three new customers for penny stocks per week. The Commission further estimates that half of the broker-dealers send the penny stock disclosure documents by mail, and the other half send them through electronic means such as email. Because the Commission estimates the copying and mailing of the penny stock disclosure document takes two minutes, this means that there is an annual burden of 28,392 minutes, or 473 hours, for this third-party disclosure burden of mailing documents. Additionally, because the Commission estimates that sending the penny stock disclosure document electronically takes one minute, the annual burden is 14,196 minutes, or 237 hours, for this third-party disclosure burden of emailing documents.
Broker-dealers also incur a recordkeeping burden of approximately two minutes per response when filing the completed penny stock disclosure documents as required pursuant to the Rule 15g-2(c), which means that the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping burden of 56,784 minutes, or 946 hours.
Furthermore, Rule 15g-2(d) requires a broker-dealer, upon request of a customer, to furnish the customer with a copy of certain information set forth on the Commission's website, which
The Commission does not maintain the risk disclosure document. Instead, it must be retained by the broker-dealer for at least three years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place. The collection of information required by the rule is mandatory. The risk disclosure document is otherwise governed by the internal policies of the broker-dealer regarding confidentiality, etc.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 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 collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
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.
1. Purpose
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
First, 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 August 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, the Exchange's proposal to waive the 1,000 contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP from March 1, 2020 until May 31, 2020.
On May 29, 2020, the Exchange filed, and the Commission approved, the Exchange's proposal to extend the waiver of the 1,000 contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP from June 1, 2020 until July 31, 2020.
The Exchange now proposes to extend the cap waiver of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until August 31, 2020. The purpose of this proposed change is for business and competitive reasons and to continue to entice market participants to submit larger-sized cPRIME Agency Orders.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule to update the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP to delete the Select Symbol “JCP,” associated with J.C. Penney, from the Select Symbols list.
The Exchange initially created the list of MIAX Select Symbols on March 1, 2014,
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to delete the symbol “JCP” from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP. This amendment is intended to eliminate any potential confusion and to make it clear to market participants that “JCP” will not be a MIAX Select Symbol contained in the PCRP as “JCP” options are no longer listed on the Exchange.
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 August 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 August 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.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to delete the symbol “JCP” from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the proposed change will allow for the continued benefit to investors by providing them an updated list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP on the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend an option class that qualifies for the credit for transactions in MIAX Select Symbols is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the PCRP itself is reasonably designed because it incentivizes providers of Priority Customer
The Exchange also believes that its proposal to delete the symbol “JCP” from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols in the Program. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
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 August 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 for the month of June 2020.
Further, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to delete the symbol “JCP” from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP will result in any burden on intra-market or inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposed change is a not a competitive proposal but rather is designed to update the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the PCRP in order to avoid potential confusion on the part of market participants and other competing options exchanges.
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: 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.
On January 30, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Chicago, Inc., NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the “Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been submitted in connection therewith, and the Exchanges' responses to comments. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Securities Act Rule 173 (17 CFR 230.173) provides a notice of registration to investors who purchased securities in a registered offering under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
On May 12, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “BOX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
BOX withdrew proposed rule change SR-BOX-2019-37 on May 12, 2020.
Comments on SR-BOX-2019-37 can be found at:
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
As described in the Notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
The Exchange states that ownership interests in BSTX are represented by two classes of units (“Units”): Class A Units, which represent equal units of limited liability interest in BSTX, including an interest in the ownership and profits and losses of BSTX and the right to receive distributions from BSTX as set forth in the BSTX LLC Agreement (“Class A Units”); and Class B Units, which are identical to Class A Units, except that they do not have the right to vote on any matter related to BSTX (“Class B Units”).
The Exchange states that BOX Holdings wholly owns BOX Options Market LLC (“BOX Options”), which is a facility of the Exchange
Holders of Units are referred to as LLC Members,
Pursuant to the BSTX LLC Agreement, a Controlling Person that establishes a Controlling Interest
Pursuant to Section 7.4(g)(iii) of the BSTX LLC Agreement, “a Person shall not be required to execute an amendment to [the BSTX LLC Agreement] . . . if such Person does not, directly or indirectly, hold any interest in [an LLC] Member.” BSTX LLC Agreement,
The Exchange states that the BSTX LLC Agreement includes provisions that ensure that the Exchange has full regulatory control over BSTX and these provisions are designed to prevent any owner of BSTX from having undue influence over regulatory actions.
Generally, actions by the Board will be considered effective only if approved by at least a majority of the votes entitled to vote on that action.
The Exchange also proposes how regulatory funds may be allocated. The Exchange states that, pursuant to the Facility Agreement, the Exchange will have the right to receive all fees, fines, and disgorgements imposed upon BSTX Participants with respect to BSTX's trading system (“Regulatory Funds”) and all other market data fees, tape, and other revenue (“Non-regulatory Funds”), and all Regulatory Funds and Non-regulatory Funds collected in respect to BSTX may be used by the Exchange, at its sole discretion, for regulatory purposes.
The proposal includes provisions regarding capital contributions and distributions. According to the Exchange, capital contributions will be reflected on the books and records of BSTX.
The proposal also includes provisions regarding the regulation of BSTX and regulatory jurisdiction over LLC Members of BSTX.
The Exchange also states that it submitted a separate filing to introduce structural changes to the Exchange to accommodate regulation of BSTX as well as BOX Options, which was approved by the Commission.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1),
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by September 8, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 22, 2020. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
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 is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 608 specifies procedures for filing or amending national market system plans (“NMS Plans”). Self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) filing a new NMS Plan must submit the text of the NMS Plan to the Commission, along with a statement of purpose, and, if applicable, specified supporting materials that may include: (1) A copy of all governing or constituent documents, (2) a description of the manner in which the NMS Plan, and any facility or procedure contemplated by the NMS Plan, will be implemented, (3) a listing of all significant phases of development and implementation contemplated by the NMS Plan, including a projected completion date for each phase, (4) an analysis of the competitive impact of implementing the NMS Plan, (5) a description of any written agreements or understandings between or among plan participants or sponsors relating to interpretations of the NMS Plan or conditions for becoming a plan participant or sponsor, and (6) a description of the manner in which any facility contemplated by the NMS Plan shall be operated. Participants or sponsors to the NMS Plan must ensure that a current and complete version of the NMS Plan is posted on a designated website or a plan website after being notified by the Commission that the NMS Plan is effective. Each plan participant or sponsor must also provide a link on its own website to the current website to the current version of the NMS Plan.
The Commission estimates that the creation and submission of a new NMS Plan and any related materials would result in an average aggregate burden of approximately 850 hours per year (25 SROs × 34 hours = 850 hours). The Commission further estimates an average aggregate burden of approximately 125 hours per year (25 SROs × 5 hours = 125 hours), for each of the SROs to keep a current and complete version of the NMS Plan posted on a designated website or a plan website, and to provide a link to the current version of the NMS Plan on its own website. In addition, the Commission estimates that the creation of a new NMS Plan and any related materials would result in an average aggregate cost of approximately $150,000 per year (25 SROs × $6,000 = $150,000).
SROs proposing to amend an existing NMS Plan must submit the text of the amendment to the Commission, along with a statement of purpose, and, if applicable, the supporting materials described above, as well as a statement that the amendment has been approved by the plan participants or sponsors in accordance with the terms of the NMS Plan. Participants or sponsors to the NMS Plan must ensure that any proposed amendments are posted to a designated website or a plan website after filing the amendments with the Commission and that those websites are updated to reflect the current status of the amendment and the NMS Plan. Each plan participant or sponsor must also provide a link on its own website to the current version of the NMS Plan. The Commission estimates that the creation and submission of NMS Plan amendments and any related materials would result in an average aggregate burden of approximately 11,050 hours per year (25 SROs × 442 hours = 11,050 hours). The Commission further estimates an average aggregate burden of approximately 124 hours per year (25 SROs × 4.94 hours = 123.5 hours rounded up to 124) for SROs to post any pending NMS Plan amendments to a designated website or a plan website and to update such websites to reflect the current status of the amendment and the NMS Plan. In addition, the Commission estimates that the creation of a NMS Plan amendment and any related materials would result in an average aggregate cost of approximately $325,000 per year (25 SROs × $13,000 = $325,000).
Finally, to the extent that a plan processor is required for any facility contemplated by a NMS Plan, the plan participants or sponsors must file with the Commission a statement identifying the plan processor selected, describing the material terms under which the plan
The above estimates result in a total annual industry burden of approximately 12,432 hours (850 + 125 + 11,050 + 124 + 283) and a total annual industry cost of approximately $483,333 ($150,000 + $325,000 + $8,333).
Compliance with Rule 608 is mandatory. The text of the NMS Plans and any amendments will not be confidential, but published on a designated website or a plan website. To the extent that Rule 608 requires the SROs to submit confidential information to the Commission, that information will be kept confidential subject to the provisions of applicable law.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its rules relating to the processing of auction responses. 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 Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to its auction mechanisms to provide a dedicated path for auction response messages originating from logical ports that will allow the System to process such messages more efficiently. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.25 (Message Traffic Mitigation) to adopt two separate message queues which would allow for auction response messages to be processed by the System in priority sequence relative to other non-auction response message traffic on a rotating basis.
The Exchange currently offers a variety of auction mechanisms which provide price improvement opportunities for eligible orders. Particularly, the Exchange offers the following auction mechanisms: Complex Order Auction (“COA”),
The Exchange proposes to modify the operation of its System to allow for the System to handle auction responses received via such logical ports in a way that the Exchange believes may reduce latency associated with auction responses. Currently, auction response messages wait in the same System queue as all other order and quote message traffic. In certain circumstances, the auction response period may end before queued response messages are processed, resulting in the initiating eligible order missing out on potential price improvement from respective queued auction response(s). For example, if an auction response submitted during an auction response period is received at a time where there is a deep queue of other message traffic, the auction response may not be “processed” by the System in sufficient time (
The Exchange therefore proposes to modify the way the System processes auction responses in order to allow the System to handle auction responses in a more timely manner, including during periods of high message traffic. As noted above, the System currently processes all message traffic in time priority. In other words, all messages are placed in a single “queue” based on the time the message is received by the System and handled by the System in that order. The Exchange proposes to adopt a separate “priority queue”, which queue would consist solely of auction response messages. Specifically, the System would be able to identify auction response messages and divert such messages from the general message queue (“general queue”) to the priority queue. The System would then alternate processing a certain number of messages as determined by the Exchange from each queue (
The Exchange believes the proposed modification to provide for a separate queue for the processing of auction responses increases the possibility that such responses are processed by the Exchange during the auction response period and have an opportunity for execution in the applicable auction mechanism. The Exchange believes this will, as a result, increase execution opportunities for liquidity providers that submit auction responses and enhance the potential for price improvement for orders submitted to each mechanism to the benefit of investors and public interest. The Exchange also believes the benefits that result from the adoption of a priority queue for auction responses would outweigh any potential negative impact to other message traffic. Moreover, the Exchange believes the impact to other message traffic to be de minimis.
Particularly, the Exchange reviewed all submitted message traffic from March 9-March 13, 2020 and notes that during this time period, auction responses across all its auction mechanisms accounted only for approximately 0.02% of the message traffic, whereas new order/quote messages accounted for approximately 40.3%, modify messages accounted for approximately 47.9%, and cancel messages accounted for approximately 11.7%. Accordingly, the number of messages that would be processed via the priority queue as compared to general queue is extremely small. Indeed, as noted above, only 0.02% of all messages would be processed via the priority queue and therefore the number of rotations between the two queues throughout the trading day would likely be very limited as there are only so many auction responses that would need to be processed compared to other message traffic. Moreover, only a mere 0.007% of non-auction response messages were related to a customer order. Therefore, the chances of a customer order being disadvantaged by allowing an auction response to be processed via a priority queue are nearly zero. Additionally, executions at the conclusion of an auction mechanism will occur in the same manner as they do today. For example, priority customer orders in the Book will continue to have first priority at each price level at the conclusion of a paired auction, regardless of whether an auction response is processed via a priority queue and processed ahead of a priority customer order.
Furthermore, the Exchange's review of auction responses during the period of March 30-April 3, 2020 indicated that approximately 17% of auction responses had no opportunity to execute in their respective auctions, notwithstanding being submitted within the auction response period. In certain classes, such as SPXW, this percentage was even higher. Particularly, 47% of SPXW auction responses had no opportunity to execute in the applicable auction, notwithstanding being submitted within the auction response period.
The Exchange also notes that it takes the system approximately 10 microseconds to process a single order/quote or auction response message and, on average, approximately 190 microseconds to process a mass cancel message. As such, under the current system, an auction response that is entered after a mass cancel message is more likely to be detrimentally impacted as compared to a mass cancel message that is entered after an auction response (
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that adopting a priority queue for all auction response messages will continue to allow the Exchange to set each auction response period to an amount of time that provides TPHs with sufficient time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders but provides auctioned orders with quick executions that may reduce market and execution risk, while also providing timely submitted auction responses with more execution opportunities in the applicable auction prior to the end of the auction response
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.
In particular, the Exchange believes modifying its System to allow it to handle auction responses in a timelier manner may provide further opportunities for auction eligible orders to receive price improvement that they may not otherwise receive if the System is unable to process auction response messages prior to the conclusion of an auction response period, if submitted during a time when there is a deep queue of message traffic. In particular, the proposed rule change will continue to provide investors with timely processing of their options quote and order messages, while providing investors who submit auction eligible orders with additional auction liquidity. Indeed, the proposed rule change may allow more investors additional opportunities to receive price improvement through an auction mechanism. While the Exchange may increase the length of auction response periods to accommodate more auction responses, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change allows the Exchange to continue to mitigate the market risk for TPHs using any such mechanism by setting the length of an auction response period to a time frame that allows an adequate amount of time for TPHs to respond to an auction message and fast executions. Additionally, a priority queue may provide liquidity providers that submit auction responses with additional execution opportunities in auctions, which may encourage the submission of more auction responses which may contribute to a deeper, more liquid auction process and, thus, provide investors with additional price improvement opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the information outlined above demonstrates why adopting a priority queue for auction responses would better provide customers with additional opportunities for price improvements with little impact to non-auction response message traffic. As discussed, auction responses account for an incredibly small fraction of message traffic submitted to the Exchange. Indeed, based on the Exchange's analysis, auction response messages accounted for a mere 0.02% of all message traffic submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange believe the processing of such a small amount of message traffic via a priority queue (which as proposed would rotate with the general queue) would therefore have a minimal impact on the processing of non-auction response messages in the general queue. Conversely, as demonstrated by the data discussed above, the current system configuration (
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants as all market participants are allowed to submit auction responses. Additionally, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to adopt a priority queue for auction responses as compared to other messages because auction responses are submitted only for the purpose of executing (and possibly providing price improvement) in auctions with short durations, whereas other messages are generally submitted to rest in or execute against the book (and generally not used to submit liquidity into auctions). As discussed above, the Exchange also believes the benefits that result from the adoption of a priority queue for auction responses would outweigh any potential negative impact to other message traffic, including customer orders, which have an incredibly low chance of being affected by the proposed change and which continue to receive priority allocation in any event.
The Exchange lastly does not believe that the purpose of the proposed rule change to adopt a priority queue for certain message traffic is new or unique. As the Commission is aware, other exchanges offer similar functionality. For example, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”) makes clear in its current technical specifications that it offers priority mass cancel ports, which similarly provide expedited processing for certain message types by alternating between processing messages from a priority queue (but for mass cancel requests instead of auction responses) and messages from a general queue (for all other message traffic).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed rule change would apply equally to all TPHs that submit auction responses. As noted above, all market participants are able to submit auction responses. Additionally, the Exchange believes the adoption of a priority queue for auction responses would have little impact to non-auction response message traffic. As discussed, auction response messages account for an incredibly small fraction of message traffic submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange therefore believes the processing of such a small amount of message traffic via a priority queue would have a minimal impact on the processing of non-auction response messages in the general queue. Moreover, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to adopt a priority queue for auction responses as compared to other messages because auction responses are submitted only for the purpose of executing (and possibly providing price improvement) in auctions with short durations, whereas other messages are generally submitted to rest in or execute against the book (and generally not used to submit liquidity into auctions). Lastly, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed change affects how the System processes auction responses that may only participate in auctions that occur on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees effective September 1, 2020, to implement a decrease in clearing fees. OCC's Schedule of Fees is included in Exhibit 5 to File No. SR-OCC-2020-009. Material proposed to be added to OCC's Schedule of Fees as currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's Schedule of Fees effective September 1, 2020, to implement a decrease in clearing fees. Under OCC's capital management policy, if OCC's Equity exceeds 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement plus the amount of approved capital expenditures, OCC's Board may reduce the cost of clearing by lowering fees, declaring a fee holiday, or issuing refunds.
OCC proposes to make the fee change effective September 1, 2020, because OCC believes that this date is the first date that the industry could be prepared to process the new fee without disruption based on consultations with market participants.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
In determining the appropriate level of the proposed fee decrease, OCC's Board and Compensation and Performance Committee considered a variety of factors, including projected average daily volume, operating income, and margin and a scenario analysis modeling the sensitivity of operating income and margin, adjusting for different volume levels, clearing fees and potential year-end refunds against the thresholds set forth in OCC's Capital Management Policy. The Compensation and Performance Committee also considered a sensitivity analysis assessing the minimum average daily volume required to support the proposed decrease.
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-009 and should be submitted on or before September 8, 2020.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that approximately 365 respondents will collect information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that each respondent will spend approximately 10 hours annually complying with the collection of information requirement for a total burden of approximately 3,650 hours per year in the aggregate.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On February 11, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Chicago, Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been submitted in connection therewith, and the Exchanges' responses to comments. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form CB (17 CFR 239.800) is a Document filed in connection with a tender offer for a foreign private issuer. This form is used to report an issuer tender offer conducted in compliance with Exchange Act Rule 13e-4(h)(8) (17 CFR 240.13e-4(h)(8)) and a third-party tender offer conducted in compliance with Exchange Act Rule 14d-1(c) (17 CFR 240.14d-1(c)). Form CB takes approximately 0.5 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 111 respondents annually. We estimate that 25% of the 0.5 hours per response (0.125 hours) is prepared by the respondent for an annual reporting burden of 14 hours (0.125 hours per response × 111 responses).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 433 (17 CFR 230.433) governs the use and filing of free writing prospectuses under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than October 19, 2020. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding this information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than September 17, 2020. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
1.
2.
3.
4.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) invites comments to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Due to COVID-19, the TPSC will foster public participation via written questions and responses relating to the comments received by the TPSC rather than an in-person hearing. This notice includes the schedule for submission of comments, questions and responses.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For procedural questions concerning written submissions, contact Yvonne Jamison at
China became a Member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-286), USTR is required to submit by December 11 of each year, a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including multilateral commitments and any bilateral commitments made to the United States. In accordance with section 421, and to assist it in preparing this year's report, the TPSC is soliciting public comments. You can find last year's report on USTR's website at
The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO agreements. You can find the Protocol and Working Party Report on the WTO website at
The TPSC invites written comments on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas:
A. Trading rights.
B. Import regulation (
C. Export regulation.
D. Internal policies affecting trade (
E. Intellectual property rights (including intellectual property rights enforcement).
F. Services.
G. Rule of law issues (
H. Other WTO commitments.
In addition, given the United States' view that China should be held accountable as a full participant in, and beneficiary of, the international trading system, USTR requests that interested persons specifically identify unresolved compliance issues that warrant review and evaluation by USTR's China Enforcement Task Force.
Due to COVID-19, the TPSC will foster public participation via written submissions rather than an in-person hearing on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO. In accordance with the schedule set out in the Dates section above, USTR invites written comments from the public. The TPSC will review the comments and may pose written clarifying questions to the commenters. The TPSC will post the questions on the public docket, other than questions that include properly designated business confidential information (BCI). USTR will send questions that include properly designated BCI to the relevant commenters by email and will not post these questions on the public docket. Written responses to questions that contain BCI must follow the procedures in section IV below.
In order to be assured of consideration, USTR must receive your written comments in English by 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 16, 2020. USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using
To submit comments via
Filers submitting comments containing no BCI should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. For any comments submitted electronically containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI.' Clearly mark any page containing BCI “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments that USTR will place in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character P.' Follow the `BCI' and P' with the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions. Instead, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges that you file submissions through
USTR will post written submissions in the docket for public inspection, except properly designated BCI. You can view written submissions on the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of modification of action.
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative announced a review of the action being taken to enforce U.S. World Trade Organization (WTO) rights in the Large Civil Aircraft dispute and requested public comments on possible modifications. Based on this review, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to modify the list of products subject to additional duties of 25 percent
The modifications to the Section 301 action set out in Annex 1 are applicable with respect to products that are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight savings time on September 1, 2020.
For questions about the investigation and modifications announced in this notice, contact Associate General Counsel Megan Grimball, (202) 395-5725, or Director for Europe Michael Rogers, at (202) 395-3320. For questions on customs procedures or the classification of products identified in the annexes, contact
On April 12, 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative announced the initiation of an investigation to enforce U.S. rights in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute against the EU and certain EU member States addressed to subsidies on large civil aircraft.
The April 12 notice solicited comments on a proposed determination that,
On July 5, 2019, USTR published a notice inviting public comment on a second list of products also being considered for an additional
On October 2, 2019, the WTO Arbitrator issued a report that concluded that the appropriate level of countermeasures in response to the WTO-inconsistent launch aid provided by the EU or certain member States to their large civil aircraft domestic industry is approximately $7.5 billion annually.
On October 9, 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative published a determination that the EU and certain member States have denied U.S. rights under the WTO Agreement and have failed to implement DSB recommendations concerning certain subsidies to the EU large civil aircraft industry. The U.S. Trade Representative determined to take action in the form of additional duties on products of certain member States of the EU, at levels of 10 or 25 percent
On December 12, 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative announced a review of the action and invited public comments regarding potential revisions.
On February 14, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative announced a determination to modify the list of non-aircraft products subject to 25 percent duty and to increase duties on certain large civil aircraft from 10 to 15 percent, effective March 5 and March 18, respectively.
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative published a notice announcing another review of the action and establishing a docket to receive public comments.
Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, provides in pertinent part that the “Trade Representative shall periodically revise the [retaliation] list or action to affect other goods of the country or countries that have failed to implement the [WTO Dispute Settlement Body] recommendation.” Section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii) provides that no revision is required under section 306(b)(2)(B) if the U.S. Trade Representative determines that implementation of the DSB's recommendations is imminent, or the U.S. Trade Representative agrees with the affected industry concerned that revision of the list is not necessary.
The U.S. Trade Representative has not determined that the circumstances set forth in section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii) currently apply, and accordingly has determined to revise the action being taken in the investigation. The EU has not taken any action on six of the launch aid measures found in the WTO compliance proceedings to continue to be WTO-inconsistent. Furthermore, although the European Commission recently announced amendments to French and Spanish Airbus A350 XWB launch aid contracts, these actions do not implement the DSB's recommendations by withdrawing the subsidies received by Airbus.
Section 306(b)(2)(D) provides in pertinent part that in revising any list or action, the U.S. Trade Representative “shall act in a manner that is most likely to result in the country or countries implementing the recommendations adopted in the dispute settlement proceeding or in achieving mutually satisfactory solution to the issue that gave rise to the dispute settlement proceeding.”
The modifications to the Section 301 action announced in this Notice are in
As specified in the Annex 1 to this notice, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to alter the composition of the list of non-aircraft products subject to additional duties. The level of additional duties on non-aircraft products will remain at 25 percent. In addition, the additional duty on certain large civil aircraft will remain at 15 percent.
Annex 1 to this Notice identifies the products affected by the revised action, the rate of duty to be assessed, and the current or former EU member States affected. Annex 2, section 1, contains the unofficial descriptive list of the revisions made by this Notice. Annex 2, section 2, contains an unofficial, consolidated description of the action, reflecting the changes in Annex 1.
In order to implement this determination, effective September 1, 2020, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by Annex 1 to this notice. The additional duties provided for in the HTSUS subheadings established by Annex 1 apply in addition to all other applicable duties, fees, exactions, and charges.
Any product listed in Annex 1 to this notice, except any product that is eligible for admission under `domestic status' as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which is subject to the additional duty imposed by this determination, and is admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight savings time on September 1, 2020, only may be admitted as `privileged foreign status' as defined in 19 CFR 146.41. Such products will be subject upon entry for consumption to any
The U.S. Trade Representative will continue to consider the action taken in this investigation. As stated in the February 21, 2020, notice, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that the action may be revised as appropriate immediately upon any imposition of additional duties on U.S. products in connection with the Large Civil Aircraft dispute or with the EU's WTO challenge to the alleged subsidization of U.S. large civil aircraft.
A. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time September 1, 2020, U.S. note 21 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified as provided herein:
1. U.S. note 21(a) to such subchapter is modified by deleting “9903.89.52” each place that it appears and inserting “9903.89.55” in lieu thereof.
2. U.S. note 21(e) to such subchapter is modified by deleting “0406.90.99”.
3. U.S. note 21(l) to such subchapter is modified by inserting “1905.31.00” in numerical order.
4. U.S. note 21(n) to such subchapter is modified by deleting “1905.31.00”.
5. U.S. note 21(q) to such subchapter is modified by deleting “subheading 8214.90.60” and inserting “subheadings 2007.99.05, 2007.99.10, 2007.99.15, 2007.99.20, 2007.99.25, 2007.99.35, 2007.99.60, or 8214.90.60” in lieu thereof.
6. U.S. note 21 to such subchapter is modified by inserting in alphabetical order:
“(r) Subheading 9903.89.55 and superior text thereto shall apply to all products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom that are classified in subheading 0406.90.99.”
B. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time September 1, 2020, the following new tariff provisions are inserted in numerical sequence in subchapter III of chapter 99, with the material in the following new tariff provisions inserted in the columns entitled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, and “Rates of Duty 1-General”, respectively:
Any questions regarding the scope of particular HTS subheadings should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions,
The following changes are made effective September 1, 2020.
(a) The following product has been removed from Part 4 of the descriptive list in Section 2.
(b) The following product has been inserted into Part 11 of the descriptive list in Section 2.
(c) The following product has been deleted from Part 13 of the descriptive list in Section 2.
(d) The following products have been added to the action, and have been inserted into Part 16 of the descriptive list in Section 2.
(e) Part 17 has been inserted into the descriptive list in Section 2.
Any questions regarding the scope of particular HTS subheadings should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Part 3—Products of Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 4—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 5—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 6—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 7—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 8—Products of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 9—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 10—Products of France, Germany, Spain or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 11—Products of Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 12—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 13—Products of Germany or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 14—Products of Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 15—Products of the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 16—Products of France or Germany described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem:
Part 17—Products of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, or the United Kingdom described below are subject to additional import duties of 25 percent ad valorem.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew the ICR titled “Accident Recordkeeping Requirements.” This ICR relates to Agency requirements that motor carriers maintain a record of accidents involving their commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Motor carriers are not required to report this data to FMCSA, but must produce it upon inquiry by authorized Federal, State or local officials.
Please send your comments by September 17, 2020. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, DOT, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
Definitions: “Accident” is an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce that results in (1) a fatality; (2) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (3) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. The term accident does not include (i) an occurrence involving only boarding or alighting from a stationary motor vehicle, or (ii) an occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo (49 CFR 390.5).
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 390.15(b), requires motor carriers to make certain specified records and information pertaining to CMV accidents available to an authorized representative or special agent of FMCSA upon request or as part of an inquiry. Motor carriers are required to maintain an “accident register” consisting of information concerning all “accidents” involving their CMVs (49 CFR 390.15(b) (see “Definition: Accident” below). The following information must be recorded for each accident: Date, location, driver name, number of injuries, number of fatalities, and whether certain dangerous hazardous materials were released. In addition, the motor carrier must maintain copies of all accident reports required by insurers or governmental entities. Motor carriers must maintain this information for three years after the date of the accident. Section 390.15 does not require motor carriers to submit any information or records to FMCSA or any other party.
This ICR supports the DOT strategic goal of safety. By requiring motor carriers to gather and record information concerning CMV accidents, FMCSA is strengthening its ability to assess the safety performance of motor carriers. This information is a valuable resource in Agency initiatives to prevent, and reduce the severity of, CMV crashes.
The Agency has modified several of its estimates for this ICR. The estimated number of annual respondents has decreased substantially, while the numbers of responses, burden hours, and annual costs to respondents have increased. Explanations for these changes are summarized below.
The previously-approved number of annual respondents is 866,122. This estimate was based on records of all interstate and intrastate motor carriers with “recent activity” in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) for calendar year 2015. However, not all of these motor carriers experience a DOT-reportable crash every calendar year. To more accurately estimate the annual number of respondents, we looked at the carriers associated with crashes reported in MCMIS for calendar years 2016 through 2018 and calculated the annual average. This gave us a significantly reduced estimate of 89,270 respondents per year.
The previously-approved burden is 36,157 burden hours. The Agency increases its estimate to 55,425 burden hours. The text of section 390.15(b) is unchanged; the increase in burden hours does not reflect changes in the requirements for accident recordkeeping. The adjustment in annual burden hours is due to a revised estimate of the number of reportable accidents from 120,522 to 184,749 per year, using interstate and intrastate DOT-reportable motor carrier crash records in MCMIS for calendar years 2016 through 2018. In the previous iteration of this ICR, only crash records for calendar year 2015 were considered, and only crashes for carriers with a DOT number and “recent activity” in MCMIS were included. In the current iteration of this ICR, we include recorded crashes in which there is not a recorded DOT number, but the CRASH_CARRIER_INTERSTATE field in MCMIS is coded as “Interstate” or “Intrastate” (thus suggesting that they are commercial carriers). This change in approach has resulted in an increased estimate of annual crashes subject to the Accident Register reporting requirements, and thus an increase in the number of responses, as each crash is associated with one response.
The revised version of this ICR includes estimated labor costs associated with maintaining the Accident Register. The previous iteration of this ICR did not include such an estimate; it only reported the estimated annual burden hours. The estimated annual labor cost for industry resulting from the Accident Register reporting requirements is $1,860,617.
Finally, the estimated annual cost associated with accident recordkeeping (outside of labor costs) is increased from $8,437 to $106,785. In the previous
On April 28, 2020, FMCSA published a
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The primary purpose of the ICR is to assess the effectiveness of various technologies, programs, and policies on motor carrier safety performance in support of the implementation of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 2015 (FAST Act) Beyond Compliance requirements.
Please send your comments by September 17, 2020. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Michel, Mathematical Statistician, Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology's Research Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-366-4354; Email Address:
FMCSA requests OMB's review and approval of a new ICR to implement the Beyond Compliance Program, required by Section 5222 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 2015 (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, Dec. 4, 2015).
The FAST Act requires FMCSA to allow recognition, including credit or an improved Safety Measurement System (SMS) percentile, for motor carriers that: (1) Install advanced safety equipment; (2) use enhanced driver fitness measures; (3) adopt fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs; or (4) satisfy other standards determined appropriate by the Administrator.
The FAST Act also requires the FMCSA Administrator to carry out the Beyond Compliance provisions through: (1) Developing a process for identifying elements of technology and safety programs as a basis for recognition; (2) seeking input from stakeholders; (3) using a third party for a monitoring program; and (4) providing a report to Congress.
The primary purpose of the ICR is to assess the effectiveness of various technologies, programs, and policies on motor carrier safety performance in support of the implementation of the FAST Act Beyond Compliance requirements.
To accomplish this, the study will complete the following three objectives:
(1) Identify high-performing carriers in terms of safety performance.
(2) Determine the safety technologies, programs, and policies employed by these carriers.
(3) Gauge the relative effectiveness of those safety technologies, programs, and policies based on the expert opinion and performance metrics of the high performing carriers.
The data being collected for this study consists of responses from a select group of motor carriers on the most effective technologies, programs, and policies for achieving safe operations. The study does not attempt to conduct a full survey of the motor carrier population. Instead, it relies on expert opinion from carriers that are objectively determined to exhibit safe operations that exceed industry averages as indicated by driver out-of-service rates, vehicle out-of-service rates, and crash rates. To identify these carriers, the study will utilize existing data from the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) database.
FMCSA will collect data through an electronic survey of a panel of industry experts. The experts will be recruited from motor carriers who have safety performance records that are better than national averages. These carriers will be identified by examining Department of Transportation-reportable crash rates, driver out-of-service rates at roadside inspections, and vehicle out-of-service rates at roadside inspections. Only those carriers that perform near the top quartile across all three categories are potential participants.
Participants would first be invited to participate in an online webinar that explains the evaluation design (
Once participants complete the webinar, they will be given a link to complete the survey online using an online survey tool such as Survey Monkey or Qualtrics. In the context of Beyond Compliance, the AHP-based survey would work by presenting experts with alternatives for what an ideal safety program looks like and allowing them to systematically compare the major elements of these programs. The survey results would then be analyzed to determine the safety program elements that were most frequently scored the highest across participants. The resulting information would reveal the elements of safety programs that these motor carriers are using and their achieved results and what these motor carriers believe to be the most effective for achieving safety and should be included in a Beyond Compliance program.
In addition to those carriers invited by FMCSA to participate in the survey, FMCSA will also be reaching out to the National Association of Small Trucking Companies and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association to invite them to voluntarily survey members as a supplemental data collection to the structured design. This would enable greater participation by smaller carriers and owner-operators, and would also enable a wider perspective of responses.
The results of the data collection will be analyzed and integrated into the pilot study report. Data collection will be completed within 90 days of the end of the pilot program period and followed by a statistical analysis in 180 days. Both descriptive and analytical methods will be employed during the data analysis. The results of the study will be documented in a technical report that will be delivered to and maintained by FMCSA. This report will be available to the public on the FMCSA website, at
Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant Intermodal Association of North America's (IANA) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow individuals who complete a training program consistent with a set of Intermodal Recommended Practices (IRPs) and associated requirements that has been developed by IANA to be considered a qualified inspector or qualified brake inspector for intermodal equipment (IME) under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), in lieu of having one year of training or experience or a combination thereof prior to becoming a certified inspector/brake inspector. The Agency has determined that granting the exemption to allow individuals who complete a performance-based training program consistent with the IRPs and associated requirements developed by IANA, instead of the time-based training and experience requirements specified in the FMCSRs, would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.
This exemption is effective August 18, 2020 and ending August 18, 2025.
Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV,
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
IANA applied for an exemption that would allow individuals who complete a training program consistent with a set of IRPs and associated requirements developed by IANA to be considered (1) a qualified inspector for the purpose of conducting periodic (annual) inspections of IME under 49 CFR 396.17, and (2) a qualified brake inspector under 49 CFR 396.25 for the purpose of conducting brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of IME. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
The FMCSRs require individuals performing annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), including IME, or inspections, maintenance, repairs, or service to the brake systems on CMVs (including IME) to be properly qualified to perform such inspections. Under §§ 396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii), an individual who has training or experience or a combination thereof totaling at least one year as outlined in those sections is considered to be qualified to conduct those inspections.
In its application, IANA states that:
Specifically, IANA's Mechanics Training Task Force, part of its Maintenance & Repair Committee, has developed a series of five discrete elements described in greater detail below that together will serve to provide training developers and providers with the necessary content to deliver comprehensive training programs and assessments.
• Background and Context. This section provides an explanation of the need for the IRP and a brief overview of the content.
• Terms and Definitions. This section contains a list of specific terms and their meaning within the context of the IRP, over and above those found in the Glossary (Appendix B of the Guide). It also provides terms and definitions that are specific to the procedures in the IRP.
• Recommended Tools, Supplies and Equipment. This section lists the necessary items that should be available to mechanics in performing the procedure in the IRP.
• Procedures. This section contains detailed, step-by-step instructions for performing each specific procedure.
• Additional Information. This section lists resources that are relevant to and further inform the content of the IRP.
IANA states that “. . . a mechanic who has successfully completed a training program based on the IRPs developed through IANA will possess the skills and knowledge to be a highly proficient and efficient inspector and will not appreciably benefit (if at all) from the current 12-month requirement.” The exemption would apply to all individuals who successfully complete a training program based on the IRPs and associated requirements developed by IANA as described above. IANA believes that granting the exemption to permit use of the IRP-based training program curriculum would maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption, and that “safety will ultimately be enhanced.”
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the
ATA commended IANA for taking time to develop IRPs consistent with the needs of the intermodal sector of the trucking industry, and stated that it “supports this exemption request for FMCSA to allow intermodal chassis mechanic training programs—consistent with IANA's IRPs—to be able to certify students as qualified inspectors or brake inspectors without having the required one year of training or experience.”
One year of experience or training for a commercial vehicle technician is arbitrary and can be misjudged. Fleets and service providers in the trucking industry are diverse and can perform business with their employees through multifaceted roles. For example, new entrants to truck maintenance may have a job for more than half the year to clean shop and move trucks around the yard. A new employee may be hired to do one non-PMI [preventive maintenance inspection] related job and be tasked with many PMI jobs 11 months after being hired. Although ATA's experience with fleets and service providers meet or exceed the FMCSRs for inspector qualifications (
AAR supports “IANA's proposed use of a modern, performance-based, training program in lieu of FMCSA's existing one-year experience requirement,” and stated:
A formalized education program could serve as a superior and more efficient alternative to qualify an inspector than does the one-year experience requirement in 49 CFR part 396. A graduate of IANA's program must prove proficiency and knowledge by demonstrating the skills required for each job he or she performs. FMCSA should allow the use of industry-developed best practices in the form of the IRPs developed by IANA in this matter to help to ensure consistent standards are met in qualifying chassis inspectors, and that the potential to improve safety across the intermodal industry is realized.
Eighteen individuals provided comments regarding the IANA application. One commenter stated that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations “allow aspiring aircraft mechanics a path to certification outside of strictly practical (
One commenter did not support the IANA application, stating “There exists no data suggesting that Intermodal Association of North America, or anyone for that matter, has developed a miraculous training program that somehow, is able to improve upon and replace 12-months of actual real-life work experience. Common sense and logic tells us that any training program that claims to replace 12-months of real-life, hands-on work experience with an unspecified amount of time in their vague ‘training program’ is fraudulent.” Other commenters stated that the current requirement that an individual have a combination of training and/or experience that totals at least 1 year before being considered qualified should be retained, and that the 1-year time period is necessary to ensure that inspectors fully understand the specifics of the equipment and the tasks associated with inspecting the equipment. One commenter stated that the application should not be granted because brake violations continue to be some of the most often cited violations during inspections, and as such, there needs to be additional focus regarding the fundamental operation of brake systems from a training and continuous education standpoint.
The FMCSA has evaluated the IANA application, and the comments received. For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA has determined that granting the exemption to allow individuals who successfully complete a performance-based training program consistent with the IRPs and associated requirements developed by IANA, instead of the time-based training and experience requirements specified in the FMCSRs, would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.
In 2015, IANA established a Mechanics Training Task Force as part of its Maintenance & Repair Committee. As an initial step, the Task Force evaluated the processes necessary for the inspection and repair of intermodal equipment, and developed recommended practices and training for the mechanics who inspect and work on the equipment. These recommendations were based on IANA's analysis of FMCSA inspection data for intermodal equipment over a 5-year period that identified specific vehicle components that routinely are the subject of out-of-service violations.
IANA stated that the goal of the Task Force was to develop processes and procedures to assist the industry in complying with the requirements in part 393, part 396, and Appendix G relating to intermodal equipment. Specifically, the Task Force developed (1) a framework for the development of recommended practices for the inspection and repair of IME, (2) a set of IRPs to guide the inspection and repair of IME, and (3) a training methodology and set of guidelines that increases and enhances the skills of an individual in the inspection and repair of IME. The Task Force included representation from all key stakeholder groups, and developed the work product as outlined in the three areas discussed above over the course of 3 years. IANA's Maintenance & Repair Committee, which includes additional stakeholder representatives from across the industry, ultimately reviewed and approved the Task Force's work product.
FMCSA has reviewed the IANA Guide that includes the 53 individual IRPs and associated resources, along with the Competency Documents, Task Lists, and Question Matrix that together establish the framework for the training program. In addition, the Maintenance & Repair Committee determined that inspectors/mechanics need at least 480 hours of training on the materials discussed above, with approximately one-third of the instruction classroom-based and approximately two-thirds of the instruction laboratory/hands-on based. FMCSA believes that an individual who successfully completes a training program consistent with the IANA IRPs and associated requirements will possess the skills and knowledge to be a highly proficient and efficient inspector, without the need to have a minimum of 1 year of training or experience or a combination thereof. FMCSA agrees that the establishment of recommended inspection and repair practices and training guidelines through a program based on the IANA IRPs and associated requirements will have a positive impact on the safety and roadworthiness of IME, and by extension, the traveling public.
FMCSA acknowledges the commenters who did not support the IANA application, many of whom simply stated that they believe the requirement for individuals to have at least one year of experience and/or training is the minimum needed to ensure that those individuals have the necessary skills to properly conduct inspections of intermodal equipment. While these commenters contend that eliminating the 1-year training and experience requirement will result in unqualified individuals being able to conduct inspections of intermodal equipment, none presented any specific concerns regarding the detailed and comprehensive IANA IRPs or associated requirements developed by the IANA IRP Mechanics Training Task Force. As noted above, and based on a review of the comprehensive materials that have been developed by IANA following a detailed analysis of FMCSA intermodal equipment inspection data, FMCSA believes that a performance-based approach to training can be as effective as, if not more so than, training that is strictly time-based.
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning August 18, 2020 and ending August 18, 2025. During the temporary exemption period, individuals who successfully complete a training program consistent with (1) a set of 53 IRPs that have been developed by IANA and (2) the Competency Documents, Task Lists, and Question Matrices that have been developed by IANA for each of the 53 IRPs, and that have completed a minimum of 480 hours of training on those materials will be considered to be (1) a qualified inspector for the purpose of conducting periodic (annual) inspections of IME under 49 CFR 396.17, and (2) a qualified brake inspector under 49 CFR 396.25 for the purpose of conducting brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of IME. FMCSA emphasizes that the exemption is limited to individuals performing periodic inspections of, and brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of, IME, and does not eliminate the requirement under §§ 396.19(a)(3)(ii) and 396.25(d)(3)(ii) that individuals have at least 1 year of training or experience or a combination thereof to be qualified to conduct periodic inspections of or brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair on commercial vehicles other than IME.
The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Individuals, motor carriers, or intermodal equipment providers (IEP) fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information demonstrating that periodic inspections or brake system inspection, maintenance, service, or repair of IME conducted by inspectors that have been
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice; Announcement of Project Selections. Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the allocation of $463,848,929 to projects under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program (Bus and Bus Facilities Program) and provides administrative guidance on project implementation.
Successful applicants should contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office for information regarding applying for the funds or program-specific information. A list of Regional Offices can be found at
Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5339(b)) authorizes FTA to make competitive grants for buses and bus facilities. Federal public transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5338) authorized $289,044,179 for competitive allocations in FY 2020. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) appropriated an additional $170 million for the Buses and Bus Facilities Program for FY 2020. An additional $20,401 of unawarded FY 2019 and $9,273,773 in FY 2016 funding was also made available. After the statutory set, aside for oversight, $463,920,522 was available for competitive grants under the Buses and Bus Facilities Program.
On January 30, 2020, FTA published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) (85 FR 5538) announcing the availability of $454,626,348 in competitive funding under the Buses and Bus Facilities Program, with the option to award additional funds if they are made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections. These funds will provide financial assistance to states and eligible public entities to replace, rehabilitate, purchase, or lease buses, vans, and related equipment, and for capital projects to rehabilitate, purchase, construct, or lease bus-related facilities. In response to the NOFO, FTA received 282 eligible project proposals from 48 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico requesting approximately $1.846 billion in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the program evaluation criteria outlined in the NOFO.
Based on the criteria in the NOFO, FTA is funding 96 projects, as shown in Table 1, for a total of $463,848,929. Recipients selected for competitive funding are required to work with their FTA Regional Office to submit a grant application in FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) for the projects identified in the attached table to quickly obligate funds. Grant applications must only include eligible activities applied for in the original project application. Funds must be used consistent with the competitive proposal and for the eligible capital purposes described in the NOFO.
In cases where the allocation amount is less than the proposer's total requested amount, recipients are required to fund the scalable project option as described in the application. If the award amount does not correspond to the scalable option, the recipient should work with the Regional Office to reduce scope or scale the project such that a complete phase or project is accomplished. Recipients may also provide additional local funds to complete a proposed project. A discretionary project identification number has been assigned to each project for tracking purposes and must be used in the TrAMS application.
Selected projects are eligible to incur costs under pre-award authority no earlier than the date projects were publicly announced. Pre-award authority does not guarantee that project expenses incurred prior to the award of a grant will be eligible for reimbursement, as eligibility for reimbursement is contingent upon other requirements, such as planning and environmental requirements, having been met. For more about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the current FTA Apportionments, Allocations, and Program Information and Interim Guidance at
For each project, a technical review panel assigned a rating of Highly Recommended, Recommended, or Not
Projects were assigned a final overall rating of Highly Recommended if they were rated Highly Recommended in at least four categories overall, with no Not Recommended ratings. Projects not rated Highly Recommended, were assigned a final overall rating of Recommended if the projects had no Not Recommended ratings. Projects were assigned a rating of Not Recommended if they received a Not Recommended rating in any criteria. The final overall ratings are summarized for 282 eligible project proposals in the table below.
As outlined in the NOFO, FTA made the final selections based on the technical ratings as well as geographic diversity, projects that support the FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility and/or United States Department of Transportation Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success Initiatives, percentage of local cost share, location in or support of an opportunity zone, and/or receipt of other recent competitive awards.
As further outlined in the NOFO, in some cases, due to funding limitations, proposers that were selected for funding received less than the amount originally requested.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, a
Effective September 17, 2020.
Wireline Competition Bureau, Kirk Burgee, at (202) 418-1599,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. Closing the digital divide and connecting every American to broadband no matter where he or she lives is the Commission's highest priority. But to bring broadband to every unserved part of the country means knowing where broadband is available, and where it is not. The Commission has made significant advances in bringing broadband to areas that the Commission's current data show are wholly unserved. To maintain that momentum, the Commission needs more granular, precise maps that will allow it to target support to Americans living in those areas where some, but not all, have access. Accurate and precise broadband maps are of enormous importance not only to the Commission, but also other federal policy makers, state policy makers, and consumers alike. This action follows the pivotal step the Commission took in 2019 when it adopted the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, laying out a three-pronged approach to developing a nationwide broadband map that will have unprecedented detail: internet service providers, who have the most intimate knowledge of where their networks reach, provide granular and detailed coverage data; that coverage data is compared against a fabric of locations that are, or could be, serviced by a broadband connection; and consumers, plus state, local, and Tribal government entities, provide feedback on the accuracy of the broadband coverage data directly to the Commission.
2. Congress has likewise recognized that accurate and granular maps are essential to closing the digital divide. Congress passed the Broadband DATA Act in March 2020, largely codifying the Commission's overall approach to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission, among other things, to issue final rules for collecting granular data from providers on the availability and quality of broadband internet access service, to create publicly available coverage maps, to establish processes for members of the public and other entities to challenge and verify the coverage maps, and to create a common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed.
3. This
4. The Commission's prior work collecting information about broadband availability has a lengthy history beginning in 2000 with FCC Form 477, originally a collection of subscription and connection data for local telephone and broadband services. The Commission's broadband data collection efforts evolved over time, and in 2013 the Commission adopted the current Form 477 requirement that fixed service providers report a list of census blocks in which they provide access to broadband. That block-level reporting, while imperfect, was a valuable data source that allowed the Commission to identify the least-served parts of the country and was incorporated into many Commission proceedings and actions, including reporting to Congress and the public about the availability of broadband services, informing transaction reviews, and supporting the Commission's universal service policies. However, in 2017, the Commission recognized the need to collect and develop better quality, more useful, and more granular broadband deployment data to inform the Commission's policymaking.
5. In August 2019, the Commission recognized “a compelling and immediate need” for better broadband deployment data, and adopted the
6. At that time, the Commission also sought comment on: (1) The additional technical standards for fixed broadband providers that could ensure greater precision for the Digital Opportunity Data Collection deployment reporting; (2) the ways in which the Commission could incorporate crowdsourced and location-specific fixed broadband deployment data into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; and (3) how the Commission could incorporate the collection of accurate, reliable mobile voice and broadband coverage data into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
7. Following adoption of the
8. Within 180 days of the effective date of those rules, the Commission also must reform the Form 477 broadband deployment collection in a manner that achieves the purposes of the Broadband DATA Act and that allows for the comparison of data produced before and after the implementation of the Broadband DATA Act's requirements. The Commission, after consulting with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, must create a map that depicts the extent and availability of broadband internet access service in the United States, without regard to whether the service is fixed or mobile, as well as the areas of the United States that remain unserved (the Broadband Map). The Commission also must create, in consultation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, certain other coverage maps, which must depict the extent of availability of fixed and mobile broadband internet access services and the areas that remain unserved. The Commission must update the maps at least biannually and make them available to the public at an appropriate level of granularity and to other federal agencies upon request.
9. Based on the record before us and consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, in this
10. However, certain requirements adopted in the
11. In light of these and other minor inconsistencies, the Commission will not seek Paperwork Reduction Act approval for the part 54 rules adopted in the
12. The Commission requires providers of terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, and satellite broadband internet access service to report availability and quality of service data that document the areas (1) where they have actually built out their broadband network infrastructure, such that they are able to provide service, and (2) where they could perform a standard broadband installation. In establishing these requirements, the Commission adopts and incorporates the Broadband DATA Act's definitions of “broadband internet access service,” “propagation model,” “provider,” “quality of service,” “shapefile,” and “standard broadband installation,” which shall apply to the submission of the required data. All terrestrial fixed and satellite service providers must report either polygon shapefiles or lists of addresses or locations that constitute their service areas. The Commission further requires terrestrial fixed wireless providers to report either their shapefiles in the form of propagation maps and propagation model details that reflect the speeds and latency of their service, or a list of addresses or locations that reflect their service areas. All fixed providers must disclose the details of how they generated their coverage polygons or lists of addresses or locations when they submit them. In particular, the Commission requires providers to submit an explanation of the methodology or combination of methodologies used and how they implemented those methodologies, including the distances from aggregation points, to the extent relevant. The Commission will make such information publicly available, subject to individual requests for confidential treatment of this information.
13. In the
14. The Broadband DATA Act takes a similar approach to fixed broadband service reporting, requiring the Commission's rules to provide uniform standards for the reporting of broadband internet access service data, including “information regarding download and upload speeds, at various thresholds established by the Commission, and, if applicable, latency with respect to broadband internet access service that the provider makes available,” and that “can be georeferenced to the GIS data in the Fabric . . . .” Also, with regard to fixed broadband services, the data collected must document where the provider “has actually built out network infrastructure . . . such that the provider is able to provide service; and [where it] could provide that service, as determined by where the provider is capable of performing a standard broadband installation . . . .” The Broadband DATA Act defines a “standard broadband installation” as “the initiation of service in an area in which the provider has not previously offered that service, with no charges or delays attributable to the extension of the network of the provider,” as well as “the initiation of fixed broadband internet access service through routine installation that can be completed not later than ten business days after the date on which the service request is submitted.”
15. The Commission must further allow providers of terrestrial fixed and satellite service to report availability data in the form of polygon shapefiles, defined as “a digital storage format containing geospatial or location-based data and attribute information regarding the availability of broadband internet access service[,] and that can be viewed, edited, and mapped in GIS software.” With regard to data collected from terrestrial fixed wireless providers, the rules must provide for reporting propagation maps and propagation model details that satisfy standards similar to those applicable to mobile services, taking into account differences between the two types of services. The maps and model data reported for fixed wireless service must also reflect the speed and latency of the services they depict. For all fixed services, the Broadband DATA Act provides that the Commission also may permit, but not require, providers to report fixed broadband service availability using a “list of addresses or locations” in lieu of shapefiles or propagation maps and model details, but requires the Commission to provide a method for providers to use such address or location-based reporting in Tribal areas.
16. The
17. The Commission adopts requirements for the use of specific maximum buffers around aggregation points for wired technologies. Specifically, for providers using Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technologies to offer speeds at 25/3 Mbps or greater, the Commission adopts a maximum distance of 6,600 route feet from the DSLAM to the covered premises. For providers using Hybrid-Fiber Coax (HFC or cable) technology, the Commission adopts a maximum buffer of 12,000 route feet from the aggregation point to the customer premises. For providers using Fiber to the Premises (FTTP or fiber) technologies, the Commission adopts a maximum buffer of 196,000 route feet from the OLT to the Optical Network Termination (ONT). For all fixed wired technologies, the buffer distance from the aggregation point shall include the drop distance, up to a maximum distance of 500 feet from a deployed line or distribution network infrastructure to the parcel boundary of a served location. Providers that make fixed DSL service available at a maximum speed less than 25/3 Mbps in an area will not be subject to a maximum buffer requirement for such areas. However, these providers are still subject to the requirement of the
18. The maximum buffers the Commission adopts here are, as the name implies,
19. The approach the Commission adopts is consistent with those commenters that opposed a one-size-fits-all approach to buffers. Service providers may only report serving areas up to the maximum buffer distance to the extent that they have existing line or distribution network infrastructure located within 500 feet of the parcel boundary of the served location and where the provider can perform a standard broadband installation. In particular, the Commission agrees with Verizon that where service providers' business practices call for a smaller buffer than the maximum the Commission adopts for a given technology, the provider should use the smaller of the two. For those reasons, the Commission disagrees with the Broadband Mapping Coalition's proposal to establish “safe harbors” based on an appropriate buffer zone related to the density of a geographic area. Providing such safe harbors could permit some service providers to overstate the availability of their services and report areas served where they cannot actually provide service. The Commission believes that the use of maximum buffers will provide important guardrails and result in more accurate, standardized, and cohesive data on broadband availability by wired providers using fiber, cable, and DSL technologies, and therefore adopt the use of maximum buffers specific to each to account for the particular attributes of each technology.
20. Further, several parties have expressed support for the approach the Commission adopts today for maximum buffers. With respect to buffer values for fiber, NTCA, USTelecom, NRECA, ACA Connects, and UTC argue that common provider deployment practices and industry technical standards provide the basis for a much larger maximum distance from the aggregation point for FTTP than for HFC or DSL. NTCA, NRECA, and UTC claim that ITU standards for Gigabit-capable passive optical network (GPON) technologies, as well Active Ethernet (AE) technology, allow for a maximum buffer of up to 60 km and that real-world fiber deployments in rural areas are often at or above 45 km from the OLT to the ONT at the customer premises. The three parties support a maximum buffer, or distance from the aggregation point, of 60 km for fiber. USTelecom does not recommend a specific distance, but notes that several of its members have reported deploying FTTP to upwards of 65,000 feet (or 20 km). The Commission agrees that industry technical standards and deployment practices, as explained in the record, provide a basis for adopting a significantly larger maximum buffer for fiber than for HFC or DSL, and the Commission therefore adopts a maximum distance of 60 route km from the aggregation point at the central office for fiber reporting. To ensure that coverage areas reflect where providers have actually deployed fiber plant that can be accessed by nearby locations, NTCA proposes that the boundary of each location shown to be served or within a provider's polygon coverage area be within 500 feet of a deployed fiber line or distribution network infrastructure. The Commission agrees with this proposal and adopt an equivalent requirement for all wireline technologies in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. In addition, each location shown to be served or within a provider's polygon coverage area, if not already connected to the network, must be able to be connected within ten business days of a request.
21. With respect to HFC networks, NCTA and ACA Connects encouraged the Commission not to adopt maximum buffers at this time. However, NCTA stated that if the Commission were to adopt a maximum buffer, it should be at least 12,000 route feet from the aggregation point in order to accurately reflect the construction and operation of HFC networks. NCTA argues that smaller buffers would lead to locations that are actually served to be shown as unserved, a concern shared by ACA Connects. For the reasons stated above, the Commission is adopting maximum buffers for HFC and other wired technologies. The Commission supports NCTA's proposed buffer distances and adopt a maximum distance of 12,000 route feet from the aggregation point for HFC networks, along with a maximum distance of 500 feet from a deployed line or distribution network infrastructure and the parcel boundary.
22. With respect to DSL, the Commission's 2010 National Broadband Plan reported that DSL speeds exceeding 25/3 Mbps could be attained in a lab environment at a distance of 5,000 feet from the DSLAM using pair-bonded, vectored VDSL2/2+ on a heavy gauge wire. In addition, USTelecom claims that speeds of 25/3 Mbps are offered at 4,000 feet from the aggregation point using pair-bonded DSL technology. The Commission adopts a higher maximum buffer size of 6,600 route feet from the DSLAM for DSL providers to allow for variance between the actual practices of providers and those examples, along with a maximum of distance of 500 feet from a deployed line or distribution network infrastructure and the parcel
23. The Commission also adopts several limited exceptions to the use of these maximum buffers to promote greater accuracy in the map. First, if a provider has a current subscriber at a location beyond the bounds of the applicable maximum buffer, then that location must be included in its coverage polygon or list of addresses or locations, as applicable. Second, if a provider previously had a broadband subscriber, using the same technology, at a location beyond the bounds of the maximum buffer, then the location must be included in the provider's coverage polygon or list of addresses or locations. Third, if a provider is receiving or has received universal service support to provide broadband service in a particular geographic area—or has other Federal, state, or local obligations to make service available in the area—and the provider has begun to make service available in that area, then the provider must include all of the deployed locations in that area in its polygon or list of addresses or locations, regardless of whether they are within or beyond the bounds of the maximum buffer. Finally, in cases where a provider asserts that it could serve a location beyond the bounds of the applicable maximum buffer for a reason not already addressed under the exceptions described herein, then the provider must submit a waiver request explaining where and how it provides service to such areas or locations.
24. The Commission also adopts standards for fixed wireless providers that report availability using propagation maps and propagation model details, as required by the Broadband DATA Act. The Broadband DATA Act requires that propagation maps and model details reported by fixed wireless providers: (1) Satisfy standards similar to those set for mobile broadband service, taking into account “material differences” between fixed and mobile services; and (2) reflect the speeds and latency of the service. In the
25. In response to the
26. The Commission agrees with USTelecom and WISPA that there are fundamental similarities between mobile and fixed wireless service that warrant collecting common elements in the coverage reporting for each technology, but that certain differences warrant collecting different information, as contemplated by the Broadband DATA Act. Accordingly, given the material differences between the two types of service, as set out in the record, the Commission adopts some of the standards for fixed wireless broadband service reporting by propagation maps and models proposed by USTelecom and WISPA, including a 75% cell edge probability, a 50% cell loading factor, and a receiver height of four to seven meters. The Commission agrees with USTelecom and WISPA that given the stationary nature of fixed wireless customer installations and the ability to manage the base stations and receivers to maximize coverage at fixed locations, it is appropriate to adopt a lower cell edge probability than the Commission otherwise requires for mobile broadband coverage. In addition, fixed wireless propagation modeling appears to use the cell edge probability parameter in a different way than mobile, often having it reflect existing locations in a point-to-point network configuration. Given these material differences and the inaccuracies that could potentially result from a higher cell edge probability for fixed wireless, the Commission adopts the 75% cell edge
27. Like in the case of wireline fixed broadband networks, the Commission also provides for certain exceptions for serviceable locations outside the coverage area depicted by a provider's propagation model. Fixed wireless service providers must include locations with current and former subscribers. In the case of former subscribers, providers should not report those locations that they no longer believe to be serviceable due to subsequent changes in the network. Likewise, if a provider is receiving or has received universal service support to provide broadband service in a particular geographic area—or has other Federal, state, or local obligations to make service available in the area—and the provider has begun to make service available in that area, then the provider must include all of the deployed locations, regardless of whether they are within or beyond the bounds of the maximum buffer. In adopting these standards, the Commission confirms that the availability of fixed wireless service at a given location may ultimately be determined through the challenge process and other determinations based on facts on the ground. Therefore, the Commission will require a fixed wireless provider to remove from its broadband availability data areas or locations that a successful challenge or Commission inquiry has shown to be unserved by that provider.
28. Although the Commission could prescribe additional propagation modeling parameters for fixed wireless providers, the Commission is concerned that doing so would risk making the maps less accurate. The specific parameters the Commission adopts above will allow providers to use their internal modeling standards and practices in a way that will best reflect the service they are capable of providing, and the service providers are in the best position to determine where their service is available. However, to facilitate public feedback, a robust challenge process, and ease of analysis by Commission staff, the Commission also adopts the USTelecom and WISPA proposal to require fixed wireless providers submitting propagation maps and propagation model details to disclose several of the parameters and details used to create their propagation maps and models.
29.
30. The Commission believes that this information will assist us in determining whether the fixed wireless broadband data that the Commission collects is granular and accurate, consistent with the requirements and purpose of the Broadband DATA Act. It will also promote participation from the public and from other government entities and third parties to ensure that the resulting maps are as accurate as possible. For example, interested parties may be able to use this information to identify poorly calibrated propagation models which will obviate the need for a lengthier case-by-case challenge process and give filers an opportunity to correct their coverage data more quickly. It similarly will provide Commission staff with an opportunity to identify possible concerns with filers' model parameters and most efficiently target the Commission's auditing and verification efforts. At the same time, it provides filers the greatest ability to ensure their coverage data best reflects the realities on the ground without being constrained to unnecessarily prescriptive modeling requirements that could increase cost and burden with little consequent benefit to the accuracy of broadband maps.
31. USTelecom and WISPA assert that certain categories of the information the Commission is collecting from terrestrial fixed wireless providers may be commercially sensitive or raise security concerns. Other information—such as the frequency bands used to provide service, carrier aggregation, radio technologies used, terrain and clutter information, base station elevation, and CPE height and power information—do not appear to raise confidentiality concerns. The Commission will treat this information as presumptively public and will treat the remaining information as presumptively non-public. The Commission believes there is a strong public interest in having as much access to this information as possible in order to facilitate public review and input on its accuracy, but the Commission acknowledges the potential sensitivities and believe this approach best balances the two interests.
32. The Commission requires mobile broadband providers to submit propagation maps and propagation model details based on minimum specified parameters. Service providers will be required to submit propagation maps reflecting technology-specific user download and upload speeds given prescribed minimum cell edge probabilities, cell loading factors, and modeling resolution. The Commission
33. In addition to requiring mobile broadband providers to use propagation modeling to generate and to submit maps showing their 4G LTE coverage, the Commission additionally requires providers to submit information, data, and coverage maps for existing 3G networks and next-generation 5G-NR networks. By requiring technology-specific maps, this approach provides information about the availability of the three most widely deployed generations of mobile wireless technology and will make it easier to compare the services that different mobile broadband providers offer. Commenters previously have expressed support for this approach.
34. Under current Form 477 reporting requirements, facilities-based mobile broadband providers must report on mobile broadband deployment by submitting, for each technology, polygons in GIS mapping files that digitally represent the geographic areas in which a customer should expect to receive the minimum upload and download speed the mobile provider advertises for that area or, if the provider does not advertise such speeds, the minimum upload and download speeds users should expect to receive within the polygon.
35. In the
36. On December 4, 2019, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force released a report on the results of its investigation of purported inaccuracies in the mobile broadband coverage data submitted by mobile providers for the one-time collection of 4G LTE coverage data in the Mobility Fund Phase II proceeding (
37. Several of the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act are similar to proposals and recommendations from the
38. At the outset the Commission prescribes the same cell edge probability, cell loading, and clutter factors for each of the mobile broadband technologies—3G, 4G, and 5G-NR—for providers' propagation model results. These parameters also will apply to the propagation models providers use to generate the shapefiles that depict the coverage of their voice services. While commenters support consistent parameters in the context of 4G LTE, the Commission concludes that certain uniform minimum parameter values are equally important for demonstrating 3G and 5G-NR coverage as well as voice coverage and that they will help the Commission assess and compare coverage maps among providers for each technology.
39.
40.
41. For consistency between submissions, and to implement the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that providers account for the effect of clutter in producing their propagation models, the Commission specifies a baseline resolution requirement for the terrain and clutter data used for modeling and producing maps. The Commission adopts the Broadband DATA Act's definition of the term clutter for purposes of the collection. Without sufficient resolution for terrain and clutter data, natural obstructions to radio propagation can be missed and cause propagation models to misrepresent cellular coverage. The
42. The Commission's decision to require reporting for 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR networks is consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act and the streamlining measures the Commission adopted in the
43. The Commission's decision to adopt reporting parameters for 5G-NR services implements the Broadband DATA Act requirement that the Commission, if it determines that it is necessary to revise reporting standards to collect accurate propagation maps with respect to future generations of mobile broadband technologies, shall immediately commence a rulemaking to adopt new reporting standards for those technologies. The Commission requires mobile providers to submit coverage maps reflecting 5G-NR deployment based on different speed thresholds than the Broadband DATA Act requires for 4G LTE services because the Commission finds that the 4G LTE speed thresholds specified in the Act are insufficient to accurately reflect 5G-NR coverage. In the
44.
45. For 5G-NR networks, the Commission will require service providers to submit maps that model 5G-NR service using two distinct minimum speed thresholds, both of which must be modeled using a cell edge probability of 90% and cell loading of 50%. First, the Commission requires service providers to submit 5G-NR deployment data using a minimum speed threshold of 7/1 Mbps at the cell edge. The Commission anticipates that a 7/1 Mbps speed metric is realistically attainable and will reflect the minimum desired typical user experience across broad 5G-NR coverage areas. In particular, this speed threshold is likely to be attainable by mobile broadband service providers deploying 5G-NR service over smaller channel blocks of low-band spectrum and finds support in the record. Second, the Commission requires service providers to submit 5G-NR deployment data based on a higher, 35/3 Mbps minimum speed threshold (at the cell edge). The Commission previously adopted 35/3 Mbps for universal service supported 5G deployments in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The two-tiered approach the Commission adopts today for mapping 5G-NR service will provide the best information to end users on where they can expect to receive 5G-NR services capable of supporting a variety of potential use cases.
46. The Commission finds it appropriate to adopt requirements for reporting 5G-NR coverage at this time based on the current state of these commercial deployments. The Commission sought comment on reporting standards for 5G networks in the
47. The Commission adopts minimum expected user speeds of 200/50 kbps at the cell edge for 3G network deployments at the prescribed cell edge probability and cell loading. These speeds are consistent with the speed thresholds for 3G service used by the Commission in the Mobility Fund I
48.
49. In addition, the Commission also requires providers to submit: (1) All applicable link-budgets used to design their networks and provide service at the defined speeds, and all parameters and parameter values included in those link budgets; (2) a description of how the carrier developed its link budget(s) and the rationale for using specific values in the link budget(s); and (3) the name of the creator, developer or supplier, as well as the vintage of the terrain and clutter datasets used, the specific resolution of the data (subject to the minimum requirements adopted in this
50. The Commission requires service providers to submit their coverage maps in vector format. There are two predominant forms for storing and displaying map information digitally. Raster format provides a grid of individual points that, together, represent an image. Vector format produces an image by storing and displaying a set of connected lines in the form of the start and end points, rather than the individual pixels of the line as would be done with raster-format data. When taken together, the set of lines form the boundaries for different colors within a map or, more generally, an image. While raster format arguably provides for more detail, it involves significantly more data. There are differing views in the record about whether to require raster format. Some commenters argue that raster format would improve consistency and comparability of provider data. Others argue that requiring raster format would be burdensome. The Commission finds that requiring the submissions in vector format will facilitate efficient and effective collection of data while minimizing burdens for providers. The Commission is not persuaded that the benefits of requiring raster format outweigh the potential added burdens for some providers. Requiring submission of raster files would not only increase burdens on service providers, but also expend significant Commission resources needed to process the greater volume of data associated with raster-formatted submissions. In addition, the Commission finds that the evidence in the record fails to demonstrate that requiring providers to use raster format for their submissions is necessary for the Commission to be able to verify mobile broadband coverage. Instead, the Commission anticipates that the other verification measures the Commission proposes in the
51. Taken together, the Commission expects that the minimum parameter values the Commission establishes will improve the accuracy, comparability, and reliability of the mobile broadband data it collects. As discussed above, the Broadband DATA Act gives the Commission the authority to adopt any other parameters it determines are necessary to create a map that is “more precise than the map produced as a result of the submissions under the Mobility Fund Phase II information collection.” In accordance with this authority, the Commission directs OEA and WTB to modify the speed, probability, and loading parameters as necessary to account for improvements in mobile broadband service over time. This will continue to allow the Commission to ensure the collection of accurate, comparable, and granular broadband data maps in the future.
52. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to create “a common dataset of all locations in the United States where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed, as determined by the Commission.” The Act also requires the Commission to establish the Fabric, which must contain “geocoded information” for all of the locations identified in the common dataset. In addition, the Fabric must serve as the foundation on which all other fixed broadband internet access service availability data collected under the Broadband DATA Act are layered, it must be compatible with commonly used geographic information system (GIS) software, and the Commission must update the Fabric at least every six months. The Broadband DATA Act also prescribes constraints for the Commission in contracting for assistance in the creation of the Fabric.
53. In the
54. Consistent with the Commission's stated intentions in the
55. As required by the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission establishes a biannual schedule for collection of broadband internet access service availability and quality of service data. For this purpose, the Commission establishes filing deadlines of March 1 and September 1 each year. The March filing would reflect data as of December 31 of the previous calendar year, while the September filing would reflect data as of June 30 of the then-current calendar year. The Commission directs OEA to issue a public notice announcing the initial filing deadline at least six months prior to that deadline, and fixed and mobile service providers must file their initial reports by that initial filing deadline. Finally, providers that become subject to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing requirements after the initial filing deadline must file data initially for the reporting period in which they become eligible.
56. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission adopts rules for processes through which it will be able to “verify the accuracy and reliability” of the broadband internet access service availability data submitted by providers. In addition to the infrastructure data that fixed wireless providers must submit to verify their network coverage data, the Commission also adopts (1) a process that uses data contained in the Administrator's High Cost Universal Broadband (HUBB) portal to cross-check fixed broadband coverage data; (2) the use of audits as a means of verifying coverage data accuracy; (3) a certification requirement for all biannual provider submissions, and (4) processes for collecting crowdsourced and verified third-party data. The Commission seeks comment in the
57. The Commission will independently verify fixed broadband coverage data submitted by providers by integrating the geolocation data contained in the HUBB portal with the submitted fixed broadband coverage polygons. As part of its Universal Service Fund oversight responsibilities, USAC maintains the HUBB portal through which high-cost universal service support recipients report the coordinates, address, deployment date, speed, and number of units for every location where fixed broadband service is available. The Commission found in the
58. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to “conduct regular audits of information submitted by providers . . . to ensure that the providers are complying with [the Act].” For all fixed providers, this information includes (1) the availability of broadband internet access service; (2) download and upload speeds and, if applicable, latency; and (3) location data that can be georeferenced in the Fabric. For fixed wireless providers, such information includes any propagation maps and propagation model details, or lists of addresses or locations that constitute a provider's service area. For terrestrial fixed and satellite providers, such information includes polygon shapefiles or a list of addresses or locations that constitute a provider's service area. For mobile providers, such information includes propagation maps and propagation model details that indicate a provider's mobile 4G-LTE broadband internet access service coverage.
59. In the
60. Accordingly, the Commission will conduct audits involving information submitted by all types of providers of broadband internet access service (
61. The Broadband DATA Act requires that each provider must include as part of its filing “a certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.” The format of this certification is slightly different from the certification requirement adopted for fixed providers in the
62. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission develop a crowdsourcing process “through which entities or individuals . . . may submit specific information about the deployment and availability of broadband internet access service . . . on an ongoing basis so that the information may be used to verify and supplement information submitted by providers . . . for inclusion in the [broadband coverage] maps.” The Act further directs the Commission to “prioritize the consideration of data provided by data collection applications used by consumers that the Commission has determined: (i) Are highly reliable; and (ii) have proven methodologies for determining network coverage and network performance.” In the
63. As an initial matter, consistent with comments received in response to the
64. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to establish a process that allows individuals and entities to submit specific information about the “deployment and availability” of broadband internet access service in the United States on an ongoing basis. The Commission adopts a process that will allow for submission of information falling within this defined scope.
65. In the
66. The Commission directs OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to develop and refine a process for entities and individuals to submit third-party fixed and mobile crowdsourced data consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's requirements and the Commission's policies. In accordance with the Act's requirements, these Bureaus and Offices will develop the process by which the Commission will prioritize the consideration of crowdsourced data submitted through data collection applications used by consumers, and other entities, that are determined to be “highly reliable” and that “have proven methodologies for determining network coverage and network performance.” In applying this standard, these Bureaus and Offices may consider: (1) Whether the application uses metrics and methods that comply with current Bureau and Office requirements for submitting network coverage and speed data in the ordinary course; (2) whether the speed application has enough users that it produces a dataset to provide statistically significant results for a particular provider in a given area; and (3) whether the application is designed so as not to introduce bias into test results. The Bureaus and Offices will issue specific rules by which the Commission will prioritize the consideration of crowdsourced data in advance of the time that the online portal is available. This will allow filers to take these rules into account in submitting crowdsourced data. As noted above, the Commission has used mobile crowdsourced data to inform various Commission reports, such as in the 2020 Broadband Deployment Report where the Commission supplemented Form 477 data with Ookla crowdsourced speed test data in assessing access to advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services. The Commission currently receives some crowdsourced data through its Measuring Mobile Broadband in America (MMBA) program; the Commission does not, however, intend to restrict crowdsourcing broadband data collection efforts to the product of any one specific entity. Further, the industry or commenter may identify a number of alternative applications that
67. The Commission also directs OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to modify the process for the collection of fixed and mobile crowdsourced data over time in the event that these Bureaus and Offices determine it is necessary. The Commission recognizes that there may be changes in technology, different types of crowdsourced data, or other considerations that may require revaluation and possible modifications of the Bureaus' and Offices' initial determinations in order that they may satisfy the Act's provisions for submitting crowdsourced data on an ongoing basis. The Commission finds that directing these Bureaus and Offices to implement the collection of fixed and mobile crowdsourced data will provide greater flexibility to adjust and improve the Commission's data collection process over time.
68. Consistent with the requirements in the Broadband DATA Act and similar to the requirement in the
69. Similar to the Commission's proposal in the
70. In addition, crowdsourced data filers must certify that, to the best of the filer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements in the filing are true and correct. This is similar to the certification required under the Broadband DATA Act for providers when making their biannual filings, as well as the proposed certification for parties when submitting data in the challenge process. The Commission believes that such a requirement will discourage frivolous or malicious crowdsourced data filings.
71. As an initial matter, the crowdsourced data portal will alert providers when crowdsourced filings are made concerning their data, and providers may, but will generally not be required, absent a Commission inquiry, to respond to crowdsourced data filings. In response to the
72. The Commission will use crowdsourced data to inform, but not decide, a provider's claimed deployment and availability of broadband internet access service—and as an important part of verification options that include Commission audits, cross-checking with HUBB data, a challenge process, and data from government entities and third parties. When the Commission sought comment in the
73. In response to the Commission's requests for comment on mobile crowdsourced data, parties generally agree that service providers represent the best source of mobile broadband deployment and availability data and that crowdsourced data should only be used as a supplement to the information that the Commission collects from providers. Some commenters assert that public feedback from actual broadband consumers and entities can improve the accuracy and granularity of the coverage maps or identify inadvertent errors, while also emphasizing that caution is necessary in relying on crowdsourced data. They maintain that such data must be carefully calibrated both to promote greater accuracy and to protect providers from unnecessary burdens. Several commenters urge the Commission not to require providers to respond to each individual crowdsourced data submission; they argue that it would be an unnecessary burden and may not materially improve the development of accurate coverage maps. Some commenters point out that crowdsourced data are not collected under controlled conditions or in a statistically significant manner. In particular, CTIA proposes a limited pilot program to evaluate the utility of tools such as crowdsourced data for verifying mobile broadband coverage before the Commission takes more steps to expand the use of such data.
74. In response to the
75. Similar to the Commission's proposal in the
76. The Commission will make public all information submitted as part of the crowdsourcing process, with the exception of personally identifiable information and any data required to be confidential under § 0.457 of the Commission's rules. The Commission notes that the information that it adopts for crowdsourced data filers to provide is the same information that the Commission required be made publicly available in the
77. Under the Broadband DATA Act, it is unlawful to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit information or data that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability or the quality of broadband internet access service. The Commission adopts this requirement, but seek comment in the
78. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must issue final rules that require the dissemination of granular data that the Commission must use to compile coverage maps that depict the availability of broadband internet access service and be made publicly available. This requirement is different from the process the Commission adopted in the
79. The Commission will establish the Broadband Map as a map that depicts the extent of the availability of broadband internet access service, as well as areas that are unserved, overlaid onto the fixed service Fabric data. The Broadband DATA Act provides that this Broadband Map must depict the availability of broadband “without regard to whether that service is fixed or mobile.” Pursuant to the Act, the Commission also will create separate maps depicting fixed coverage and mobile coverage. Coverage depicted on the Broadband Map and the fixed and mobile coverage maps will be defined by providers' reported availability data, as revised by the outcome of successful challenges under the challenge process and the outcomes of Commission investigations and inquiries, which may be informed by crowdsourced data.
80. Further, the Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission update the coverage maps at least biannually using the most recent data collected from providers. In concert with the Commission's adoption herein of the biannual collection of broadband internet access service data, the Commission will update its coverage maps with new provider availability data at least biannually with data submitted by providers, as well as with any updates or corrections. Doing so will meet the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that the Commission use the most recent data collected from providers. The Commission directs OEA to update the coverage maps as quickly as possible after the biannual submission deadlines and to update the maps on a continuing basis based on the outcomes of challenges and Commission investigations and inquiries, including those informed by verified data and crowdsourced data as that information becomes available.
81. Finally, the Act requires the Commission to consult with various Federal agencies in connection with creating and providing access to the coverage maps. First, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to consult with the Federal Geographic Data Committee before creating the three coverage maps. Second, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and with NTIA to enable those entities to consult the coverage maps when considering the awarding of funds for the deployment of broadband internet access service under any program administered by the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service or the Administration, respectively. In addition, the Commission must establish a process to make the data collected from providers pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection available to NTIA. The Commission directs OEA, WTB, IB, and WCB to carry out these requirements.
82. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to develop a process to collect verified data for use in the coverage maps from: (1) State, local, and Tribal governmental entities primarily responsible for mapping or
83. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the rules the Commission adopts establish “processes and procedures through which the Commission and, as necessary, other entities or individuals submitting non-public or competitively sensitive information, can protect the security, privacy, and confidentiality of such information,” including: (1) Information contained in the Fabric, (2) the dataset supporting the Fabric, and (3) availability data submitted pursuant to section 802(b)(2) of the Broadband DATA Act. In the
84. The Commission found in the
85. The Commission expects the Fabric will include at least some proprietary information that it will acquire commercially, which will be subject to licensing or other agreements that limit the extent to which it can be made available. The Commission also anticipates that it will receive information from individuals or entities concerning the accuracy of availability data and information in the Fabric. Accordingly, the Commission will withhold from routine public inspection all data required to be kept confidential pursuant to § 0.457 of the Commission's rules and all personally identifiable information, including names, email addresses, and telephone numbers submitted in connection with availability data and the data in the Fabric. However, the Commission will entertain requests for disclosure if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interests listed in § 0.457 of the Commission's rules. Subject to contractual or license restrictions, the Commission will make public all other information received about the status of broadband internet access service availability at specific locations, including geographic coordinates and street addresses, whether a provider has reported availability at a location, and whether the owner or occupant has disputed a report of broadband internet access service availability at such location. The Commission also will make publicly available all shapefiles, propagation maps, lists of addresses or locations for both fixed and mobile service, and on-the-ground mobile data, including data submitted by mobile providers to verify their coverage maps, subject to individual requests for confidential treatment.
86. Consistent with the requirement in the Broadband DATA Act, and similar to the requirement that the Commission adopted (but have not implemented) in the
87. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
88. With the
89. None.
90. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
91. The Chief Counsel did not file comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
92. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
93.
94. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
95. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
96. The broadband internet access service provider industry has changed since the definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited below may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide such service. To ensure that this FRFA describes the universe of small entities that the Commission's action might affect, it discusses in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet access service. The Commission notes that, although it has no specific information on the number of small entities that provide broadband internet access service over unlicensed spectrum, the Commission included these entities in its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
103.
104.
105. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities.
106.
107. The broadband internet access service provider category covered by these new rules may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service, the actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to
108.
109. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular licensees that will be affected by the Commission's actions. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally-developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.
115.
116. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.
117. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, the Commission does not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size standard. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.
118.
119. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the
120.
121.
122.
123. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with
124. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Commission does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, the Commission notes that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
125.
126.
127. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category does include some large entities.
128.
129.
130. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (1) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15% discount on its winning bid; (2) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25% discount on its winning bid; and (3) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35% discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
131.
132.
133.
134. Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139. The Commission expects the rules adopted in the
140. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The Commission's actions in the
141. The Commission will send a copy of the
142.
143.
144.
145. Accordingly,
146.
147.
148.
Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise noted.
The purposes of this subpart are to set out the terms by which certain commercial and government-controlled entities report data to the Commission concerning:
(a) The provision of wired and wireless local telephone services and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol services;
(b) The deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 1302, and services that are competitive with advanced telecommunications capability; and
(c) The availability and quality of service of broadband internet access service.
(a) * * *
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(a) All providers shall make biannual filings with the Commission in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection portal in accordance with this subpart.
(b) Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings shall be made each year on or before March 1 (reporting data as of December 31 of the prior year) and September 1 (reporting data as of June 30 of the current year). Providers becoming subject to the provisions of this section for the first time shall file data initially for the reporting period in which they become eligible.
(c) Providers shall include in their filings data relating to the availability and quality of service of their broadband internet access service in accordance with this subpart.
(1) Each provider of terrestrial fixed or satellite broadband internet access service shall submit polygon shapefiles or a list of addresses or locations, and each provider of fixed wireless broadband internet access service shall submit propagation maps and model details that reflect the speeds and latency of its service or a list of addresses or locations, that document the areas where the provider has actually built out its broadband network infrastructure, such that the provider is able to provide service, and where the provider is capable of performing a standard broadband installation. Each provider's submission shall include the details of how it generated its polygon shapefiles, propagation maps and model details, or list of addresses or locations.
(i) Terrestrial fixed providers using certain wireline technologies may not report coverage that exceeds a defined maximum distance from an aggregation point, including the drop distance, or that exceeds 500 feet from a deployed line or distribution network infrastructure to the parcel boundary of a served location.
(A) Terrestrial fixed providers using Digital Subscriber Line technology shall not report coverage that exceeds 6,600 route feet from the digital subscriber line access multiplexer to the customer premises for speeds offered at or above 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. Providers that offer Digital Subscriber Line service in areas at speeds less than 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream shall not be subject to a maximum buffer requirement for such areas.
(B) Terrestrial fixed providers using Fiber to the Premises technology shall not report coverage that exceeds 196,000 route feet from the optical line termination point to the optical network termination point.
(C) Terrestrial fixed providers using Hybrid Fiber Coaxial Cable technology shall not report coverage that exceeds 12,000 route feet from the aggregation point to the customer premises.
(D) Locations can be reported as served beyond the maximum distances to the extent that:
(
(
(
(
(ii) Fixed wireless service providers that submit coverage maps shall submit propagation maps and propagation model details based on the following parameters:
(A) A cell edge probability of not less than 75% of receiving the maximum advertised download and upload speeds;
(B) A cell loading factor of not less than 50%; and
(C) Receiver heights within a range of four to seven meters.
(2) Fixed wireless service providers that submit coverage maps shall provide the following information with their propagation maps and model details:
(i) The name of the radio network planning tool(s) used, along with information including:
(A) The version number of the planning tool;
(B) The name of the planning tool's developer;
(C) The granularity of the model (
(D) Affirmation that the coverage model has been validated and calibrated at least one time using on the ground testing and/or other real-world measurements completed by the provider or its vendor.
(ii) The following base station information:
(A) Frequency band(s) used to provide the service being mapped;
(B) Information about whether and how carrier aggregation is used;
(C) The radio technologies used on each frequency band (
(D) The elevation above ground for each base station.
(iii) The following terrain and clutter information:
(A) The name and vintage of the datasets used;
(B) The resolution of clutter data;
(C) A list of clutter categories used with a description of each; and
(D) The link budget and a description of the other parameters used in the propagation model, including predicted signal strength.
(iv) Information on the height and power values used for receivers/customer premises equipment (CPE) antennas in their modeling (height must be within a range of four to seven meters).
(3) Mobile providers must submit coverage maps based on the following specified parameters:
(i) For 3G services—a minimum expected user download speed of 200 kbps and user upload speed of 50 kbps at the cell edge; for 4G LTE services—a minimum expected user download speed of 5 Mbps and user upload speed of 1 Mbps at the cell edge; for 5G-NR services—a minimum expected user download speed of 7 Mbps and user upload speed of 1 Mbps, and a minimum expected user download speed of 35 Mbps and user upload speed of 3 Mbps at the cell edge.
(ii) For each of the mobile broadband technologies, 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR, and for mobile voice services, the provider's coverage maps must reflect coverage areas where users should expect to receive the minimum required download and upload speeds with cell edge coverage probability of not less than 90% and a cell loading of not less than 50%.
(iii) For each of the mobile broadband technologies, 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR, and for mobile voice services, the provider's coverage maps must account for terrain and clutter and use terrain and clutter data with a resolution of 100 meters or better. Each coverage map must have a resolution of 100 meters or better.
(iv) For each of the mobile broadband technologies, 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR, and for mobile voice services, the provider's coverage maps must be submitted in vector format.
(4) Mobile providers must disclose the following information regarding their radio network planning tools:
(i) The name of the planning tool;
(ii) The version number used to produce the map;
(iii) The name of the developer of the planning tool;
(iv) Affirmation that the coverage model has been validated and calibrated at least one time using drive test and/or other real-world measurements completed by the provider or its vendors, to include a brief summary of the process and date of calibration; and
(v) The propagation model or models used. If multiple models are used, the provider should include a brief description of the circumstances under which each model is deployed (
(vi) The granularity of the models used (
(5) Propagation maps submitted by providers must depict outdoor coverage, to include both on-street or pedestrian stationary usage, and in-vehicle mobile usage.
(6) Mobile providers must disclose all applicable link-budgets used to design their networks and provide service at the defined speeds, and all parameters and parameter values included in those link budgets, including the following information:
(i) A description of how the provider developed the link budget(s) and the rationale for using specific values in the link budget(s); and
(ii) The name of the creator, developer or supplier, as well as the vintage of the terrain and clutter datasets used, the specific resolution of the data, and a list of clutter categories used, a description of each clutter category, and a description of the propagation loss due to clutter for each.
(7) For each of the categories of data providers must disclose to the Commission, providers must submit reasonable parameter values and propagation models consistent with how they model their services when designing their networks. In no case may any provider omit link budget parameters or otherwise fail to account for constraints on their coverage projections.
(d) Providers shall include in each Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing a certification signed by a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.
(a) The Commission shall protect the security, privacy, and confidentiality of non-public or competitively sensitive information submitted by entities or individuals, including information contained in the Fabric, the dataset
(1) Withholding from public inspection all data required to be kept confidential pursuant to § 0.457 of this chapter and all personally identifiable information submitted in connection with the information contained in the Fabric, the dataset supporting the Fabric, and availability data submitted pursuant to § 1.7004; and
(2) Subject to contractual or license restrictions, making public all other information received about the status of broadband internet access service availability at specific locations, including geographic coordinates and street addresses, whether a provider has reported availability at a location, and whether an entity or individual has disputed a report of broadband internet access service availability at such location.
(b) Providers may request that provider-specific subscription information in Digital Opportunity Data Act filings be treated as confidential and be withheld from public inspection by so indicating on the filing at the time that they submit such data.
(c) Providers seeking confidential treatment of any other data contained in their Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings must submit a request that the data be treated as confidential with the submission of their filing, along with their reasons for withholding the information from the public, pursuant to § 0.459 of this chapter.
(d) The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-disclosure of provider-specific information.
(e) The Commission shall release the following information in Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings to the public, and providers may not request confidential treatment of such information:
(1) Provider-specific mobile deployment data;
(2) Data regarding minimum advertised or expected speed for mobile broadband internet access services; and
(3) Location information that is necessary to permit accurate broadband mapping, including as part of the crowdsourcing or challenge processes.
(a)
(1) May be random, as determined by the Commission; or
(2) Can be required in cases where there may be patterns of filing incorrect information, as determined by the Commission.
(b)
(1) Crowdsourced data filers shall provide:
(i) Contact information of the filer (
(ii) The location that is the subject of the filing, including the street address and/or coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the location;
(iii) The name of the provider;
(iv) Any relevant details disputing the deployment and availability of broadband internet access service at the location; and
(v) A certification that to the best of the filer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements in the filing are true and correct.
(2) The online portal shall notify a provider of a crowdsourced data filing against it, but a provider is not required to respond to a crowdsourced data filing.
(3) If, as a result of a crowdsourced data filing, the Commission determines that a provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection information is not accurate, then the provider shall refile updated and corrected data information within 30 days of agreeing with the Commission's determination. Providers are allowed to bundle multiple crowdsourced corrections into one filing during a 30-day period.
(4) All information submitted as part of the crowdsourcing process shall be made public, with the exception of personally identifiable information and any data required to be confidential under § 0.457 of this chapter.
(a) The Commission shall create the Fabric, a common dataset of all locations in the United States where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed. The Fabric shall:
(1) Contain geocoded information for each location where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed;
(2) Serve as the foundation upon which all data relating to the availability of fixed broadband internet access service collected pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection shall be overlaid;
(3) Be compatible with commonly used Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software; and
(4) Be updated every 6 months by the Commission.
(b) The Commission shall prioritize implementing the Fabric for rural and insular areas of the United States.
(a) After consultation with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, the Commission shall use the availability and quality of service data submitted by providers in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to create:
(1) The Broadband Map, which shall depict areas of the country that remain unserved by providers and depict the extent of availability of broadband internet access service;
(2) A map that depicts the availability of fixed broadband internet access service; and
(3) A map that depicts the availability of mobile broadband internet access service.
(b) The Commission shall use the maps created in paragraph (a) of this section to determine areas where broadband internet access service is and is not available and when making any funding award for broadband internet access service deployment for residential and mobile customers.
(c) Based on the most recent Digital Opportunity Data Collection information collected from providers, the Commission shall update the maps created in paragraph (a) of this section at least biannually using the data collected from providers.
(d)(1) The Commission shall develop a process through which it can collect verified data for use in the coverage maps from:
(i) State, local, and Tribal entities primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access service coverage in their areas;
(ii) Third parties, if the Commission determines it is in the public interest to use their data in the development of the coverage maps or the verification of data submitted by providers; and
(iii) Other Federal agencies.
(2) Such government entities and third parties shall follow the same filing process as providers submitting their broadband internet access service data in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection portal.
(a) It shall be unlawful for an entity or individual to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit information or data as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability or the
(b) [Reserved]
The International Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, and Office of Economics and Analytics may update the specific format of data to be submitted pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to reflect changes over time in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other data storage and processing functionalities and may implement any technical improvements or other clarifications to the filing mechanism and forms.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on proposals for processes for consumers, governmental entities, and other parties to challenge the availability data represented in the broadband maps; additional processes for verifying broadband availability data submitted by providers; targeted reforms to the FCC Form 477 subscribership data that broadband and voice providers are required to file biannually; and implementing other requirements of the Broadband DATA Act.
Interested parties may file comments on or before September 8, 2020 and reply comments on or before September 17, 2020. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before October 19, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, by any of the following methods:
•
•
For further information on this proceeding, contact Kirk Burgee, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-1599,
This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. In this
2. Under the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must issue rules for the collection of broadband internet access service data from each “provider” of broadband internet access service, with “provider” being defined as “a provider of fixed or mobile broadband internet access service.” The Commission proposes that the providers subject to the requirements adopted in the
3. The Broadband DATA Act requires that rules issued by the Commission provide for uniform standards for the reporting of broadband internet access service data. The Commission believes that, except as noted below, the reporting requirements previously adopted in the
4.
5.
6.
7. As an alternative to having all fixed providers submit latency information, should the Commission determine that the collection of latency data is only applicable to providers of certain types of fixed service? Further, should a more limited set of providers be required to submit more granular data on latency? Would such requirements be consistent with the Broadband DATA Act? For instance, should the Commission require only fixed wireless providers submitting propagation maps to file data indicating the 95th percentile latency values for the services they offer? Should the Commission extend this requirement to satellite providers, given the notable differences in latency values between satellite providers and other fixed providers? Should any latency requirements of satellite providers be limited to non-geostationary-orbit satellites and should such providers report latency values specifically for the apogee of satellites' orbits or for the greatest path distance between a satellite and ground station? The Commission proposes to direct OEA, in consultation with WCB, IB, and OET, to issue specific guidance to providers on how to measure their network latency for purposes of reporting such information in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals regarding the collection of latency information and ask commenters to provide detailed explanations for any alternative recommendations, including any alternative latency benchmarks.
8.
9. In the
10. First, the Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to disclose to the Commission additional details of their propagation models and of the link budgets they use for modeling cell edge network throughput (both uplink and downlink). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to submit a description of sites or areas in their network where drive testing or other verification mechanisms demonstrate measured deviations from the input parameter values or output values included in the link budget(s) submitted to the Commission, and a description of each deviation and its purpose. The Commission seeks comment on whether requiring providers to include this additional information will help it more fully understand and assess propagation model coverage predictions.
11. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should prescribe propagation modeling standards, such as a minimum value for Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). A map showing where the RSRP or RSSI meets or exceeds a minimum value could assist with the verification of expected user speeds. The
12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt any other minimum values for particular model parameters not otherwise specified above. For example, the
13. Finally, the Commission asks whether it should require mobile providers to submit additional coverage maps based on different speed, cell edge probability, or cell loading values. Are there particular use cases or categories of subscribers, such as Machine-to-Machine or Internet-of-Things users, that might benefit from information on 4G LTE or 5G-NR service availability at speeds below the thresholds set forth in the Broadband DATA Act and adopted in the
14. In the
15. The Commission believes such information could help Commission staff independently verify the accuracy of provider coverage propagation models and maps submitted by mobile wireless service providers. The
16. If the Commission opts to collect this information as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, it seeks comment on what information it should collect, how often it should collect it, and whether filers should regularly submit infrastructure information to the Commission or submit information only on staff request, such as when the need for staff to verify part or all of a filer's network arises. In the
17. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must issue final rules that establish processes through
18. In this section, the Commission proposes requiring mobile providers to submit a statistically valid sample of on-the-ground data (
19.
20. The Commission proposes requiring mobile service providers to submit on-the-ground test data—from a combination of mobile and stationary tests—as a tool to help the Commission verify their voice and broadband coverage submissions. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of mobile broadband coverage data that mobile providers submit to the Commission. The Commission believes that on-the-ground test data from mobile providers could be a critical component of its verification process. The Commission anticipates, however, that requiring providers to test their entire network would be prohibitively expensive; accordingly, the Commission proposes to require mobile providers to collect a statistically valid, unbiased sample of on-the-ground test data to verify their coverage maps. Industry commenters have indicated either that providers do not collect on-the-ground test data in the ordinary course of business or that they do so only to calibrate their propagation models. Accordingly, the Commission expects that collecting a sample would be more effective in verifying coverage than on-the-ground test data already collected in the ordinary course of business.
21. In order to help verify the accuracy of mobile providers' submitted coverage maps, the Commission proposes that carriers submit evidence of network performance based on a sample of on-the-ground tests that is statistically appropriate for the area tested. The Commission proposes at a minimum that the speed tests include downlink, uplink, latency, and signal strength measurements and that they be performed using an end-user application that measures performance between the mobile device and specified test servers. The Commission proposes that speed tests must be taken outdoors. The Commission proposes requiring a combination of mobile and stationary tests to accurately verify the coverage speed maps. The Commission also seeks comment on how it should compare the two types of tests. The Commission requests comment on the parameters that should be specified, such as the time of day within which the tests should be performed and whether it should set limits on the height at which the tests must be conducted. In the case of mobile speed tests, the Commission requests comment on whether it should set limits on vehicle speed and whether it should accept unmanned aircraft system tests. The Commission also seek comment on how to ensure that providers submit a statistically valid and unbiased sample of tests. For example, how should the tests be distributed between urban and rural areas? How can the Commission ensure that the speed test measurements represent the typical user case for the area covered? How, for example, can the Commission prevent providers from performing their tests close to their towers where signal strength is greatest? In developing its methodology, should the Commission specify the types of equipment that providers can use, including the handsets and any other special equipment necessary for the testing? Should the Commission specify where to place such equipment during the testing? Although the Commission eliminated the requirement to report network coverage on Form 477 by spectrum band in the
22. The Commission seeks comment on the costs of requiring mobile providers to submit a statistically valid sample of on-the-ground data to verify their network coverage. The Commission recognizes both that it may be difficult to develop a statistically valid methodology governing mobile and stationary tests that eliminates or minimizes selection bias and that on-the-ground testing may prove burdensome and expensive. The Commission requests comment on the potential costs of developing a statistically valid methodology for on-the-ground testing. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the potential costs for providers to implement such methodology, particularly in light of its proposal to require only a sample of a mobile provider's network. What are the costs of requiring providers to submit both mobile stationary test data? To what extent should the Commission modify its requirements for small providers, if at all?
23. The Commission requests comment on the type of confidentiality protections that it should apply to any on-the-ground data that mobile providers submit. The Broadband DATA Act's privacy provision does not clearly apply to the collection of data submitted to verify the accuracy of coverage data. Should these data be subject to disclosure pursuant to the private-public balancing test in §§ 0.457 and 0.461 of the Commission's rules? Should these data be available to the public during the challenge process?
24. While the Broadband DATA Act requires that each provider must include as part of its filing a certification from a corporate officer, the
25. In the
26. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require an engineering certification for biannual filings for fixed broadband service providers, as it proposes to do with certifications for mobile service providers. The Commission believes that this step would improve the accuracy of data on availability of fixed services by requiring providers to focus on network performance in certifying the accuracy of their filings, but seek comment on whether the same considerations would apply to fixed services so as to warrant this step. The Commission also seeks comment on any potential penalties for violating the certification.
27. The Commission seeks comment on how best to implement the Broadband DATA Act's requirement to collect and use “verified” data from third parties and government entities. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on what constitutes “verified” data. If the data are produced by the entity submitting them, should the entity be required to explain the methodology for collecting and producing the data? If the entity gathers the data from providers or other third parties, should the entity be required to attest to the reliability of the data? Also, how should these verified data be “used” in the coverage maps to provide a useful resource? If the provider agrees with the data submitted by the government entity or third party, then the Commission proposes to “use” such data by including the data in the coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on a process for getting the provider's assessment of this data. The Commission also seeks comment on these proposals and seek ideas on other approaches to verifying and using such data.
28. The Commission proposes requiring third party and governmental entities to attempt to resolve any inconsistent data with the providers. If the third party or governmental provider successfully reconciles its data with the provider, then the Commission would allow those data to be used in the coverage maps. If the third-party or governmental data cannot be reconciled with the provider after a period of 60 days, then the data would be made publicly available and its status noted, but the data would not be included as part of the official coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and whether it is consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's mandate that such data be used in the coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on any other methods for resolving inconsistencies between a provider's data and data submitted by third parties and government entities.
29. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to handle instances in which an external data format used by the third party is incompatible with the data submitted by providers—for example, if a state provides data based on geocoded addresses, but the provider submits availability data using shapefiles. The Commission proposes to make publicly available, and note the status of, such incompatible data from governments and third parties, but not to include them in producing the coverage maps. Is this a viable proposal and consistent with the Broadband DATA Act? What else could the Commission do to resolve the incompatibility in formats so that the
30. The Commission seeks comment on the flexibility in the Broadband DATA Act to collect third-party availability data when the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to use such data in the development of the coverage maps or the verification of data submitted by providers. The Commission proposes to accept broadband internet access service availability data from any third party that is able to demonstrate that it has employed a sound and reliable methodology in collecting, organizing, and verifying coverage data or location data. However, the Commission proposes to only use such data if, in its discretion, it determines that the data would make the coverage maps (or the data underlying the coverage maps) more accurate. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any alternatives where collecting and using third-party data would improve the coverage maps or the underlying provider-submitted data. For example, should the Commission use third-party data only to verify the availability data submitted by providers? Also, what factors should drive the Commission's public interest determination to accept and use the third-party data? The Commission proposes to use factors such as whether the third party specializes in gathering and/or analyzing broadband availability data, the format and type of data submitted (are they compatible and comparable with the providers' data), and the extent to which the entity demonstrates that its collection, organization, and verification methodologies are sound and would appreciably improve the accuracy and reliability of the coverage maps. Finally, the Commission proposes to require third parties submitting verified data to certify that the information it is submitting is true and accurate to the best of their actual knowledge, information, and belief, consistent with the certification requirements the Commission proposes to apply to providers in connection with their availability data.
31. As discussed above, the Commission proposes to require mobile providers to submit on-the-ground test data to assist the Commission in verifying their data submissions. In this section, the Commission proposes to collect voluntarily-submitted “verified” on-the-ground data on mobile service from “[s]tate, local, and Tribal governmental entities that are primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access service” and from Federal agencies for use in the mobile coverage maps the Commission creates. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to collect voluntarily-submitted “verified” on-the-ground data from other third parties, including other non-federal government entities and mobile providers that submit data unrelated to their own networks, for use in the coverage maps. In addition, to meet the Broadband DATA Act's mandate to conclude a process that tests the feasibility of partnering with one or more Federal agencies to collect information to verify and supplement broadband information submitted by providers, the Commission proposes to launch a pilot program with a Federal agency with a delivery fleet, such as the United States Postal Service (USPS). The Commission seeks comment on how to implement this pilot program.
32.
33. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt standards or requirements that these data must satisfy. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission has discretion, under the Act, not to use such data if it determines that such data is not reliable or helpful for creation of the coverage maps. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, and under what conditions, the Commission should accept verified on-the-ground data from other third parties. The Commission proposes to define “other third parties” to include all entities not mentioned in section 642(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, including non-federal governmental entities that are not primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access service, service providers that submit data on other providers' network coverage and performance, and other entities, such as third-party entities that routinely collect on-the-ground data. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed definition. Would data from other third parties help the Commission develop more accurate mobile coverage maps and verify providers' submitted data? If the Commission collects data from other third parties, should it specify the procedures and parameters for on-the-ground testing that the Commission will accept, as discussed in more detail above? Should the third-party be required to certify the methods by which the data were collected? The Commission seeks comment on whether establishing required procedures and standards will ensure the accuracy of these data. Will third parties be able to manipulate the procedures to generate inaccurate coverage data?
34. The Commission seeks comment on whether it can set technical standards for on-the-ground data that it collects from government and third parties, and if so, what standards it should require for such data. In the
35. Should the Commission consider accepting any other forms of verified on-the-ground data besides mobile and/or stationary test data? In the
36.
37. The Commission believes that it should study the feasibility of partnering with Federal agencies by seeking to develop a pilot program that would install drive-test hardware on last-mile federal delivery fleet vehicles in certain sample markets to perform drive tests during a typical delivery route. How can the Commission develop a cost-effective pilot program with USPS or another Federal agency that would yield useful data? What steps could the Commission take to address concerns about the validity of drive-test data more generally? For example, should the Commission focus its pilot program on rural areas, where there are greater concerns with mobile coverage, or on markets where coverage is disputed? The Commission seeks comment on whether the pilot program should also incorporate stationary testing.
38. What other considerations should guide the Commission's decisions in establishing a pilot program with a federal agency that operates delivery fleet vehicles, such as USPS? For instance, in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report that considered the feasibility of USPS delivery vehicles collecting mobile wireless coverage and performance data, GAO identified two potential limitations: large up-front costs and complex technical specifications. The Commission seeks comment on the likely costs of a pilot program. What procedures could the Commission implement to address concerns with requiring delivery workers to perform technically complex tasks? Can drive-testing be automated so that delivery vehicles can collect data passively? The Commission seeks comment on possible best practices for obtaining reliable drive-test data, including whether technicians would be required to install and calibrate test equipment; whether drivers would have to be trained to perform tests; and whether, in order to ensure a statistically valid sample, multiple drive-tests would be required on the same route. Would there be any legal or other constraints inherent in partnering with USPS for such a pilot program? For example, USPS Rural Carrier Associates “serv[e] thousands of families and businesses in rural and suburban areas while traveling millions of miles daily” but typically use their own vehicles for mail delivery. Are there challenges to deploying drive testing equipment in vehicles not owned by the USPS? Are there other Federal agencies “that operate delivery fleet vehicles,” as the Broadband DATA Act states?
39. Finally, should the Commission also consider exploring a pilot program with a private entity that operates a large fleet of delivery vehicles, such as UPS or Federal Express? Are private entities better equipped than Federal agencies to operate such a program? Are there other private entities that routinely cover a high enough percentage of the roads?
40. In the
41. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must establish a user-friendly challenge process through which consumers, State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, and other entities or individuals may submit coverage data to challenge the accuracy of the coverage maps, broadband availability information submitted by providers, or information included in the Fabric. In establishing the rules for the challenge process, the Commission must take into consideration a number of factors, including: (1) The types and granularity of information to be provided in a challenge; (2) the need to mitigate time and expense in submitting or responding to a challenge; (3) the costs to consumers and providers from misallocating funds based on outdated or inaccurate information in coverage maps; (4) lessons learned from comments submitted in the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process; and (5) the need for user-friendly submission formats to promote participation in the process. The process also must include the verification of data submitted through the challenge process and allow providers to respond to challenges to their data. The Commission must develop an online mechanism for submitting challenges: (1) That is integrated into the coverage maps, (2) that allows an eligible entity or individual to submit a challenge, (3) that makes challenge data available in both GIS and non-GIS formats, and (4) that clearly identifies broadband availability and speeds as reported by providers. The rules establishing the challenge process also must include processes for the speedy resolution of challenges and for updating the Commission's coverage maps and data as challenges are resolved.
42. In the
43. The challenge process must be available for consumers, as well as for State, local, and Tribal governmental entities and other entities. The Commission anticipates that the issues raised in individual consumer challenges may differ from those raised by entities, so it proposes to establish separate sets of requirements and procedures for consumer challengers.
44.
45. The Commission concludes that collecting this information would appropriately balance the burden on the challenger and provider, would facilitate challenge participation, and would adequately verify the information collected, as required by the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
46. The Commission also seeks comment on the information that it proposes to collect for challenges to fixed service availability and coverage data. Is there additional information that the Commission should collect or are any of the proposed types of information not needed to present a clear picture of a challenge? Is the information the Commission proposes to collect comprehensive enough to cover all challenges considered by the Broadband DATA Act? The Commission also believes that requiring detailed information to support a challenge will inhibit the submission of frivolous or malicious filings. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
47. Regarding the information requested from a consumer challenger, the Commission seeks comment on the specificity it should require for contact information and whether there are any privacy concerns with requesting this information (
48. Also, in order to ensure the reliability of the data submitted, the Commission proposes that an individual, or an authorized officer or signatory of an entity, certify that the person examined the information contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct. Because providers must certify in a similar fashion with regard to their availability filings, the Commission believes it is appropriate that a challenge to the substance of such filings be supported with certification that have comparable terms. The Commission also propose that, if allowed to challenge multiple locations at once, the challenger must certify that this is true for each of the locations. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
49. Once a challenge is submitted to the online portal, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to allow providers to respond. As an initial matter, the Commission proposes that its online portal should automatically notify a provider that a challenge has been filed against it. The Commission believes that sending an automatic notification to providers is appropriate as it should promote active engagement, awareness, and responsiveness by providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any alternatives to alerting providers to the filing of a challenge in the portal.
50. The Commission proposes requiring providers to submit a reply to a challenge in the online portal within 30 days of being notified of the challenge. The Commission further proposes that a provider's failure to submit a reply within the required period, or its acceptance of the assertions in the challenge, result in removal of the location from the Commission's official coverage map. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and on alternative time periods and alternative approaches. For example, NTCA has proposed a 60-day reply period for providers. Any timetable for a provider response must balance the burdens on the provider versus the public's interest in rapid resolution of disputes so that the Commission has the best broadband internet access service deployment data available for funding decisions and reporting. The Commission also wants to assess the burdens on providers (especially small providers) in responding to challenges.
51. The Commission proposes that a provider disputing a challenge must provide evidence in its reply to the challenger that it has either verified the existence of service or evaluated its capability of provisioning service at the location of the dispute and that it is currently providing service or is willing and able to provide service to the challenger at that location. Once a
52. The Commission also seeks comment on its proposed use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in resolving disputes between challengers and providers. Based on this evidentiary standard, the Commission would weigh the presented evidence and determine whether the challenger had initially established evidence of a lack of service and, if so, whether the service provider has shown by the greater weight of the evidence that it makes service available at the challenger's location. The Commission seeks comment on potential alternatives. For example, in response to the
53. One of the benefits of the proposed approach is that it balances the interest in avoiding unreliable or malicious availability and location disputes with the need to have finality in disputes to enhance the accuracy of the provider's data and coverage maps. The Commission believes the process it proposes would encourage the sharing of information and opportunities for cooperation that will result in many challenges being resolved promptly without the need for Commission intervention. The Commission's goal is to establish a dispute resolution process that achieves the Broadband DATA Act's objectives while minimizing burdens on the parties and conserving valuable Commission resources to the maximum extent possible.
54.
55. The Commission seeks comment on how to create a user-friendly challenge process that encourages participation to maximize the accuracy of the maps, while also accounting for the variable nature of wireless service. However, the Commission recognizes that resolving challenges to mobile coverage maps presents unique challenges not present with regard to fixed broadband availability challenges.
56. For consumers seeking to challenge mobile broadband coverage map data, the Commission proposes to collect the following information: (1) The name and contact information of challenger (
57. In addition to challenges regarding the availability of mobile broadband service, the Commission proposes to allow challenges by consumers based on quality of service metrics such as delivered user speeds. The Commission believes that allowing such challenges would help it verify the accuracy of mobile coverage maps by providing it with a source of on-the-ground data that reflects consumer experience in areas across the country. The Commission
58. The Commission proposes to use generally the same processes and timeframes for mobile service providers to respond to challenges in the mobile context as it proposes to use in the fixed context. Consistent with its proposal for fixed services, the Commission proposes that its dispute tracking portal automatically push notifications through to mobile providers regarding filings made against them and that providers seeking to dispute a challenge be required to submit a reply to a challenge in the online portal within 30 days of being notified of the challenge. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. For challenges involving the delivered speeds associated with a mobile broadband service, the Commission proposes that a provider disputing a challenge from a mobile consumer must provide evidence in its reply to the challenger that it has evaluated the speed of its service at the location of the dispute and determined that the delivered speeds of the service match the speeds indicated on the provider's coverage map. The Commission proposes that the rest of the challenge process for consumers follow the same approach as for consumer challenges in the fixed context. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and on any better alternatives to ensure that it and the provider have complete and accurate information about the challenge. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the rules for consumer challenges should require uniform measurements per grid cell similar to what the Commission proposes to adopt for challenges by governmental and other non-consumer entities as set forth below.
59.
60. While government organizations or other entities (
61.
62. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and specifically on whether they would appropriately balance the considerations the Broadband DATA Act requires it to take into account in establishing the challenge process.
63.
64. In the Mobility Fund Phase II proceeding, the Commission required challengers to submit proof of lack of 4G LTE coverage in the form of actual outdoor download throughput speed test measurements to reflect actual consumer experience throughout the entire challenged area. In particular, the Commission adopted a requirement that a challenger must take measurements that were no more than one-half of a kilometer apart from one another in each challenged area and required challengers to demonstrate measured speeds falling below the applicable parameters in 75% of the challenged area. Challengers also faced additional evidentiary requirements, including a requirement to use pre-approved handset models, to purchase a service plan from each provider in the challenged area, and to conduct speed tests during a specified timeframe.
65. In response to the
66. The Commission proposes to adopt an approach for governmental and other non-consumer entities submitting challenge data that is similar to the process for demonstrating compliance with performance requirements that the Commission has proposed in the
67. The Commission proposes that tests must be conducted using a device certified by the service provider that is the subject of the challenge as compatible with its service. The Commission further proposes that each speed test be taken between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and that each test be taken outdoors. The Commission proposes to require challengers to provide test data from a combination of mobile and stationary tests. For in-vehicle tests, the Commission seeks comment about whether it should specify the maximum vehicle speed during which tests may be taken and whether challengers should be required to report the speed of the vehicle at the time of the measurements. If tests are conducted with the device in the vehicle, the Commission proposes that the measurements must be calibrated to accurately represent outdoor operation and that the calibration procedures be provided with the analysis. The Commission also proposes to require that speed test data be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or official. To the extent governmental or other non-consumer entities use third-party applications to collect data used for their challenge process, the Commission proposes that the Commission will adopt the same procedures for qualifying applications as it uses for receiving crowdsource data and consumer challenge data. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how a challenger might game the results of a challenge. If so, how might the Commission prevent such gaming?
68. The Commission acknowledges that a mobile service provider might have different motives for challenging a competitor's propagation models and coverage maps than governmental entities and other third parties that do not provide competing mobile broadband internet access service. Should the Commission allow competing mobile service providers to submit challenges, and if so, should the Commission adopt different evidentiary standards for mobile service providers than for governmental agencies and other third parties that are not service
69. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the minimum requirements and other standardization procedures tit proposes here for challenging mobile broadband coverage data, if adopted, would ensure the reliability of the data sufficient to satisfy its obligations under the Broadband DATA Act. If not, then what other processes would be necessary for the Commission to verify and ensure the reliability of the challenge process data in accordance with the Act?
70.
71. In order to facilitate the resolution of challenges in the mobile context, the Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to submit a standardized “challenge evaluation map” of specific geographic areas being challenged using a Commission-approved propagation model. In the
72. To address these issues, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require providers, as part of the challenge process, to produce a standardized “challenge evaluation map” of specific geographic areas being challenged using a Commission-approved propagation model (
73. Are there other alternatives that would achieve the results of balancing the desired outcome of having more transparent maps and predictions with less calibration error and uncertainty? Can a standard model be produced by providers without undue additional burden, given the more extensive and detailed normal-course-of-business RF propagation modeling that providers perform using proprietary tools?
74. For commenters who favor the adoption of a standardized propagation model, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate open RF propagation model(s) and its applicability to meet the accuracy expectations of this proceeding. Is Longley-Rice and/or E-Hata appropriate for the Commission to use for this purpose? How could such models be calibrated, such as through the use of clutter databases and models, to be adequately reflective of their effects on propagation in specific geographic areas? For example, path loss exponents and/or other modeling parameters such as clutter loss may be geographically dependent on the propagation path between two points (between transmitter and receiver) and significantly influence predicted coverage and performance. Commenters should specify how their recommended model(s) would provide the Commission and challengers the insight necessary to evaluate the coverage maps and performance claims produced by providers in their normal course of network planning and design.
75. Could a public dataset(s) of geospatial RF propagation parameters be developed and used, so that a standard evaluation model, or models, may be calibrated for the public benefit? Are there incentives and policies that the Commission should promote to encourage greater transparency and the development of trusted public propagation data in the public's interest? Commenters should specify which parameters should or should not be disclosed to the Commission with supporting reasons for their position on each parameter.
76. The Commission also seeks comment on when in the process providers should be required to submit these new coverage maps, if the Commission adopts this requirement to standardize challenge evaluation maps. Should providers submit such maps on a calendar basis or only when coverage and performance is challenged in a specific area? Could the use of standardized challenge evaluation maps reduce the need and cost burden of measurement test campaigns? What
77.
78. What, if any, additional infrastructure data should the Commission include in the framework? The Commission proposes to obtain busy hour metrics for individual cell sites and include that data, as well as backhaul speed and technology, into its analysis. Are there other metrics and data sources that the framework should incorporate? The Commission also proposes to include population data and roadway traffic patterns. Should traffic pattern data be used to assess the level of cell loading on the network? If a mobile connection can be established in an area at one point, or one point in time, but not another, especially if the lack of a connection can be explained by high traffic or another factor, should the map of coverage in that area be deemed accurate and reliable? The Commission proposes to include a confidence rating within the framework, given the amount of data and level of network traffic variation to account for. The Commission proposes that the framework treat urban and rural areas differently. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission asks that commenters provide in-depth explanations of how various types of on-the-ground tests, crowdsourced data, infrastructure data, and other data can be used to verify mobile coverage pursuant to this framework.
79. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to establish processes and procedures whereby entities or individuals submitting non-public or competitively sensitive information can protect the security, privacy, and confidentiality of that information with regard to Fabric data and broadband internet access service data that they submit. While the Broadband DATA Act does not expressly require the Commission to extend such protection to data submitted as part of the challenge process, the Commission proposes to do so in a limited capacity. In the
80. In the
81. In the
82. In the
83. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Fabric include “all locations in the United States where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed.” In order to create the Fabric, the Commission will need to provide greater specificity on the criteria to determine whether a location can have fixed broadband service installed at it. In the context of the Connect America Fund (CAF), a “location” is a residential or business location to which providers would extend mass market broadband and voice services. Carriers are directed to base residential locations served on the Census Bureau's definition of a “housing unit,” and to report “the locations of businesses that they would expect to demand consumer-grade broadband services, which typically are
84. As the Commission has done in the CAF context, the Commission proposes to have the Fabric reflect a location as a single point, defined by both geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) and street address. As the Commission stated in the
85. Because the Commission specified that a residential location should be based on the definition of a housing unit, locations in the CAF context include the individual units in Multi-Tenant Environments (MTEs), such as an apartment building or office building, not simply the buildings themselves. The Commission seeks comment on whether to use the same approach for the Fabric, particularly given that fixed providers likely would not offer service only to some units in an MTE. Should each unit in a building be assigned a unique identifier, or should the building be assigned a unique identifier and the number of units recorded, which is more analogous to the process used for the Connect America Fund? Is it feasible to record the location of each individual unit within an MTE? What are the trade-offs of identifying a separate latitude/longitude (and perhaps altitude) point for each unit versus recording a single point for the building and its total number of units? The Commission is concerned that the added complexity of identifying individual units as individual locations—far more locations and the need to differentiate not just latitude and longitude, but also potentially altitude—would outweigh any benefits. The Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
86. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether to identify each location as a residential or business location, which the Broadband Mapping Coalition claims to be a “critical step to ensure that datasets can be appropriately selected and calibrated.”
87. The Commission also seeks comment on how to ensure the quality of the Fabric. The Commission notes that there are different types of errors possible in such a database, for example, incorrectly counting a structure that cannot have a broadband service installation as a location, such as a dilapidated house or a shed. Another type of error could be to exclude locations that should be included, such as a home in a heavily forested area that does not appear on satellite imagery. Finally, there also could be errors about the characteristics of a location, such as identifying the wrong building from among several on a parcel as the one that is broadband serviceable. Given the potential for errors, what data sources and methods can the Commission staff use to verify the accuracy of the Fabric? Should 2020 Census data, the National Address Database, Open Address Database, and/or other sources be used? Should staff manually verify a statistically valid sample of locations in the database? If so, what methods should they use for that verification? The Commission seeks comment on these and other approaches to ensure that the Fabric is accurate.
88. In the
89. “Willfully and knowingly” seems to presume that such information was submitted intentionally, and the Commission seeks comment on the evidence needed to prove an entity or individual's intent. The Commission has generally found intent in cases where a false statement is “coupled with proof that the party . . . [knew] of its falsity.” In addition, the Commission notes that other statutes that it enforces include a similar standard of proof. For example, section 510(a) of the Communications Act similarly provides that the United States may seize equipment that is used or sold “with willful and knowing intent to violate” section 301 or 302a of the Communications Act. Should the Commission apply “willfully and knowingly” in the same manner in this context? “Recklessly” suggests something less than intent yet more than mere negligence. What evidence would the Commission need to show that an entity or individual recklessly submitted materially inaccurate or incomplete information?
90. The Commission also seeks comment on the definition of “materially inaccurate or incomplete.” What level of inaccuracy or incompleteness does the information submitted to the Commission have to reach before it should be considered material? Could it involve just one location or must there be multiple locations involved for the inaccurate or incomplete information to be material? The Commission asks whether it should adopt a quantitative or qualitative standard for determining materiality and what that standard should be. In addition, the Commission notes that § 1.17 of its rules require that truthful and accurate statements be provided to the Commission in investigatory and adjudicatory matters. Specifically, § 1.17(a)(2) makes it unlawful to “provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information.” The Commission has held that a false statement may constitute an actionable violation of that rule, even absent an intent to deceive, if it is provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the statement is correct and not misleading.
91. The Commission seeks comment on the scope of the information subject to the enforcement requirements. The Broadband DATA Act makes it unlawful to submit “information or data . . . that is materially inaccurate or incomplete information or data with respect to availability of broadband internet access or the quality of service with respect to broadband internet access service.” Because these are the only two types of information required to be reported under the Broadband DATA Act, should enforcement of the prohibition in the Broadband DATA Act be limited to any data or information supplied in biannual Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings? Or, could enforcement be brought against availability and quality of service data submitted in other contexts (
92.
93. The Commission proposes to adopt an approach that properly distinguishes between those entities that make a conscientious, good faith effort to provide accurate data and those that fail to take their reporting obligations seriously or affirmatively manipulate the data being reported. The Commission agrees with the Broadband Mapping Coalition that reporting entities that make a good faith effort to comply fully and carefully with reporting obligations should not be sanctioned if their data prove to be flawed in some way, provided that any errors be quickly and appropriately addressed. The Commission also agrees with commenters who argue that, while providers are responsible for submitting accurate Digital Opportunity Data Collection data, an excessively aggressive enforcement stance could lead providers to be overly cautious in their filings and possibly distort the coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
94. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether section 803 of the Broadband DATA Act is an exclusive remedy for all actions under that law or whether behavior that may be actionable under existing provisions of the Communications Act or its rules remain subject to enforcement under the Commission's general section 503 authority. For example, under rule 1.17(a)(2), provision of written information to the Commission without a reasoned basis is actionable under the Commission's existing authority today. How should this, and other existing provisions, apply?
95. Penalties for failure to file. Similar to the conclusion that the Commission reached in the
96.
97.
98. In the
99. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must hold annual workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs regions to provide technical assistance with the collection and submission of data. In addition, every year the Commission, in consultation with the Tribes, must review the need for continued workshops The Commission seeks comment on the type of technical assistance the Tribes will need to help them collect and submit data under the Broadband DATA Act's provision allowing State, local, and Tribal government entities that are primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access service coverage in their areas to provide verified data for use in the coverage maps.
100. The Broadband DATA Act also requires the Commission to establish a process in which a provider that has fewer than 100,000 active broadband internet access service connections may request and receive assistance from the Commission with respect to GIS data processing to ensure that the provider is able to comply with the Broadband DATA Act in a timely and accurate manner. In response to the
101. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission also must provide technical assistance to consumers and State, local, and Tribal governments with respect to the challenge process, which must include detailed tutorials and webinars and the provision of Commission staff to provide assistance throughout the challenge process. The Commission seeks comment on the type of technical assistance with the challenge process that it should provide pursuant to this requirement, taking into account the current lack of funding for the Commission to implement the provisions of the Broadband DATA Act.
102. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, not later than 180 days after the Commission's broadband internet access service collection rules take effect, the Commission must: (1) Reform the Form 477 broadband deployment service availability collection process to achieve the purposes of the Broadband DATA Act in a manner that enables the comparison of data and coverage maps produced before the implementation of the Broadband DATA Act with data and coverage maps produced after implementation of the Broadband DATA Act and maintains the public availability of broadband internet access service deployment data; and (2) harmonize reporting requirements and procedures regarding the deployment of broadband internet access service that are in effect before the new rules are effective with those in effect after the new rules are effective. The measures the Commission proposes in this
103. In the
104. The Commission interprets the plain language of the Broadband DATA Act as requiring the collection of Form 477 subscription information pursuant to the rules in effect on July 1, 2019, which is before the date the
105. In order to ensure continuity in its fixed broadband deployment data, the Commission proposes to continue the current census-based deployment data collection under Form 477 for at least one reporting cycle after the new granular reporting collection commences. The Commission seeks comment on sunsetting the census-block broadband deployment reporting in the FCC Form 477 and the timing of doing so.
106. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
•
•
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).
107.
108. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection modifications proposed herein should be submitted to the Commission via email to
109. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in this
110. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to collect accurate and granular broadband deployment data so that it can bring broadband to those areas most in need of it. In the
111. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 641-646.
112. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
113.
114. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
115. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
116. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small entities that its action might affect, the Commission discusses in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet access service.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
123.
124.
125. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities.
126.
127. The broadband internet access service provider category covered by this Order may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
128.
129. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular licensees that will be affected by its actions. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally-developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.
135.
136. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.
137. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, the Commission does not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size standard. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.
138.
139. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the
140.
141.
142.
143. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. The SBA approved these definitions. In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.
144. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Commission does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, it notes that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
145.
146.
147. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the
148.
149. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (1) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15% discount on its winning bid; (2) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25% discount on its winning bid; and (3) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35% discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
150. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use the most current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard: All such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
151.
152.
153. Because section 706 of the Act requires the Commission to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, it anticipates that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158. The potential modifications proposed in the
159. In addition, as a means of improving the accuracy and reliability of broadband internet access service data, the Commission proposes a number of methods to verify the information in the providers' filings, including a challenge process and receiving verified data from third parties and governmental mapping entities. The Commission also seeks comment on how to implement provider coverage map verification and enhancement tools for mobile services, including on-the-ground data, infrastructure data, and a challenge process. The adoption of any of these verification processes could subject small entities and other providers to additional submission, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements.
160. In addition, since the Broadband DATA Act grants fixed broadband internet access service providers the ability to submit availability data using a list of addresses or locations, the Commission seeks comment on how to implement a location-based reporting requirement for small entities and other providers. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to impose penalties for providers that file materially inaccurate or incomplete data related to availability or quality of broadband internet access service. The Commission also asks about the scope and timing of filing corrected data when it is determined that a provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection information is inaccurate or incomplete. If adopted, any of these requirements could impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance obligations on small entities.
161. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the
162. None.
Broadband, Broadband Mapping, Communications, Internet, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Radio, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise noted.
(c)
(1) Challengers must provide in their submissions:
(i) Name and contact information (
(ii) The street address or geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the location(s) at which broadband internet access service coverage is being challenged;
(iii) Name of provider being challenged;
(iv) Category of dispute, selected from pre-established options on the portal;
(v) For customers or potential customers challenging availability or the coverage maps, evidence and details of a request for service (or attempted request for service), including the date, method, and content of the request and details of the response from the provider, while for non-customers challenging availability or the coverage maps, evidence showing no availability at the disputed location (
(vi) For challengers disputing locations in the Broadband Location Fabric, details and evidence about the disputed location;
(vii) For customer or potential customer availability or coverage map challengers, a representation that the challenger resides or does business at the location of the dispute or is authorized to request service there. For consumers seeking to challenge mobile broadband coverage map data, a representation that the challenger is a subscriber of the provider who is the subject of the challenge;
(viii) A certification from an individual or an authorized officer or signatory of a challenger that the person examined the information contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the challenge are true and correct; and
(ix) For consumers disputing mobile broadband throughput speeds, speed test evidence. For governmental and other entities disputing mobile broadband throughput speeds, speed test measurement data showing measured throughput speeds in the area they wish to challenge. Governmental and other entities must conduct speed tests using a device certified by the service provider that is the subject of the challenge as compatible with its service and must conduct speed tests outdoors and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time. Governmental and other entities must also substantiate speed test data by the certification of a qualified engineer or official.
(2) The online portal shall alert a provider if there has been a challenge submitted against it.
(3) For availability and coverage map challenges, within 30 days of receiving an alert, a provider shall reply in the portal by:
(i) Accepting the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, in which case the provider shall submit a correction for the challenged location in the online portal within 30 days of its portal response; or
(ii) Denying the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, in which the case the provider shall, within 60 days after providing notice of its rejection in the portal:
(A) Provide evidence to the challenger that the provider serves (or could serve) the challenged location. For consumer challenges involving the delivered speeds associated with a mobile broadband service, provide evidence that the provider has evaluated the speed of its service at the location of the dispute and determined that the delivered speeds of the service match the speeds indicated on the provider's coverage map. For governmental and other entity challenges involving the delivered speeds associated with a mobile broadband service, provide comprehensive on-the-ground data, or a statistically valid and sufficient sample of such data to verify coverage maps in the challenged area;
(B) Indicate in the online portal that such communication to the challenger was made; and
(C) Attempt to resolve the dispute with the challenger.
(4) Failure to respond to the challenger within the applicable timeframes shall result in a default finding against the provider, resulting in mandatory corrections to the provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection information as requested by the challenger. Providers shall submit any such corrections within 30 days of the missed reply deadline or the Commission will make the corrections on its own and incorporate such change into the coverage maps or Broadband Location Fabric.
(5) Once a provider submits its response, the location shall be identified on the coverage maps as “in dispute/pending resolution.”
(6) If the parties are unable to reach consensus within 60 days after submission of the provider's reply in the portal, then the Commission will review the evidence and make a determination, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard with the burden of proof on the challenger, either:
(i) In favor of the challenger, in which case the provider shall update its Digital Opportunity Data Collection information within 30 days of the decision; or
(ii) In favor of the provider, in which case the location will no longer be subject to the “in dispute/pending resolution” designation on the coverage maps.
(7) For challenges to the Fabric, the Commission shall resolve such challenges within 60 days of receiving the filing.
(8) The provider shall retain for its records, for at least six months after the challenge dispute is resolved, any evidence showing that it actually serves (or could serve) the location being challenged, as well as documentation regarding its communication with the challenger.
(9) Government entities (State, local, Tribal) may file challenges in bulk, but each challenge must contain the requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(10) The Commission shall make public information about the location that is the subject of the challenge (including the street address and/or coordinates (latitude and longitude)), the name of the provider, and any relevant details concerning the basis for the challenge.
(a) * * * Such action may lead to enforcement action and/or penalties as set forth in the Communications Act and other applicable laws.
(b) Failure to make the Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing in accordance with this subpart may lead to enforcement action pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and any other applicable law.