Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Federal Railroad Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or Program) regulations to ensure that retail food stores can no longer use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process to delay FNS' administrative actions to sanction a retail food store for SNAP violations. Under this rule, FNS will process FOIA requests and FOIA appeals separately from the administrative action for all SNAP violations, as originally proposed. The processing of FOIA requests and appeals during the administrative and judicial review process will have no impact on when the agency can take administrative action.
This rule is effective October 26, 2020 and will apply to any FOIA request or appeal received by the agency on or after the effective date.
Vicky T. Robinson, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Retailer Policy and Management, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by phone at 703-305-2476, or by email at
SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 278.6 provide that retailers considered for a sanction as a result of committing a program violation will be charged with those violations and have a full opportunity to respond to FNS prior to FNS' making a final administrative determination and applying the sanction. After FNS issues a charge letter to the store with detailed information regarding the nature of the violations, the firm has 10 days to respond to the charge letter, orally or in writing, with any information or evidence that explains the activities that led to the charges outlined in the letter. FNS does not consider a FOIA action as an official response to the charge letter. However, if a firm files a FOIA request after receiving a charge letter, FNS currently interrupts the administrative process, such as issuing a sanction determination, while the agency responds to the FOIA request. Even if the firm submits a response to the charge letter in addition to a FOIA request, FNS delays the review of the firm's charge letter response until FNS has responded to the FOIA request.
In the event that the firm appeals the agency's FOIA response, FNS again delays administrative action while it responds to the appeal. The FOIA requires FNS to provide a response to the initial request within 20 days of receipt. The FOIA also requires FNS to make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 days of receipt. FNS is continually working to improve the time it takes to process FOIA requests and appeals and to reduce its backlog. Today, however, firms continue participating in SNAP and redeeming benefits until the FOIA actions are complete, regardless of the seriousness of the charges originally outlined in the charge letter or the fact that the firm has not submitted a formal response to the charges. Once responses to the FOIA request and FOIA appeal are complete, the agency renews administrative proceedings by either (a) reviewing the firm's official response to the charge letter if one has been submitted, or (b) giving the firm another 10 days to provide an official response.
If the firm's official response provides documentation supporting its stance relating to the charges outlined in the charge letter, FNS considers this documentation before issuing a notice of determination. It is only on the issuance of this notice of determination that FNS may impose sanctions against a firm.
Holding SNAP administrative actions, particularly the issuance of a notice of determination, in abeyance throughout the entire FOIA process has had a serious impact on SNAP integrity because FNS practice has enabled violating firms to continue to participate in SNAP during the FOIA process. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 to FY 2018, 1,550 SNAP retail food stores submitted FOIA requests to FNS after receiving a charge letter. Of those retail food stores, 902 appealed the agency's FOIA response. These 1,550 firms collectively redeemed over $266 million in SNAP benefits while the FOIA actions were processed (see Table 1).
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FNS proposed to amend SNAP regulations in order to process FOIA requests and FOIA appeals separately from administrative actions FNS takes against retail food stores.
FNS adopts the NPRM as final. This final rule will apply to any FOIA request or appeal received by the agency on or after the publication date. In the final rule, FNS amends SNAP regulations in order to process FOIA requests and appeals separately from administrative actions while a sanction determination is made. In cases warranting permanent disqualification, the sanction is effective upon receipt of the agency determination notice, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
This ensures firms that are found to have committed the most egregious Program violations, such as trafficking, will be removed from the Program expeditiously, as Congress intended when it amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) to add requirements for permanent disqualifications to be effective from the date of receipt of the agency's determination notice.
The agency's issuance of determinations resulting in sanctions of non-permanent disqualification will become final and take effect 10 days after the firm receives the determination notice, unless the firm makes a timely request for administrative review. If an administrative appeal is filed in a non-permanent disqualification case, the final agency determination—rendered after the administrative review has been
During the sixty-day comment period, which ended on April 22, 2019, FNS received ten public comments in response to the NPRM. Two comments were from retailer associations that stated they represent small businesses. Two comments were from public advocacy groups. One comment was from a State government office and one comment was received from an independent office within the U.S. Government's Small Business Administration. Four comments were received from the general public, and one of these was submitted on behalf of three individuals. All public comments can be viewed at
Three commenters expressed general support for the NPRM and its intention to make the administrative action process more efficient. Two of these commenters specifically identified the ability of some retailers charged with trafficking to continue accepting SNAP benefits while an administrative action is held in abeyance during the processing of a FOIA request or appeal as reason alone to promulgate a rule to separate these two processes. Several commenters opposed to the NPRM also cited the importance of removing retailers that traffic benefits, although the commenters did not view the NPRM as a step towards that general goal.
Seven commenters expressed opposition to the NPRM, primarily because of concerns about the impact on retailers' right to due process. Several of these commenters asserted that FNS' current administrative process makes FOIA necessary, suggesting that FNS' charge letter does not adequately explain the nature of the charges, and arguing the NPRM would take away the only available option for retailers to gain access to the evidence against them prior to being sanctioned. Some commenters also felt that the agency should release more records when responding to a FOIA request or during administrative procedures before judicial review. Some commenters questioned the validity of FNS' assertions in the NPRM regarding the submission of extensive and complex FOIA requests, and appeals that repeatedly request information that has been consistently denied in prior requests, seemingly with the intention of delaying FNS' determination to disqualify or impose a civil monetary penalty against the firm. These commenters stated that FNS must provide a much clearer explanation, based on actual data, for its decision to separate the processing of FOIA actions from administrative decision-making is the correct course of action. Others expressed concern that the NPRM could create a disparate impact on small businesses, including minority-owned businesses and the communities they serve. Commenters requested FNS offer strategies to mitigate these potential impacts.
The comment summary and analysis in this preamble primarily focuses on general comment themes and those comments were considered in this final rule.
Several commenters suggested that FNS does not provide sufficient information regarding violations when charging retailers with such violations, thereby hampering retailers' due process rights.
When FNS identifies a firm that appears to have violated program rules, the agency issues a charge letter detailing the suspected violations, the sanction(s) that may be imposed for these violations, and the steps the firm must take if it wishes to address the charges before a determination is made and sanctions go into effect. The statute directs that the Secretary promulgate regulations outlining the criteria by which FNS may issue a charge letter on the basis of evidence that may include facts established through on-site investigations (an “investigative case”), inconsistent redemption data, or evidence obtained through a transaction report under an electronic benefit transfer system (a “data case”). Current regulations at 7 CFR 278.6(b) outline the charge letter process.
A data case is based on transaction data for the firm obtained through the SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system and is analyzed in relation to the firm's business model and operation. For a data case, the charge letter provides the firm with a list of transactions that establish a clear and repetitive pattern of unusual, irregular, or inexplicable activity for the firm's business type. The charge letter specifies the exact charge as well as the sanction provided by regulation for that violation. The charge letter also breaks down the transaction information further by the type of unusual activity, such as multiple transactions made from the same household accounts in a set period of time, or transactions for amounts inconsistent with observed store food stock and firm records. The information currently provided to the firm in the charge letter includes:
• A description of the unusual activity;
• the exact date and time of each transaction;
• the terminal ID number for the device used to conduct each transaction;
• the entry method of each transaction (such as “swipe” or “manual key entry of card number” at the point-of-sale);
• the exact amount of each transaction;
• the total number of transactions and dollar amount for each type of unusual activity; and
• the last four digits of the household account number associated with each transaction.
The charge letter also explains the firm's right to respond to the charges by presenting evidence or explanation for the unusual activity. The firm must submit this response within 10 days of receiving the charge letter, and may do so orally or in writing. The charge letter provides a name and phone number of a specific FNS employee to contact regarding this action and a mailing address for any documentation that the firm would like to submit in its defense.
For an investigative case, the charge letter provides the firm with a redacted copy of the investigator's report. Only information that would otherwise allow firms to identify undercover investigators is redacted. The report contains information regarding undercover visits to the retail food store made by the investigator and describes each visit in detail. The report indicates:
• The number of investigators;
• the number of visits;
• the start and end dates during which the visits occurred;
• the number of visits that resulted in a purchase that violated SNAP regulations;
• the date of the transaction(s);
• the exact transaction amount(s);
• the amount of SNAP benefits trafficked, if applicable; and
• the items purchased using SNAP benefits, and whether the item was eligible or ineligible.
As with the charge letter for a data case, the investigative charge letter also
The agency disagrees with the assertion that retailers' due process rights are hampered by a lack of sufficient information regarding violations provided in a charge letter. When issuing a charge letter, FNS provides a significant amount of substantial information to a retail food store in a clear and concise manner. As explained above, a firm is provided with data identifying exactly which transactions are violations of SNAP regulations or are suspicious, the basis for FNS' determination that those transactions are violations of SNAP regulations or are suspicious, and when those transactions occurred. Finally, the charge letter explains a firm's opportunity to respond to the charges by presenting evidence or a rational explanation for those transactions, should it choose to do so.
FNS carefully considers a firm's response to the charge letter before issuing a notice of determination. Firms that ultimately receive an adverse determination are afforded extensive procedural protections through administrative and judicial review. Such firms may file a request for administrative appeal within 10 days of the date of delivery of the notice of determination.
If the agency determination is upheld in administrative review, FNS issues a final administrative determination informing the firm that the adverse action will take effect 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice—unless the firm has been charged with a serious offense warranting permanent disqualification such as trafficking, in which case the permanent disqualification is already in effect as required by statute. The firm is also advised in the final administrative determination that it has 30 days to avail itself of the judicial review process by filing a complaint against the United States in Federal court.
A few commenters suggested that FNS could address the issue of lengthy delays in administrative decision-making by simply providing all of the records related to the charges leveled against a firm in the charge letter itself, when responding to the FOIA request, or during administrative review proceedings. As noted above, FNS already provides extensive data and details regarding suspected violations in the administrative process.
The FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) provides the public the right to request access to records from a Federal agency. Federal agencies are required to disclose any agency records requested under the FOIA unless they fall under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. FNS exercises caution and due diligence when deciding whether to release a record in response to a FOIA request. For example, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(E) protects from disclosure information which “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or that would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. . . .” Under this exemption, FNS does not disclose information that would publicly reveal methods used in analyzing data or in conducting an on-site investigation, as such information would make it possible for a retail food store to modify its activity in the future to avoid detection. Failing to protect this information from disclosure under FOIA would jeopardize FNS' ability to identify and investigate firms that are violating program rules.
The release of agency records of such a sensitive nature under administrative review proceedings would likewise jeopardize the agency's ability to investigate firms. However, if, after the agency's findings and ruling, the firm still takes issue with FNS' determination, judicial review is an available option. Under the discovery process at judicial review, some of these records
In some instances, when a firm is charged with violations, the firm requests the SNAP sales of individual stores that are similar to its store. FNS protects individual retail food store SNAP sales amounts (
A decision by the Supreme Court on June 24, 2019, in
Following the Supreme Court decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance
Because the Supreme Court has held that individual store data submitted to the agency is protected by Exemption 4, the agency may not release such data in response to a FOIA request.
One commenter suggested revamping FNS' current process of utilizing Administrative Review Officers (AROs) and replacing them with Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), with the reasoning that ALJs have considerably more authority to convene evidentiary hearings and discovery proceedings.
Some commenters expressed concern that providing full access to records only during discovery proceedings at the judicial review stage is not a financially viable option for small retail food stores that are unlikely to pursue court proceedings. Congress recognized the need for a robust administrative due process when retailers are charged with program violations, which provides for stores of any size to present evidence if they disagree with the agency's determination. In most cases, retailers are allowed to continue accepting SNAP benefits until after the final administrative determination is rendered, and multiple opportunities for retailers to rebut charges and administratively appeal agency determinations are provided by statute and regulation. The statue is clear, however, that when it comes to serious offenses warranting permanent disqualification, the disqualification must go into effect on the date of receipt of the notice of disqualification 7 U.S.C. 2023(a)(18). The FNS administrative due process is aligned with the FNA, and this rule ensures that the agency is in full compliance with its statutory mandate to expeditiously remove stores that have committed serious violations from the Program.
Some commenters expressed concern with the alleged lack of support provided in the NPRM regarding FNS' statement that attorneys for some firms submit extensive and complex FOIA requests and appeals, and repeatedly request information that has been consistently denied when requested through FOIA. Commenters questioned FNS' concerns that the seeming intention of the attorneys was delaying FNS' final determination to disqualify or impose a civil money penalty against the respective firm.
As is evident in agency FOIA logs,
From Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 to FY 2018, FNS issued close to 12,000 charge letters. Firms that did not file a FOIA request after receiving a charge letter had their notice of determination issued, on average, approximately six weeks later. The 1,550 firms that did file a FOIA request after receiving a charge letter were able to redeem benefits for an average of eight weeks before the agency could respond to the FOIA request. Of those, the 902 firms that then appealed the agency's FOIA response, however, were able to redeem benefits for an average of eighty weeks before final action could be taken on their respective cases.
This final rule will improve program integrity and reduce final action timeframes significantly by preventing a FOIA request and appeal from delaying administrative actions and allowing the agency to take timely action against firms that have been determined to have committed Program violations. This rule does not affect the right of firms charged with program violations to request information from FNS through FOIA and utilize the information provided by the agency in their case.
A few commenters expressed a general concern about the impact that removing a retail food store from the Program may have on the population served by that particular store. SNAP regulations provide for a retail food store to pay a civil monetary penalty (CMP) in lieu of a time-limited or ‘term’ disqualification sanction when the agency determines that sanctioning the firm by removing it from the Program would cause hardship to participants. The charge letter describes this option and also informs the retailer of the CMP amount it would have to pay if determined to be eligible.
A hardship CMP generally may not be imposed in lieu of a permanent disqualification, such as for trafficking benefits. However, in certain circumstances described in 7 CFR 278.6(i), it is possible for a trafficking CMP to be imposed in these cases. For example, if the firm timely submits to FNS substantial evidence that demonstrates that the firm had established and implemented an effective compliance policy and program to prevent violations, a CMP, as opposed to permanent disqualification, may be warranted.
FNS understands the impact that removing an authorized retail food store for program violations, even temporarily, may have on SNAP participants. FNS provides ample consideration to SNAP participants' ability to access and purchase an adequate variety of food items at other SNAP-authorized retail food stores in an area when making administrative decisions. Firms impacted by this final rule will be afforded all of the appropriate considerations described here.
As outlined in the rule, FNS will not delay administrative actions based on the receipt of FOIA requests. In cases where a firm submits a FOIA request, FNS will consider the firm's official response to the charge letter while simultaneously processing the firm's FOIA request. On completing the review of the firm's official response to the charges, FNS will issue a notice of determination. A firm may then submit additional information in support of its position to FNS or the court as part of its due process rights under administrative appeal or judicial review, including information provided by FNS' response to a FOIA request.
If a firm receives an adverse notice of determination for the most egregious violations, such as trafficking, the permanent disqualification sanction shall go into effect on the firm's receipt of the notice of determination per statute and regulation. In fiscal year 2018, of the 1,555 firms permanently disqualified, 1,552 were determined to have trafficked in SNAP benefits, two (2) falsified information, and one (1) was determined to have committed a third-strike violation warranting permanent disqualification.
Except for firms disqualified from SNAP because they were disqualified from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be significant. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is considered neither an E.O. 13771 regulatory action nor an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because it results in no more than
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). USDA does not anticipate this final rule is likely to have an economic impact of $100 million or more in any one year, and therefore, does not meet the definition of “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866. The changes in this final rule are not anticipated to have any impacts on SNAP participation or benefit issuance; any costs or savings will be as the result of changes that impact retailers who are subject to sanctions as a result of failure to comply with the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended.
The rule separates the process of disqualifying or imposing fines on retailers from the process of responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or appeals made by retailers.
Under current regulations, the process is as follows:
• FNS issues a charge letter to a retailer suspected of violating program rules. The letter describes the transactions that led to the charges and the possible sanctions that may be imposed as a result. Sanctions are not actually imposed at this point.
• The retailer has 10 days to respond to the charge letter.
• FNS examines evidence, including any response from the retailer, to determine whether the retailer violated program rules. If FNS determines that the retailer has violated program rules, FNS issues a notice of determination to the retailer, including a sanction if applicable.
○ For retailers determined to have committed violations warranting permanent disqualification, including trafficking, the sanction takes effect on receipt of the notice of determination.
• For non-permanent violations, the firm may be temporarily disqualified and/or pay a fine. These sanctions take effect 10 days from receipt of the notice of determination, unless a timely request for an administrative review is filed.
• The notice also informs retailers that they have 10 days to request administrative review. If the case involves a permanent disqualification, the retailer will be permanently disqualified on receiving the initial notice of determination and remain so during the administrative review. If a retailer files such a request in a non-trafficking case, the sanctions are held in abeyance while the review is performed. Retailers have the opportunity to provide additional information in support of their position in administrative review.
• FNS then makes a final determination based on the administrative review. If the retailer was permanently disqualified on receiving the original notice of determination and remained as such during administrative review, the permanent disqualification remains in effect if the final determination sustains the original determination. If the final determination is that the retailer committed non-permanent violations, sanctions go into effect 30 days after the final determination.
• Retailers who disagree with FNS' final determination may then file a complaint against the United States to obtain judicial review within 30 days. Retailers may submit new information to the reviewing court.
Retailers considered for disqualification or imposition of a fine, like any citizen or company, may submit FOIA requests. Under current practice, when a FOIA request is submitted, FNS' determination to disqualify or impose a fine against the firm is delayed until the agency has responded to the FOIA. Retailers may also appeal the agency's FOIA response; again, under current practice, the determination is delayed until the appeal is resolved. As noted elsewhere in the rule, some firms have used the FOIA and FOIA appeals process to stall the imposition of sanctions. For example, a lawyer who has handled multiple FOIA requests asks for the exact same information (such as the name of the investigator) that has been denied repeatedly in previous requests. As a result, current practice has resulted in a delay in taking administrative actions against retailers for SNAP violations. Although the timeframe for making a determination is about 1.4 months when no FOIA request is made, that timeframe is extended, sometimes for 2 years or longer, when a FOIA/FOIA appeal is requested.
Under the final rule, retailers will no longer be able to use the FOIA process to delay FNS's administrative actions for SNAP violations. FNS will no longer
As a result of this change, firms found to have committed program violations, such as trafficking SNAP benefits, will be removed from the Program on a timelier basis. Firms that are determined to have committed program violations may avail themselves of administrative review and subsequent judicial review; sanctions for non-permanent violations would be held in abeyance during these additional proceedings as under current practice.
In general, this final rule is expected to result in earlier implementation of sanctions against firms that violate program rules. As noted previously, there are no anticipated impacts on SNAP participation or on SNAP benefit issuance. Between FY 2015 and FY 2018, 1,550 retailers that were charged with a violation submitted a FOIA request, and more than half (902) submitted a FOIA appeal.
Under this final rule, these retailers would not be able to use the FOIA process to delay final adjudication and thereby continue redeeming benefits. This loss of revenue caused by speedier disqualifications, and the subsequent inability to accept SNAP benefits, may result in some of these firms going out of business because of their violations.
Between FY 2015 and FY 2018, 272 retailers that were charged with non-permanent violations submitted a FOIA request. For these retailers, sanctions ranged from fines to term disqualification (temporary for a period of 6 months or more). Under this final rule, those firms would now see their sanctions implemented sooner than under current practice. However, because of the small number of retailers involved, the annual impact of imposing the sanctions earlier will be minor. There will be no permanent dollar loss of benefits for these retailers as the sanctions themselves are unchanged. These changes may also result in fewer retailers submitting FOIA requests/appeals as a delaying tactic, which will reduce the amount of time the agency devotes to responding to these requests. As is the case under current rules, SNAP participants will be able to redeem their benefits at other authorized retailers. When a firms' non-permanent disqualification would cause a hardship to SNAP households because of limited food access, FNS may impose a fine in lieu of the non-permanent disqualification. Therefore, there is minimal impact on SNAP participants and the overall economy. There also is no impact on State agencies, as oversight of retailer operations is a Federal function.
As discussed in the preamble of this rule, several commenters suggested alternative approaches to specific rule provisions. One such suggested alternative was that FNS provide all of the records related to the charges leveled against a firm in the charge letter, in order to reduce the delay in decision making resulting from FOIA requests and appeals. The agency is not adopting this suggestion for the following reasons. First, as described in the preamble, the agency believes that the charge letter already provides extensive information regarding the basis of the charges. Second, certain information is protected from disclosure under Federal law, including information that would reveal methods used in analyzing data or in conducting an on-site investigation, and therefore it would not be appropriate to include in the charge letter.
The agency also considered allowing retailers determined to have committed a program violation that warranted non-permanent disqualification to hold the determination in abeyance pending the outcome of the FOIA response, but not any subsequent FOIA appeal. However, allowing firms that have been disqualified to remain on the Program pending outcome of the initial FOIA response would negate the purpose of this rule, which is to separate FNS' administrative action from the FOIA process. As previously stated, firms found to have violated program rules will continue to be afforded their full due process opportunities for administrative and judicial proceedings. As such, FNS is not adopting this alternative.
No consideration was given in allowing retailers determined to have committed the most egregious violations, such as trafficking, to continue to participate in SNAP, as doing so would not only negate the purpose of this rule, but negatively impact program integrity, add costs associated as provided in the aforementioned Economic Analysis, and not conform with Congressional intent to remove egregious violators expeditiously. The processing of FOIA requests and appeals during the administrative and judicial review process will now have no impact on when the agency can take administrative action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule regulates all SNAP-authorized retailers, not just those stores that are likely to fall under the Small Business Administration gross sales threshold to qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. Small retailers (defined as small or medium-sized grocery stores, convenience stores, combination stores, specialty stores, and other retailers, but not supermarkets, super stores, or large groceries) represent 82 percent of all SNAP retailers. However, among these small retailers, SNAP redemptions accounted for less than one percent of all their retail sales in 2018.
While all SNAP-authorized retailers are covered by this rule, the number of small businesses directly affected by this rule is expected to be small. This final rule only impacts those retail food stores that are charged with program violations, such as trafficking of benefits, and that submit FOIA actions to challenge penalties. Between 2015 and 2018, 7,235 firms were charged with trafficking; 7,230 were small retailers. Another 3,697 were charged with other violations; 3,663 were small retailers. During this four-year period, 1,550 of these firms submitted FOIA requests, averaging 388 per year, less than one-fifth of a percent of all SNAP-authorized retailers that are classified as small.
These firms had average annual redemptions of $170,000 and average annual revenue of $516,000, so their SNAP redemptions represented about a third of total revenue. Under this rule, retailers will experience a loss of revenue once the disqualification determination goes into effect. Revenue loss may result from lost SNAP sales as well as from reduced sales of items that, while not eligible for purchase using SNAP funds, were typically purchased in the same transaction using another tender type. USDA does not have data necessary to quantify the impact of this rule on revenue resulting from reduced non-SNAP purchases, only the impact on revenue resulting from lost SNAP purchases. While this impact would be significant for those affected, the number of affected retailers is not substantial: In an average year only 0.18 percent
FNS also considered if the revenue lost from disqualification was large enough for the firm to exit the Program, and related economic impact. Of the 2,982 small firms temporarily disqualified between 2015 and 2018, FNS estimates that approximately 215 firms in an average year did not return to the Program. This represents .1 percent of all SNAP-authorized small retailers impacted for the period. For firms that are permanently disqualified, the intent is for the firms to remain off of the Program, so FNS has little data to indicate whether those stores remain in
In its comments on the NPRM, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy (the “Office”) raised additional concerns on behalf of small businesses. First, the Office is concerned about the basis of the determination of whether a retailer has violated SNAP rules. Some retailers have argued that they need to submit FOIA requests to better understand the charges against them. However, as described in more detail in the preamble, the charge letter details the suspected violations, the sanction(s) that may be imposed for these violations, and the steps that the firm must take if it wishes to challenge the charges. By regulation, FNS may issue a charge letter on the basis of evidence from an on-site investigation, inconsistent redemption data, or evidence obtained through electronic benefit system (EBT) transactions. EBT transactions are reviewed in relation to the store operation (including, but not limited to, size, inventory, sales practices). Firms are told in writing exactly which transactions are suspicious, when these transactions occurred, and why they are suspicious. Firms are given the opportunity to respond to these charges, and FNS carefully considers their official response before issuing a notice of determination. Even then, firms can file requests for administrative appeal and, if the determination is upheld, file a complaint through the judicial process.
The Office's final concern is that small businesses will be forced to expend large sums of money seeking judicial review of the FNS determination. As noted above and elsewhere in the preamble of this rule, retailers will continue to be afforded their full due process opportunities for administrative and judicial proceedings as under current statute and regulations. Therefore, the Department does not believe that the proposed changes to the FOIA process will result in a change in the number of firms pursuing a judicial review.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effects unless so specified in the Effective Dates paragraph of the final rule. Before any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
FNS has reviewed the final rule, in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-004, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis” to identify and
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.
FNS holds regularly scheduled consultations with Tribal Organizations to discuss regulations. On August 15, 2018, February 14, 2019, and October 24, 2019, FNS consulted with Tribal communities regarding the rule. These sessions provided Tribal communities the opportunity to address any concerns related to the rule. Tribal communities identified no issues regarding the rule. FNS is unaware of any current Tribal laws that could conflict with the final rule.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Participation of Retail Food Stores, Wholesale Food Concerns and Insured Financial Institutions.
Administrative and Judicial Review—Food Retailers and Food Wholesalers.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 278 and 279 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
(p)
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * * Additionally, FNS may not grant extensions of time or hold the administrative review process in abeyance solely on the basis of a pending FOIA request or appeal. * * *
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * * Additionally, the designated reviewer may not grant extensions of time or hold the administrative review process in abeyance solely on the basis of a pending FOIA request or appeal. * * *
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Announcement of fee.
This document announces the fee that HUD will collect from borrowers of loans guaranteed under HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108 Program) to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in Fiscal Year 2021.
Paul Webster, Director, Financial Management Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-4563 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. FAX inquiries (but not comments) may be sent to Mr. Webster at 202-708-1798 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (division K of Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriations Act) provided that “the Secretary shall collect fees from borrowers . . . to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing” Section 108 loans. Identical language was continued or included in the Department's continuing resolutions and appropriations acts authorizing HUD to issue Section 108 loan guarantees during Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 HUD appropriations bill under consideration
On November 3, 2015, HUD published a final rule (80 FR 67626) that amended the Section 108 Program regulations at 24 CFR part 570 to establish additional procedures, including procedures for announcing the amount of the fee each fiscal year when HUD is required to offset the credit subsidy costs to the Federal Government to guarantee Section 108 loans. For FYs 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 HUD published notifications to set the fees.
This document sets the fee for Section 108 loan disbursements under loan guarantee commitments awarded for FY 2021 at 2.15 percent of the principal amount of the loan. HUD will collect this fee from borrowers of loans guaranteed under the Section 108 Program to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in FY 2021. For this fee announcement, HUD is not changing the underlying assumptions or creating new considerations for borrowers. The calculation of the FY 2021 fee uses a similar calculation model as the FY 2016, FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019, and FY 2020 fee notifications, but incorporates updated information regarding the composition of the Section 108 portfolio and the timing of the estimated future cash flows for defaults and recoveries. The calculation of the fee is also affected by the discount rates required to be used by HUD when calculating the present value of the future cash flows as part of the Federal budget process.
As described in 24 CFR 570.712(b), HUD's credit subsidy calculation is based on the amount required to reduce the credit subsidy cost to the Federal Government associated with making a Section 108 loan guarantee to the amount established by applicable appropriation acts. As a result, HUD's credit subsidy cost calculations incorporated assumptions based on: (1) Data on default frequency for municipal debt where such debt is comparable to loans in the Section 108 loan portfolio; (2) data on recovery rates on collateral security for comparable municipal debt; (3) the expected composition of the Section 108 portfolio by end users of the guaranteed loan funds (
Taking these factors into consideration, HUD determined that the fee for disbursements made under loan guarantee commitments awarded in FY 2021 will be 2.15 percent, which will be applied only at the time of loan disbursements. Note that future notifications may provide for a combination of upfront and periodic fees for loan guarantee commitments awarded in future fiscal years but, if so, will provide the public an opportunity to comment if appropriate under 24 CFR 570.712(b)(2).
The expected cost of a Section 108 loan guarantee is difficult to estimate using historical program data because there have been no defaults in the history of the program that required HUD to invoke its full faith and credit guarantee or use the credit subsidy reserved each year for future losses.
In this regard, Section 108 guaranteed loans can be broken down into two categories: (1) Loans that finance public infrastructure and activities to support subsidized housing (other than financing new construction) and (2) other development projects (
This document establishes a rate that does not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this document is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule sets forth the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) procedures for issuing PBGC guidance documents as required by an Executive order entitled “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.”
Hilary Duke (
This final rule adds to the Code of Federal Regulations a new 29 CFR part 4908, which implements the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.”
PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and from E.O. 13891.
The final rule provides the following procedures:
• Guidance documents will include specified information, including a statement that a guidance document does not bind the public, and will be posted at
• Significant guidance documents will have a 30-day public notice and comment period, be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and meet other requirements.
• Members of the public may request withdrawal or modification of a guidance document.
On October 9, 2019, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.” Central principles of E.O. 13891 are that the American public should only be subject to binding rules imposed through duly enacted statutes or through regulations that are lawfully promulgated, and that Americans should have fair notice of any such obligations. Section 4 of the order directs that, “[w]ithin 300 days of the date on which [the Office of Management and Budget] issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall, consistent with applicable law, finalize regulations, or amend existing regulations as necessary, to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.” On October 31, 2019, OMB issued OMB Memorandum M-20-02,
In accordance with OMB's direction, PBGC is amending title 29, chapter 40, subchapter L of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 4908, “Procedures for PBGC Guidance Documents.” These new regulations codify the requirements set forth in section 4 of E.O. 13891.
This is a rule of “agency organization, procedure or practice” and is limited to “agency organization, management, or personnel matters.” The final rule provides PBGC's procedures for issuing guidance documents. Accordingly, this rule is exempt from notice and public comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771.
PBGC finds good cause exists for making the additions set forth in this final rule effective less than 30 days after publication because the additions support PBGC's procedures for issuing guidance documents in compliance with the deadlines in E.O. 13891 and OMB Memo M-20-02.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employee benefit plans, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Pension insurance.
For the reasons given above, PBGC amends title 29, chapter 40, subchapter L of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 4908 to read as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), E.O. 13891, 84 FR 55235, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 371.
This part provides general procedures that apply to PBGC guidance documents.
In addition to the terminology in part 4001 of this chapter, as used in this part—
(1) Statements of specific applicability, including advisory or legal opinions directed to particular parties about circumstance-specific questions (
(2) Statements that do not set forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, including speeches and individual presentations, editorials, media interviews, press materials, or congressional testimony that do not set forth for the first time a new regulatory policy;
(3) Rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;
(4) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;
(5) Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;
(6) Decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;
(7) Internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties or the public;
(8) Legal briefs, other court filings, or positions taken in litigation or enforcement actions;
(9) Contract solicitations or awards; or
(10) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal advisory opinions addressed to executive branch officials.
(1) Lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles of Executive Order 12866.
(a)
(1) The term “guidance;”
(2) Identification of PBGC as the agency issuing the guidance document;
(3) Identification of the activities to which and the persons to whom the guidance document applies;
(4) The date of issuance;
(5) A statement if it is a revision to a previously issued guidance document and, if so, identification of the guidance document that it replaces;
(6) The title of the guidance document and a unique identification number;
(7) The citation to the statutory provision or regulation (in Code of Federal Regulations format) to which it applies or which it interprets;
(8) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document; and
(9) A prominent statement that “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or PBGC policies.” PBGC will modify the statement to reflect when the guidance document is authorized by law or incorporated into a contract.
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(i) Publish a notice in the
(ii) Provide an electronic method for the public to comment on the significant guidance document.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Specify the petitioner's name and a means for PBGC to contact the petitioner, such as an email address or a mailing address;
(2) Identify the guidance document that is the subject of the petition;
(3) Present any information and arguments in support of the request for withdrawal or modification of the guidance document, including any specific circumstances in which the guidance document is incorrect or obsolete; and
(4) Be directed to the designated PBGC official.
(d)
Issued in Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of inpyrfluxam in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. Valent requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective August 26, 2020. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 26, 2020, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038, is available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 26, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0038, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing several tolerances at different levels than were requested. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for inpyrfluxam including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with inpyrfluxam follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The target organs of inpyrfluxam are the liver and thyroid (rats, mice, and dogs). Liver effects include increased liver weight, elevated liver enzymes, and increased incidences of diffuse hepatocellular hypertrophy. Thyroid effects include increased incidences of follicular cell hypertrophy.
Decreased motor activity was seen in the acute neurotoxicity study in female rats, but no gross or microscopic morphological changes occurred. There was no neurotoxicity observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity in rats or in any other studies. No dermal hazard was identified in the 28-day dermal toxicity study.
There was evidence of quantitative sensitivity in the developmental toxicity study in rats. In this study, decreased fetal weights were observed at a dose
In the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity. The mutagenicity battery was negative. Inpyrfluxam is classified as “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by inpyrfluxam as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for inpyrfluxam used for human risk assessment can be found in the Inpyrfluxam Human Health Risk Assessment.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for inpyrfluxam. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute analysis assumed tolerance-level residues or higher by combining residues of the parent and residues of the applicable metabolites of concern, adjusting for molecular weight. In addition, the assessment used 100 percent crop treated (PCT) estimates and default processing factors.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model-Variable Volume Water Model (PRZM-VVWM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model-Groundwater (PRZM-GW) models, EPA calculated the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of inpyrfluxam for acute and chronic exposures in surface and ground water. EPA used the modeled EDWCs directly in the dietary exposure model to account for the contribution of inpyrfluxam residues in drinking water as follows: 104.5 ppm was used in the acute assessment and 69.5 ppb was used in the chronic assessment.
3.
Inpyrfluxam is not being proposed to be registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to inpyrfluxam and any other substances, and inpyrfluxam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that inpyrfluxam has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for inpyrfluxam is complete.
ii. Decreased motor activity was observed in females in the acute neurotoxicity study; however, no neurotoxicity was observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity or in any other studies in the inpyrfluxam database; therefore, a developmental neurotoxicity study was not needed with the absence of neuropathology.
iii. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, no reproductive effects were observed, and offspring toxicity (decreased pup weights in F1 and F2 generations) was observed in the presence of parental toxicity (thyroid weight changes and histopathology in P and F1 generations). Although there were developmental effects (decreased fetal weights) in the developmental study in rats in the absence of maternal toxicity, a clear NOAEL and LOAEL were identified, and the PODs selected for risk assessment purposes are protective of the developmental effects seen in the database.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and anticipated residues to account for the metabolites of concern. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to inpyrfluxam in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by inpyrfluxam.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, inpyrfluxam is not being proposed to be registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for inpyrfluxam.
4.
5.
The petitioner has proposed a multi-residue method (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe; QuEChERS; Method No. VP-393940) for the determination of inpyrfluxam in plant commodities. For livestock commodities, adequate enforcement methodology using the high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass detection (HPLC-MS/MS, or LC-MS/MS) is available for determination of residues of inpyrfluxam and its metabolites.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to
The Codex has not established any MRLs for inpyrfluxam.
One comment was received to the notice of filing that stated in part “ban use of valent impyrfluxam [sic] on corn cattle meat and other sites.”
Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to establish tolerances when it determines that the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined that these inpyrfluxam tolerances are safe. The commenter has provided no information supporting a contrary conclusion.
Some of the proposed commodity definitions for the tolerances being established are different than requested to be consistent with Agency nomenclature. EPA is not establishing a tolerance for residues in/on rice hulls as requested; it is not necessary as rice hulls are no longer considered a significant livestock feedstuff. Also, residues were less than the LOQ in the processed commodities at exaggerated rates; therefore, a tolerance for rice bran is not required. No separate tolerance is needed for apple, wet pomace since the residues on pomace will be adequately covered by the tolerance on “apple” due to a lack of concentration during processing. Similarly, no separate tolerances are needed for sugar beet molasses or sugar beet dried pulp since residues on those commodities will be adequately covered under “beet, sugar, roots.” Finally, EPA revised the tolerance value for “peanut, hay” from 2.0 ppm (as requested) to 2 ppm, to be consistent with OECD's rounding class practices.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of inpyrfluxam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following plant commodities: Apple at 0.01 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.02 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, pop, stover at 0.02 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 0.02 ppm; peanut at 0.01 ppm; peanut, hay at 2 ppm; rice, grain at 0.01 ppm; and soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm.
Also, tolerances are established for residues of inpyrfluxam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following livestock commodities: Cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; egg at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; and sheep meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of inpyrfluxam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in Table 2 to this section. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in Table 2 to this section is to be determined by measuring the free and conjugated forms of the sum of inpyrfluxam (3-(difluoromethyl)-
(b)-(d) [Reserved]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Reopening of comment period.
On April 14, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published an interim final rule to update regulatory requirements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to test and approve air-purifying particulate respirators for use in the ongoing public health emergency. Comments were to be received by August 12, 2020. This document announces a reopening of the comment period for an additional 30 days, to allow stakeholders and other interested parties additional time to respond.
The comment period for the interim final rule published April 14, 2020, at 85 FR 20598, is reopened. Written comments must be received by September 25, 2020.
You may submit written comments, identified by docket numbers CDC-2020-0036 and NIOSH-335, by either of the following two methods:
•
•
Jeffrey Palcic, NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), Pittsburgh, PA, (412) 386-5247 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by email to
On April 14, 2020, at 85 FR 20598, HHS published an interim final rule adding parallel performance standards to existing regulatory requirements in 42 CFR part 84 for powered air-purifying particulate respirators (PAPRs). These new standards allow for the approval of respirators in a new class, PAPR100, that may be better suited to the needs of workers in the healthcare and public safety sectors. The rule also consolidated the technical standards for all types of air-purifying particulate respirators into a revised subpart K; standards pertaining to obsolete respirators designed for dust, fume, and mist; pesticide; and paint spray were removed from the regulation entirely. The comment period for this rule closed on August 12, 2020.
Prior to the close of the comment period, HHS received a request to extend the comment period. Because NIOSH values input from industry partners, HHS is reopening the public comment period for an additional 30 days. Accordingly, this document announces the reopening of the docket for this activity.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects the final rules portion of a
Effective on August 26, 2020.
Michael Scott, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-1264, or email
This document corrects the final rules document published at 84 FR 8457, March 8, 2019.
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications, Telecommunications relay services.
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 64 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Each VRS provider must obtain, from each new and existing registered internet-based TRS user, consent to transmit the registered internet-based TRS user's information to the TRS User Registration Database. Prior to obtaining consent, the VRS provider must describe to the registered internet-based TRS user, using clear, easily understood language, the specific information being transmitted, that the information is being transmitted to the TRS User Registration Database to ensure proper administration of the TRS program, and that failure to provide consent will result in the registered internet-based TRS user being denied service. VRS providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgment by every registered internet-based TRS user of such consent.
(ii) VRS providers must, for existing registered internet-based TRS users, submit the information in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the TRS User Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information. Calls from or to existing registered internet-based TRS users that have not had their information populated in the TRS User Registration Database within 60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information shall not be compensable.
(iii) VRS providers must submit the information in paragraph (a)(4) of this section upon initiation of service for users registered after 60 days of notice from the Commission that the TRS User Registration Database is ready to accept such information.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the Central Aleutian Islands and Western Aleutian Islands districts (CAI/WAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2020 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish total allowable catch (TAC) in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 20, 2020, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2020.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2020 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI is 264 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2020 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI be treated in the same manner as a prohibited species, as described under § 679.21(a), for the remainder of the year, except blackspotted and rougheye rockfish species in the CAI/WAI caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion
16 U.S.C. 1801
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes to amend the regulations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) regarding the handling of appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”). The Department proposes multiple changes to the processing of appeals to ensure the consistency, efficiency, and quality of its adjudications. The Department also proposes to amend the regulations to make clear that there is no freestanding authority of line immigration judges or BIA members to administratively close cases. Finally, the Department proposes to remove inapplicable or unnecessary provisions regarding the forwarding of the record of proceedings on appeal.
Written or electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 2020. Written comments postmarked on or before that date will be considered timely. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
You may submit comments, identified by EOIR Docket No. 19-0022, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2616, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a toll-free call).
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule. EOIR also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. To provide the most assistance to EOIR, comments should reference a specific portion of the rule; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that support the recommended change.
All comments submitted for this rulemaking should include the agency name and EOIR Docket No. 19-0022. Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at
If you want to submit personally identifiable information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and precisely and prominently identify the information of which you seek redaction.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and precisely and prominently identify the confidential business information of which you seek redaction. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Under this rule, for most appeals from immigration judge decisions and from certain decisions of Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) officers, the parties would have a standardized briefing schedule with the filing of simultaneous briefs within 21 days. The Department also proposes to set the period of time by which the BIA may extend the period for filing a brief at 14 days. Additionally, the Department proposes to revise the regulations regarding cases that require current identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations in order to eliminate unnecessary remands to the immigration court for purposes of completing or updating identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations and to standardize the authority of EOIR adjudicators to deem an application abandoned if an applicant fails to comply with the necessary requirements regarding identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations.
Furthermore, the Department proposes to amend the regulations to clearly authorize the BIA to issue dispositive decisions, including decisions on voluntary departure, and to limit the BIA's authority to consider new evidence on appeal or to grant motions to remand for consideration of new evidence, except in cases where there is new evidence or information obtained as the result of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations or where the new information raises a question of jurisdiction or removability. The
The Department proposes to amend 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) to make clear that those provisions—and similar provisions in 8 CFR part 1240—provide no freestanding authority for immigration judges or BIA members to administratively close immigration cases absent an express regulatory or settlement basis to do so. The Department also proposes to withdraw the Attorney General's delegated authority to the BIA to certify cases to itself and the authority of the BIA and immigration judges to
A party to EOIR proceedings may appeal immigration judge decisions and certain DHS decisions, including administrative fines and visa petitions under section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), to the BIA.
The number of cases pending within EOIR has increased tremendously, particularly in recent years. EOIR had approximately 130,000 pending cases in 1998. At the end of Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2019, EOIR had approximately 1.08 million pending cases, up from approximately 430,000 pending at the end of FY 2014 and approximately 263,000 at the end of FY 2010. EOIR's current pending caseload represents a more than 800 percent increase over the amount pending 21 years ago.
With the increase in pending cases at the immigration courts, EOIR has recently begun to have a corresponding increase in the number of appeals of immigration judge decisions. In FY 2018, the number of such appeals increased to 39,096—a 70 percent increase over the previous high in the last five fiscal years. EOIR,
Due to these significant increases, the Department believes it is necessary to again review the BIA's regulations to reduce any unwarranted delays in the appeals process and to ensure the efficient use of BIA and EOIR resources. Additionally, the Department believes that it is necessary to provide the BIA with the appropriate tools to make final decisions wherever possible to reduce unnecessary and inefficient remands to the immigration courts, including remands solely for the completion of background checks or to allow a respondent to be granted voluntary departure. Remands to the immigration court delay case completion due to the amount of time it takes for the case to be placed back on the immigration courts' already full dockets. Additionally, remands to the immigration court for issues that could be addressed by the BIA needlessly prolong case adjudications and take valuable time away from other cases before the immigration court, further straining the limited court resources.
Accordingly, the Department proposes to make seven changes to the BIA's regulations regarding adjudicative and appellate procedures:
1. In all cases, shorten the time allowed for the BIA to grant an extension for a party to file an initial brief or a reply brief from 90 days to 14 days, while also allowing the Board to seek supplemental briefing if it believes such briefing would be beneficial;
2. Make all briefing for appeals of immigration judge decisions simultaneous;
3. End the BIA practice of remanding to the immigration court solely for the purpose of completing or updating identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations or solely because an immigration judge did not provide required advisals regarding an application for voluntary departure;
4. Delegate clear authority to the BIA to issue orders of removal, termination or dismissal, and voluntary departure, and orders granting relief or protection as part of the process to adjudicate appeals;
5. Decrease the scope of motions to remand that the BIA may consider, make clear that the BIA cannot remand a case under a “totality of the circumstances” standard, clarify the limited situations in which the BIA may engage in factfinding on appeal, and make clear that the BIA may affirm a decision based on any valid reason supported by the record;
6. Clarify that the BIA may limit or qualify the scope of a remand while simultaneously divesting itself of jurisdiction over the case; and
7. Allow immigration judges to certify BIA remand or reopening decisions for further review in limited circumstances as part of a quality assurance process.
Overall, the Department believes these proposed changes will enable
The Department also proposes to clarify the scope of 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) regarding the extent of authority of immigration judges and Board members to take action “appropriate and necessary for the disposition” of the cases they adjudicate. The broad sweep of this language has caused confusion regarding the limits of immigration judges and Board members' authority to take action in handling cases before them, especially regarding administrative closure. The proposed rule seeks to address that confusion by making it clear that neither the Board nor immigration judges have authority under 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) to administratively close a case—either unilaterally or with the consent of the parties—unless authorized by regulation or a judicial settlement and that neither 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) nor 1003.10(b) provides such authorization.
The Department also proposes to make changes to the BIA to improve its internal consistency in decision-making and its adjudicatory efficiency. First, the proposed rule will improve consistency in BIA decision-making by withdrawing, with limited exceptions, the delegation of the Attorney General's authority for the BIA to
Second, the proposed rule will ensure that cases at the Board are timely adjudicated. Current regulations place an emphasis on timeliness only near the end of the adjudication process, which ignores the potential for significant delays much earlier in the process. Moreover, the regulations do not provide for an overall timeliness goal, and the BIA's accounting of the timeliness of adjudications is confusing and potentially misleading.
A party to EOIR proceedings may appeal immigration judge decisions and certain DHS decisions, including administrative fines and visa petitions under section 204 of the INA, to the BIA.
EOIR first implemented regulations regarding the time for filing a BIA appeal in 1987. Aliens and Nationality; Rules of Procedure for Proceedings Before Immigration Judges, 52 FR 2931 (Jan. 29, 1987).
Congress subsequently instructed the Department to implement regulations regarding, among other things, “the time period for the filing of administrative appeals . . . and for the filing of appellate and reply briefs.” Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, sec. 545(d)(2), 104 Stat. 4978, 5066. In 1996, the Department updated the regulations regarding the BIA appeals process after publishing multiple related proposed rules in 1994 and 1995.
In 2002, the Department again updated EOIR's regulations regarding the BIA's appeals process. Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms To Improve Case Management, 67 FR 54878 (Aug. 26, 2002). The reforms were designed to reduce the BIA's backlog of pending cases, eliminate unwarranted delays in the adjudication of appeals, use the BIA's resources efficiently, and focus resources on the most complicated appeals. Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms To Improve Case Management, 67 FR 7309, 7310 (Feb. 19, 2002) (notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) that was finalized with the publication of 67 FR 54878). The Department reduced the time allowed for filing briefs from 30 days to 21 days after the transcript becomes available, regardless of the alien's detention status, and maintained the BIA's ability to set a shorter time for briefing in individual cases. 67 FR at 54904; 8 CFR 1003.3(c)(1). The Department also implemented a simultaneous briefing requirement for cases involving a detained alien but retained consecutive briefing for non-detained aliens. 67 FR at 54904.
In 2002, the Department also changed the standard time to file a brief in support of or in opposition to an appeal from a DHS decision from 30 days to 21 days.
The Department has not made any further amendments to the relevant regulations governing BIA briefing schedules since 2002. Under the current regulatory framework, for appeals of immigration judge decisions in cases involving aliens who are not detained in DHS custody, the appellant has 21 days to file a brief and the appellee then has the same amount of time to file a response brief. 8 CFR 1003.3(c)(1).
The BIA generally may not grant an application for relief or protection unless DHS has completed the appropriate identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations of the applicant and the results of those investigations or examinations are current. 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6).
In cases where identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations have not been completed or the results of such are no longer current, 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6)(ii) currently allows the BIA two alternatives in order to further the adjudication of the case. First, the BIA may issue an order remanding the case to the immigration judge with instructions to permit DHS to complete or update investigations or examinations and report the results to the immigration judge. 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6)(ii)(A). Alternatively, the BIA may provide notice to the parties that the case is being placed on hold until all identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations are completed or updated and those results reported to the BIA. 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6)(ii)(B).
The current regulations regarding the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations for aliens in EOIR proceedings were implemented in 2005. Background and Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, 70 FR 4743 (Jan. 31, 2005).
Additionally, the EOIR regulations state that an alien's failure to file necessary documentation or to comply with the requirements to provide biometrics and other biographical information in conformity with the applicable regulations, the instructions to the applications, the biometrics notice, and instructions provided by DHS within the time allowed by the immigration judge's order constitutes abandonment of the application. 8 CFR 1003.47(c). The immigration judge may then enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.
An alien in removal proceedings may request voluntary departure pursuant to section 240B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229c. Voluntary departure permits an eligible alien to leave the United States on his or her own volition, and at his or her own expense, in lieu of receiving an order of removal. INA 240B(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(a)(1). To qualify for voluntary departure before an immigration judge prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings pursuant to INA 240B(a)(1), an alien must make such request prior to or at the master calendar hearing during which the case is initially calendared for a merits hearing; make no additional requests for relief (or if such requests have been made, withdraw such requests prior to any grant of voluntary departure pursuant to that section); concede removability; waive appeal of all issues; not be convicted of a crime described in section 101(a)(43) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43); and not be deportable under section 237(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4).
Although voluntary departure provides an alternative to an order of removal, it does not allow an alien to remain in the United States beyond a prescribed period, and the disposition of a request for voluntary departure does not affect determinations of an alien's removability or adjudication of an alien's application for protection or relief from removal that would allow the alien to remain in the United States. In
Upon granting a request for voluntary departure, an immigration judge must also enter an alternate order of removal. 8 CFR 1240.26(d). Failure to comply with specified conditions of voluntary departure, filing a motion to reopen or reconsider during the voluntary departure period, or filing a petition for review or any other judicial challenge to the final administrative order may result in automatic termination of voluntary departure and effectuate the alternative order of removal. 8 CFR 1240.26(c)(4), (e), (i). In addition to rendering the alien subject to the alternate order of removal, failure to depart within the voluntary departure period may result in civil penalties. INA 240B(b), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b); 8 CFR 1240.26(j).
Currently, the regulations describe only an immigration judge's authority to grant voluntary departure in the first instance.
Parties to EOIR proceedings may file a motion to remand while their appeal is pending before the BIA. A motion to remand seeks to return jurisdiction of a case pending before the BIA to the immigration judge. Motions to remand, which are not described in the INA, were initially a judicially created concept rooted in principles of civil practice that were later codified into Title 8 of the CFR.
Currently, a party asserting that the BIA cannot properly resolve an appeal without further factfinding must file a motion to remand. 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). Motions to remand in most cases are subject to the same substantive requirements as motions to reopen.
A motion to remand is filed while an appeal is still pending before the BIA, whereas a motion to reopen is typically filed after agency review of the case has concluded. A motion to reopen a
Except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts such as current events or the contents of official documents, the Board does not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals. 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). A party asserting that an appeal cannot be properly resolved without further factfinding must file a motion for remand.
When the Board remands a case, it divests itself of jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is expressly retained.
In contrast to other administrative adjudicatory agencies, the Board does not have a formal quality assurance process to ensure that its remand decisions provide appropriate and sufficient direction to the immigration judges.
Under 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b), Board members and immigration judges are authorized,
Prior to 2012, the Department did not consider 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) or 1003.10(b) or any similar regulatory provision to authorize an immigration judge or the Board to unilaterally administratively close a case over a party's objection.
Moreover, similarly longstanding Board precedent and administrative law separation-of-function principles dictated that the Board or an immigration judge should not assume the role of the prosecutor and determine which immigration cases should be adjudicated and which ones should not. Thus, as one Board decision described the previous state of affairs, an immigration judge “may neither terminate nor indefinitely adjourn the proceedings in order to delay an alien's deportation . . . [and] [o]nce deportation proceedings have been initiated by the District Director, the immigration judge may not review the [discretion] of the District Director's action, but must execute his duty to determine whether the deportation charge is sustained by the requisite evidence in an expeditious manner.”
In 2012, however, the Board relied, in part, on language in 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) to hold that immigration judges may unilaterally and indefinitely suspend immigration proceedings through the use of administrative closure even if one party objected.
In general, motions to reopen or reconsider a case in which the immigration judge or the Board has rendered a decision are subject to time and number limitations. These limitations were initially promulgated by regulation.
As a further exception to the time and number limitations on motions to reopen and reconsider, both the BIA and immigration judges presently have the authority to reopen or reconsider a case
In most instances, decisions by immigration judges are brought to the Board for review through an appeal filed by the respondent or by DHS. Under 8 CFR 1003.38, the parties have 30 calendar days from the issuance of an oral decision or the mailing of a written decision to file an appeal with the Board. However, apart from the appeal process, the Secretary of Homeland Security, any other duly authorized officer of DHS, any immigration judge, or the Board itself may certify an immigration judge's decision or a reviewable DHS decision for review by the Board. 8 CFR 1003.1(c);
Except in limited circumstances, appeals assigned to a single Board member are to be decided within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal, whereas appeals assigned to a three-member panel are to be decided within 180 days (including any
If an appeal is taken from a decision of an immigration judge, the record of proceeding is forwarded to the Board upon request or order of the Board. 8 CFR 1003.5(a). Where transcription of a decision is required, the immigration judge shall review the transcript within 14 days of receipt or within 7 days after returning to his or her duty station.
The changes proposed by the Department are summarized below. The changes discussed in subsections A through G, K, and L below are intended to apply to appeals filed on or after the effective date of publication. The changes discussed in subsections H through J below are intended to be effective on the date of publication.
First, this NPRM would reduce the maximum allowable time for an extension of the briefing schedule to 14 days. Although current regulations allow an extension of up to 90 days, Board policy for many years has been to grant an extension of only 21 days regardless of the amount of time actually requested. BIA Practice Manual at 65;
If the appeal is from an immigration judge decision in a case that is transcribed, the BIA will continue to set the briefing schedule after the transcript becomes available. This proposal would not eliminate the BIA's continued ability to extend the time allowed for filing a brief for good cause shown or to consider a late-filed brief as a matter of discretion. 8 CFR 1003.3(c). However, it would expressly limit the number of allowable extensions consistent with current Board policy “
The proposed rule further clarifies that there is no right to a briefing extension by any party in any case and prohibits the Board from adopting a policy of granting all extension requests without an individualized finding of good cause. Should the Board determine that supplemental briefing may be beneficial in particular cases, however, the proposed rule allows the Board to ask for such briefing after the expiration of the initial briefing schedule.
Under the proposed framework, depending on whether the case requires the preparation of a transcript, whether the transcript can be timely prepared, and whether a briefing extension is granted, a party would have at least a month and potentially up to almost three months to submit a brief if it chooses, from the time an appeal is filed, which the Department expects to be ample time even without access to the transcript to address the issues in most cases. Approximately 78 percent of respondents have representation on appeal, and DHS is represented in all appeals. EOIR,
Consequently, although the changes will allow the Board to more expeditiously address its growing caseload, they should have relatively little impact on the preparation of cases by the parties on appeal. Further, it is expected that these changes will shorten the time required for a case to work through the BIA's adjudicatory process, enabling the BIA to maximize its adjudicatory capacity and EOIR to meet its obligation to complete cases in an expeditious manner. EOIR will be able to adjudicate more cases annually, ensuring that both parties receive a final decision expeditiously following notice and an opportunity to be heard consistent with the requirements of due process.
Additionally, the Department proposes to adopt simultaneous briefing schedules instead of consecutive briefing schedules for cases involving aliens who are not in custody. This change would reduce adjudicatory delay by shortening the briefing period for non-detained cases from a total of 63 days (21 days for the initial brief, plus a 21-day extension, and 21 days for the responsive brief) to a total of 35 days (21 days for simultaneous briefs, plus a 14-day extension), not counting any time needed for preparation of a transcript
The Department previously considered simultaneous briefing for all appeals but ultimately adopted the practice only for detained appeals. 67 FR 54895. Simultaneous briefing has worked well for appeals involving aliens who are in custody, and upon further consideration, there is no apparent reason not to apply it to non-detained cases as well, particularly when both parties are frequently represented on appeal and one or both parties may often choose not to file a brief at all. It is also important to harmonize the briefing requirements to the maximum extent possible to ensure that all cases—and not solely detained cases—are adjudicated in a timely manner. Both the parties and the Department have a strong interest in ensuring that appeals are adjudicated expeditiously, and there is currently no legal or operational reason to adjudicate non-detained cases in a less efficient manner than detained cases. In light of the Department's experience with simultaneous briefing in detained cases, the Department believes that, whatever basis there may have been previously to treat the two categories of cases differently,
The Department proposes to revise 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6)(ii) to provide that, when a case before the BIA requires completing or updating identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, the exclusive course of action would be for the BIA to place the case on hold while identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations are being completed or updated, unless DHS reports that identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations are no longer necessary or until DHS does not timely report the results of completed or updated identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. Under this NPRM, the BIA would no longer remand a case to the immigration court for the sole purpose of completing or updating identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, which has become a common practice in the 14 years since the relevant regulations were last updated.
Only if the results are not reported by DHS within 180 days of the Board's notice of placing a case on hold will the Board remand a case to an immigration court for further proceedings. The proposed rule makes clear, however, that the Board may also remand a case if the results of the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations raise an issue that should be considered by the immigration judge in the first instance.
Additionally, the Department proposes to authorize the BIA to deem an application abandoned when the applicant fails, after being notified by DHS, to comply with the requisite procedures for DHS to complete the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations within 90 days of the BIA's notice that the case is being placed on hold for the completion of the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. This change provides the BIA with similar authority already delegated to immigration judges pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.47(c) and (d).
The Department proposes to amend 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(7) to provide further guidance regarding the finality of BIA decisions. First, the Department proposes to add a new paragraph (d)(7)(i) to clarify that the BIA has authority to issue final orders when adjudicating an appeal, including final orders of removal when a finding of removability has been made by an immigration judge and an application for protection or relief from removal has been denied;
The Department also proposes to add a new paragraph (d)(7)(iii) to 8 CFR 1003.1 to delegate clear authority to the BIA to consider issues relating to the immigration judge's decision on voluntary departure
Additionally, the proposed rule would directly state that the BIA may not remand a case to the immigration court solely to consider a request for voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the INA. Because the Board may provide relevant advisals to a respondent regarding voluntary departure; because appeals raising the issue of voluntary departure will proffer a respondent's eligibility for that relief before the immigration court (or else the issue will be deemed waived); and because the record will otherwise contain evidence of such eligibility (or else the opportunity to present such evidence will be deemed waived), a remand solely to consider that issue is a waste of resources and places wholly unnecessary burdens on immigration courts. In short, there is no operational reason that the BIA cannot resolve a request for voluntary departure rather than remanding the case to an immigration judge, prolonging the case unnecessarily, and inviting an additional appeal if the respondent disagrees with the immigration judge's determination. Any BIA final order or grant of voluntary departure would continue to be a legal determination based upon the facts as found by the immigration judge during the course of the underlying proceedings, subject to a “clearly erroneous” standard. Moreover, for cases in which an immigration judge failed to provide advisals related to a request for voluntary departure, the Board can provide such advisals without needing to engage in factfinding—and without remanding the case—because the advisals are established by regulation.
Together with the amendment to the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations procedures described above, these amendments would ensure that the BIA is empowered to make all relevant decisions related to an appeal and prevent the BIA from issuing an order to remand a case solely to instruct the immigration judge to issue a particular final order that is within the BIA's authority.
The Department proposes several changes to clarify the BIA's ability to take certain actions in adjudicating an appeal to ensure that appeals are adjudicated in a timely fashion without undue remands and consistent with the applicable law. First, the Department proposes to limit the scope of motions to remand that the BIA may consider. Under the proposed paragraph (d)(7)(v) to 8 CFR 1003.1, the BIA would be prohibited from receiving new evidence on appeal, remanding a case for the immigration judge to consider new evidence in the course of adjudicating an appeal, or considering a motion to remand based on new evidence. Parties who wish to have new evidence considered in other circumstances may file a motion to reopen in accordance with the standard procedures for such motions,
Ordinarily the BIA does not consider new evidence on appeal.
Prohibiting the BIA from considering new evidence on appeal as a ground for remand is in keeping with the general authority of EOIR adjudicators to manage the filing of applications and collection of relevant documents. Additionally, this prohibition reduces the likelihood of the need for a remand to the immigration court given the BIA's general inability to engage in factfinding about the newly proffered evidence. The proposed exceptions cover situations in which the need for a remand due to new evidence—
An immigration judge loses jurisdiction over a motion to reopen that is pending when an appeal of the immigration judge's decision is filed with the BIA, and an immigration judge lacks jurisdiction over a motion to reopen filed while an appeal is already pending at the BIA.
The Department proposes to more clearly delineate the circumstances in which the BIA may engage in factfinding on appeal. Because the BIA is not authorized to consider new evidence on appeal,
Nevertheless, the Department recognizes that there may be situations in which the Board should engage in factfinding and proposes to clarify limited circumstances in which the Board may do so—
The Department further proposes to amend the regulations to make clear that the Board may take administrative notice of any undisputed facts contained in the record. There is simply no operational or legal reason to remand a case for factfinding if the record already contains evidence of undisputed facts, and the BIA may appropriately rely on such facts without remanding the case.
Finally, the proposed rule would make clear that the BIA cannot remand a case based solely on the “totality of the circumstances.” Although the Board sometimes uses that standard to justify remanding a case, there is no statutory or regulatory basis for this standard. Accordingly, the proposed rule makes clear that the BIA could not employ such a standard in its review.
When the Board remands a case, it divests itself of jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is expressly retained.
Confusion arises, however, because no regulation allows the Board to expressly retain jurisdiction over a remanded case, and the Board rarely, if ever, does so in practice.
Put differently, even if the Board clearly indicates that the remand is for a limited purpose, most—if not all—of its remands would be interpreted to be general remands allowing for consideration of issues well beyond the intended scope of the remand. Consequently, even where the Board clearly intends a remand to be for a limited purpose, an immigration judge faces potential confusion regarding the scope of the remand and will often treat the order as a general remand that would allow consideration of other issues.
To eliminate this confusion for immigration judges, the Department proposes to amend the regulations to make it clear that the Board may limit the scope of a remand while simultaneously divesting itself of jurisdiction on remand.
To ensure the quality of Board decision-making, the Department proposes to allow immigration judges to certify BIA decisions reopening or remanding proceedings for further review by the Director in situations in which the immigration judge alleges that the BIA made an error. Currently, there is no clear mechanism to efficiently address concerns regarding errors made by the BIA in reopening or remanding proceedings. Although parties may file a motion to reconsider, that process is cumbersome, time-consuming, and may not fully address the alleged error. If the error inures to the favor of DHS, the respondent must again wait for an order of removal in order to bring another appeal, either to the BIA or to federal court through a petition for review. If the error inures to the favor of the respondent, DHS has no effective mechanism of correcting the error, except through another hearing and an appeal to the BIA. Additionally, an erroneous remand by the BIA inappropriately affects an immigration judge's performance evaluation by affecting that judge's remand rate, which is a component of the judge's performance evaluation. Overall, an immigration judge is in the best position to identify an error made by the BIA and to seek to remedy it expeditiously without needlessly placing additional burdens on the parties. Consequently, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to ensure immigration judges have a mechanism through which they can request the correction of errors by the Board and thereby improve the quality of adjudications as whole.
The Department's proposal is limited only to cases in which the immigration judge articulates a specific error allegedly committed by the Board within a narrow set of criteria: (1) The Board decision contains a typographical or clerical error affecting the outcome of the case; (2) the Board decision is clearly contrary to a provision of the INA, any other immigration law or statute, any applicable regulation, or a published, binding precedent; (3) the Board decision is vague, ambiguous, internally inconsistent, or otherwise did not resolve the basis for the appeal; or (4) a material factor pertinent to the issue(s) before the immigration judge was clearly not considered in the Board decision. These criteria are used in similar circumstances at other adjudicatory agencies,
The Department's proposal also outlines three procedural criteria that an immigration judge must follow in order to certify a Board decision for review: (1) The certification order must be issued within 30 days of the Board decision if the alien is not detained and within 15 days of the Board decision if the alien is detained; (2) the immigration judge, in the certification order, must specify the regulatory basis for the certification and summarize the underlying procedural, factual, or legal basis; and (3) the immigration judge must provide notice of the certification to both parties. To ensure a neutral arbiter between the immigration judge and the Board, such certification orders would be reviewed by the Director. In reviewing such orders, the Director would have delegated authority from the Attorney General similar to that of the Board but would be limited in deciding the merits of the case. For a case certified to the Director, the Director would be allowed to dismiss
Prior to 2012, the Department did not consider 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) or 1003.10(b), or similar language in 8 CFR part 1240, to authorize an immigration judge or the Board to unilaterally administratively close a case over a party's objection. In fact, longstanding Board precedent was clear that an immigration judge was required both to complete a case and to complete it through only one of three avenues: An order of termination, an order of removal, or an order of relief
Further, as previously noted, longstanding Board precedent and well-established administrative law separation-of-function principles strongly oppose placing the immigration judge in the role of the prosecutor and determining which immigration cases should be adjudicated and which ones should not.
Nevertheless, the Board in 2012 departed from these established precedents without explanation and held that an immigration judge—and by extension, the Board itself—could unilaterally determine which cases should not be adjudicated by administratively closing cases over the objections of one or both parties.
In 2018, the Attorney General overruled
To that end, the Department proposes to amend 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) to make clear that those provisions—and similar provisions in 8 CFR part 1240—provide no freestanding authority for immigration judges or Board members to administratively close immigration cases absent an express regulatory or judicially approved settlement basis to do so. The balance of authority is clear that DHS exercises prosecutorial functions in immigration proceedings and that it is inappropriate for neutral arbiters such as immigration judges or Board members to second-guess DHS prosecution decisions in order to determine which cases should be prosecuted.
Finally, as a policy matter, the changes wrought by
Additionally, by definition, administrative closure lengthens and delays proceedings because it defers disposition of a case until an unknown and unpredictable date. Although administrative closure removes a case from an immigration court's active calendar, it does not remove the case from the docket. Consequently, the practice of administrative closure does not reduce the overall pending caseload, and the strain on immigration courts due to the volume of cases is the same, regardless of whether administrative closure is available. Moreover, indefinite delay does not create flexibility in docketing; it merely puts off a decision until an unknown time in the future. Thus, as additional cases continue to accrue while an administratively closed case remains pending, the deferral of a significant number of cases in the present ultimately undermines the ability of an immigration court to address both new cases and postponed cases in the future.
In short, administrative closure of cases by the immigration judges or the Board, especially the unilateral use of administrative closure, failed as a policy matter and is unsupported by the law; accordingly, the Department proposes to amend 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) to ensure that it is clearly prohibited unless authorized by a Department regulation
The Department also proposes to revise §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) and 1003.10(b) for clarity, to provide explicitly that the existing references in those paragraphs to “governing standards” refer to the applicable governing standards as set forth in the existing provisions of §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(i) and 1003.10(d), respectively.
As currently constituted, 8 CFR 1003.2(a) and 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(1) allow the BIA and immigration judges, respectively, to reopen proceedings or reconsider a decision
Notwithstanding the BIA's disclaimer that
Further, eleven federal circuit courts agree that, as a general matter, no meaningful standards exist to evaluate the BIA's decision not to reopen or reconsider a case based on
The Board has never utilized genuine
Given the lack of a meaningful standard to guide a decision whether to order reopening or reconsideration of cases through the use of
The inherent problems in exercising
In addition, the Department recognizes that the Board may have cited its
Finally, the Department proposes to amend the regulations to clarify that the filing of a motion to reopen with the Board by DHS in removal proceedings or in proceedings initiated pursuant to 8 CFR 1208.2(c) is not subject to the time and numerical limits applicable to such motions. Such an allowance already exists for DHS motions to reopen at the immigration court level, 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(1), and extending that allowance to DHS motions filed with the Board would provide greater parity between proceedings at the immigration court level and the appellate level. Moreover, doing so would ameliorate the effects of the withdrawal of
Current regulations authorize the Board to certify cases to itself for review but provide no standards for deciding when to exercise that authority. 8 CFR 1003.1(c). Although the Attorney General has concluded that the Board's self-certification authority is similar to its
Additionally, despite clear language requiring the Board to have jurisdiction over the underlying matter in the first instance in order to exercise its certification authority,
Similarly, despite the clear directive in
Due to the lack of clear governing standards, the lack of a definition of “exceptional” situations for purposes of utilizing self-certification, the potential for lack of notice of the Board's use of certification authority, the overall potential for inconsistent application and abuse of this authority, and the strong interest in finality, the Attorney General has concluded that such delegation of self-certification authority to the BIA, particularly to the extent it may be used to circumvent appellate filing deadlines, is no longer appropriate. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those underlying the withdrawal of the delegation of
The number of cases pending before EOIR has increased tremendously, particularly in recent years. EOIR had approximately 130,000 pending cases in 1998. At the end of FY 2019, EOIR had 1,079,168 pending cases, up from 430,123 at the end of FY 2014 and 262,748 at the end of FY 2010.
With the increase in pending cases at the immigration courts, EOIR has recently begun to have a corresponding increase in the number of appeals of immigration judge decisions. In FY 2019, 54,092 case appeals were filed with the BIA—an increase of over 250 percent from FY 2015, when 15,423 case appeals were filed. The BIA ended FY 2019 with 65,201 pending case appeals, up from 12,677 at the end of FY 2017. EOIR,
To that end, the Department is changing the BIA's case management system to ensure that all appeals are being adjudicated in a timely manner. Currently, except in limited circumstances, appeals assigned to a single Board member are expected to be decided within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal, whereas appeals assigned to a three-member panel are to be decided within 180 days of assignment to the panel (including any additional opinion by a member of the panel), which may occur well after the record on appeal is complete. 8 CFR 1003.1(e)(8)(i). Although the Board maintains a single case management system to screen cases for either single-member or three-member panel disposition, the current regulatory language sets timeliness deadlines based on different criteria, which may cause inefficiencies and potential delays.
The Department is also implementing additional changes to ensure that appeals are adjudicated in a timely manner. For example, the proposed rule establishes specific time frames for review by the screening panel, processing of transcripts, issuance of briefing schedules, and review by a single Board member to determine whether a single member or a three-member panel should adjudicate the appeal, none of which are considered in the current regulations or tracked effectively to prevent delays. It also adds tracking and accountability requirements for the Board Chairman in cases where the adjudication of appeals must be delayed to ensure that no appeals are overlooked or lost in the process. It also establishes specific time frames for the adjudication of summary dismissals, providing substance to the current language that such cases be identified “promptly” by the screening panel.
Further, the Department is cognizant that, absent a regulatory basis for delay,
Finally, the rule removes and reserves 8 CFR 1003.1(e)(8)(iv). That provision allowed the BIA Chairman to grant an extension of 120 days to the 90- and 180-day adjudicatory time frames for cases ready for adjudication as of September 25, 2002, that had not been completed within those time frames. That provision is no longer necessary because the relevant dates and time frames have long since passed.
The Department is also revising 8 CFR 1003.5 regarding the forwarding of the record of proceedings in an appeal to ensure that the transcription process does not cause any unwarranted delays. The Department notes that it is not necessary for immigration judges to affirmatively review, potentially revise, and then approve the transcripts of oral decisions; EOIR utilizes reliable digital audio recording technology that produces clear audio recordings, and the additional 7- or 14-day review period creates an unnecessary delay in the adjudication of appeals. Moreover, because errors should not be corrected during the review,
Further, the Department notes that the section regarding the forwarding of the physical record of proceeding to the BIA is being rendered obsolete by the EOIR Court & Appeals System (“ECAS”), which has been deployed to 14 immigration courts and adjudication centers and is currently in the midst of a nationwide rollout following a successful pilot.
Finally, 8 CFR 1003.5(b) describes procedures regarding appeals from DHS decisions that are within the BIA's appellate jurisdiction.
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule will not regulate “small entities,” as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The rule will not economically impact representatives of aliens in immigration proceedings. It does not limit the fees they may charge, or the number of cases a representative may ethically accept under the rules of professional responsibility.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
The Department has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
The Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Department believes that shortening the time for briefing extensions and schedules and clarifying the standards for review will help reduce the number of cases pending before EOIR and will enable the BIA to adjudicate more appeals annually. The Department believes the costs to the public will be negligible, if any, because the basic briefing procedures will remain the same, because current BIA policy already disfavors multiple briefing extension requests, and because the BIA is already prohibited from considering new evidence on appeal. The proposed rule does not impose any new costs, and most, if not all, of the proposed rule is directed at internal case processing. Any changes contemplated by the rule would have no apparent impact on the public but would substantially improve both the quality and efficiency of BIA appellate adjudications.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not propose new or revisions to existing “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 8 CFR parts 1003 and 1240 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2196-200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1527-29, 1531-32; section 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-326 to -328.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Subject to the governing standards set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, Board members shall exercise their independent judgment and discretion in considering and determining the cases coming before the Board, and a panel or Board member to whom a case is assigned may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and the regulations as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of the case. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as authorizing the Board to administratively close or suspend adjudication of a case unless a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice or a previous judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action. Only the Director or Chief Appellate Immigration Judge may direct the deferral of adjudication of any case or cases by the Board.
(3) * * *
(iv)(A) The Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals, except that the Board may take administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute, such as
(
(
(
(
(B) If the Board intends to rely on an administratively noticed fact outside of the record, such as those indicated in paragraphs (d)(3)(iv)(A)(
(C) The Board shall not
(D) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6)(iii) or (d)(7)(v)(B) of this section, the Board shall not remand a case for additional factfinding unless
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(v) The Board may affirm the decision of the immigration judge or the Department of Homeland Security on any basis supported by the record, including a basis supported by facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute, such as undisputed facts in the record.
(6) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of this section, if identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations have not been completed or DHS reports that the results of prior investigations or examinations are no longer current under the standards established by DHS, and the completion of the investigations or examinations is necessary for the Board to complete its adjudication of the appeal, the Board will provide notice to both parties that, in order to complete adjudication of the appeal, the case is being placed on hold until such time as all identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations are completed or updated and the results have been reported to the Board. Unless DHS advises the Board that such information is no longer necessary in the particular case, the Board's notice will notify the alien that DHS will contact the alien to take additional steps to complete or update the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations only if DHS is unable to independently update the necessary investigations or examinations. The Board's notice will also advise the alien of the consequences for failing to comply with the requirements of this section. DHS is responsible for obtaining biometrics and other biographical information to complete or update the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations with respect to any alien in detention.
(iii) In any case placed on hold under paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section, DHS shall report to the Board promptly when the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations have been completed or updated. If a non-detained alien fails to comply with necessary procedures for collecting biometrics or other biographical information within 90 days of the Board's notice under paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section, the Board shall deem the application abandoned unless the alien shows good cause before the 90-day period has elapsed, in which case the alien should be given no more than an additional 30 days to comply with the procedures. If the Board deems an application abandoned under this section, it shall adjudicate the remainder of the appeal within 30 days and shall enter an order of removal or a grant of voluntary departure, as appropriate. If DHS obtains relevant information as a result of the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, including civil or criminal investigations of immigration fraud, DHS may move the Board to remand the record to the immigration judge for consideration of whether, in view of the new information, any pending applications for immigration relief or protection should be denied, either on grounds of eligibility or, where applicable, as a matter of discretion. If DHS fails to report the results of timely-completed or updated identity, law
(iv) The Board is not required to hold a case pursuant to paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section if the Board decides to dismiss the respondent's appeal or deny the relief or protection sought.
(7)
(ii)
(A) The Board shall not remand a case for further action without identifying the standard of review it applied and the specific error or errors made by the adjudicator below.
(B) The Board shall not remand a case based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
(C) The Board shall not remand a case based on a legal argument not presented below unless that argument pertains to an issue of jurisdiction over an application or the proceedings, or to a material change in fact or law underlying a removability ground or grounds specified in section 212 or 237 of the Act that occurred after the date of the immigration judge's decision, and substantial evidence indicates that change has vitiated all grounds of removability applicable to the alien.
(D) The Board shall not
(E) The Board shall not remand a case to an immigration judge solely to consider a request for voluntary departure nor solely due to the failure of the immigration judge to provide advisals following a grant of voluntary departure. In such situations, the Board shall follow the procedures in § 1240.26(k).
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(B) Nothing in paragraph (d)(7)(v)(A) of this section shall preclude the Board from remanding a case based on new evidence or information obtained after the date of the immigration judge's decision as a result of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, including civil or criminal investigations of immigration fraud, regardless of whether the investigations or examinations were conducted pursuant to § 1003.47(h) or paragraph (d)(6) of this section, nor from remanding a case to address a question of jurisdiction over an application or the proceedings or a question regarding a ground or grounds of removability specified in section 212 or 237 of the Act.
(e) * * *
(1)
(8)
(i) Except in exigent circumstances as determined by the Chairman, subject to concurrence by the Director, or as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section or as provided in § 1003.6(c) and § 1003.19(i), the Board shall dispose of all appeals assigned to a single Board member within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal, or within 180 days of completion of the record on appeal for all appeals assigned to a three-member panel (including any additional opinion by a member of the panel).
(iii) In rare circumstances, when an impending decision by the United States Supreme Court or an impending
(v) * * * The Chairman shall notify the Director of all cases in which an extension under paragraph (e)(8)(ii) of this section, a hold under paragraph (e)(8)(iii) of this section, or any other delay in meeting the requirements of this paragraph (e)(8) occurs. For any case still pending adjudication by the Board more than 335 days after the appeal was filed and not otherwise subject to an extension under paragraph (e)(8)(ii) or a hold under paragraph (e)(8)(iii), the Chairman shall refer that case to the Director for decision. For a case referred to the Director under this paragraph (e)(8)(v), the Director shall exercise delegated authority from the Attorney General identical to that of the Board as described in this section, including the authority to issue a precedential decision and the authority to refer the case to the Attorney General for review, either on his own or at the direction of the Attorney General. The Director may not further delegate this authority.
(k)
(i) The Board decision contains a typographical or clerical error affecting the outcome of the case;
(ii) The Board decision is clearly contrary to a provision of the Act, any other immigration law or statute, any applicable regulation, or a published, binding precedent;
(iii) The Board decision is vague, ambiguous, internally inconsistent, or otherwise did not resolve the basis for the appeal; or
(iv) A material factor pertinent to the issue(s) before the immigration judge was clearly not considered in the decision.
(2) In order to certify a decision under paragraph (k)(1) of this section, an immigration judge must:
(i) Issue an order of certification within 30 days of the Board decision if the alien is not detained and within 15 days of the Board decision if the alien is detained;
(ii) In the order of certification, specify the regulatory basis for the certification and summarize the underlying procedural, factual, or legal basis; and
(iii) Provide notice of the certification to both parties.
(3) For a case certified to the Director under this paragraph, the Director shall exercise delegated authority from the Attorney General identical to that of the Board as described in this section, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, including the authority to issue a precedent decision and the authority to refer the case to the Attorney General for review, either on the Director's own or at the direction of the Attorney General. For a case certified to the Director under this paragraph, the Director may dismiss the certification and return the case to the immigration judge or the Director may remand the case back to the Board for further proceedings. In a case certified to the Director under this paragraph, the Director may not issue an order of removal, grant a request for voluntary departure, or grant or deny an application for relief or protection from removal.
(4) The quality assurance certification process shall not be used as a basis solely to express disapproval of or disagreement with the outcome of a Board decision unless that decision is alleged to reflect an error described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * * The Board may at any time reopen a case in which it has rendered a decision on its own motion solely in order to correct a ministerial mistake or typographical error in that decision or to reissue the decision to correct a defect in service. In all other cases, the Board may only reopen or reconsider any case in which it has rendered a decision solely pursuant to a motion filed by one or both parties. * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) For which a three-member panel of the Board agrees that reopening is warranted when the following circumstances are present, provided that a respondent may file only one motion to reopen pursuant to this paragraph:
(A) A material change in fact or law underlying a removability ground or grounds specified in section 212 or 237 of the Act that occurred after the entry of an administratively final order that vitiates all grounds of removability applicable to the alien; and
(B) The movant exercised diligence in pursuing the motion to reopen;
(vi) Filed based on specific allegations, supported by evidence, that the respondent is a United States citizen or national; or
(vii) Filed by DHS in removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of the Act or in proceedings initiated pursuant to § 1208.2(c).
(a) * * *
(2)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * * Nothing in this paragraph nor in any regulation contained in 8 CFR part 1240 shall be construed as authorizing an immigration judge to administratively close or suspend adjudication of a case unless a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice or a previous judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes such an action. Only the Director or Chief Immigration Judge may direct the deferral of adjudication of any case or cases by an immigration judge.
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Unless jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Appeals, an immigration judge may at any time reopen a case in which he or she has rendered a decision on his or her own motion solely in order to correct a ministerial mistake or typographical error in that decision or to reissue the decision to correct a defect in service. Unless jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Appeals, in all other cases, an immigration judge may only reopen or reconsider any case in which he or she has rendered a decision solely pursuant to a motion filed by one or both parties. * * *
(4) * * *
(v) The time and numerical limitations set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not apply to a motion to reopen proceedings filed when each of the following circumstances is present, provided that a respondent may file only one motion to reopen pursuant to this paragraph:
(A) A material change in fact or law underlying a removability ground or grounds specified in section 212 or 237 of the Act occurred after the entry of an administratively final order that vitiates all grounds of removability applicable to the alien; and
(B) The movant exercised diligence in pursuing the motion to reopen.
(vi) The time limitations set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall not apply to a motion to reopen proceedings filed based on specific allegations, supported by evidence, that the respondent is a United States citizen or national.
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).
The additions read as follows:
(j) [Reserved]
(k)
(1) The Board shall not remand a case to an immigration judge to reconsider a request for voluntary departure. If the Board first finds that an immigration judge incorrectly denied an alien's request for voluntary departure or failed to provide appropriate advisals, the Board shall consider the alien's request for voluntary departure de novo and, if warranted, may enter its own order of voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal.
(2) The Board shall not grant voluntary departure under section 240B(a) of the Act unless:
(i) The alien requested voluntary departure under that section before the immigration judge, the immigration judge denied the request, and the alien timely appealed;
(ii) The alien's notice of appeal specified that the alien is appealing the immigration judge's denial of voluntary departure and identified the specific factual and legal findings that the alien is challenging;
(iii) The Board finds that the immigration judge's decision was in error; and
(iv) The Board finds that the alien meets all applicable statutory and regulatory criteria for voluntary departure under that section.
(3) The Board shall not grant voluntary departure under section 240B(b) of the Act unless:
(i) The alien requested voluntary departure under that section before the immigration judge, the immigration judge denied the request, and the alien timely appealed;
(ii) the alien's notice of appeal specified that the alien is appealing the immigration judge's denial of voluntary departure and identified the specific factual and legal findings that the alien is challenging;
(iii) The Board finds that the immigration judge's decision was in error; and
(iv) The Board finds that the alien meets all applicable statutory and regulatory criteria for voluntary departure under that section.
(4) The Board may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to ensure the alien's timely departure from the United States, if supported by the record on appeal and within the scope of the Board's authority on appeal. The Board shall advise the alien in writing of the conditions set by the Board, consistent with the conditions set forth in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i) (other than paragraph (c)(3)(ii)) of this section. If the Board imposes conditions beyond those specifically enumerated, the Board shall advise the alien in writing of such conditions. The alien may accept or decline the grant of voluntary departure and may manifest his or her declination either by written notice to the Board within five days of receipt of its decision, by failing to timely post any required bond, or by otherwise failing to comply with the Board's order. The grant of voluntary departure shall automatically terminate upon a filing by the alien of a motion to reopen or reconsider the Board's decision, or by filing a timely petition for review of the Board's decision. The alien may decline voluntary departure if he or she is unwilling to accept the amount of the bond or other conditions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a virtual public hearing to be held on September 17, 2020, on its proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for airplanes and airplane engines, which was published on August 20, 2020.
EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on September 17, 2020. Please refer to the
The virtual public hearing will be held on September 17, 2020. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and end when all parties who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so. Additional information regarding the hearing appears below under
Bryan Manning, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4832; email address:
EPA is proposing GHG emission standards applicable to certain classes of engines used by certain civil subsonic jet airplanes and by certain civil larger subsonic propeller-driven airplanes with turboprop engines 85 FR 51556, August 20, 2020. These proposed standards are equivalent to the airplane CO
The virtual public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal (the official version of which was published 85 FR 51556, August 20, 2020, and a copy of which is available at
The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and end when all parties who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so. A five-minute time limit will be placed on all oral testimony.
EPA is also asking all hearing attendees to pre-register for the hearing, even those who do not intend to provide testimony. This will help EPA ensure that sufficient phone lines will be available. The EPA is requesting that you pre-register by September 14, 2020, to allow for the orderly scheduling of testimony. For registration instructions, please send an email to
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing logistics, including potential additional sessions, will be posted online at
If you require the services of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by September 10, 2020. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Proposed rule; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to issue regulations governing the agency's release and maintenance of guidance documents. These regulations would help to ensure that the public receives appropriate notice of new guidance and that the Department's guidance does not impose obligations on regulated parties that are not already reflected in duly enacted statutes or regulations lawfully promulgated under them.
August 18, 2020.
Brenna Jenny, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 713F, Washington, DC 20201. Email:
In FR Doc. 2020-18208, the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Department of Health and Human Services Good Guidance Practices” (hereinafter referred to as the Good Guidance Practices Rule) there was an error in the proposed date by which the Department would be required to have posted to the guidance repository all guidance documents in effect that were issued by any component of the Department. The Good Guidance Practices Rule used the proposed date of November 2, 2020, but the correct date is November 16, 2020. Similarly, in several places the Good Guidance Practices Rule referred to a time period after “the effective date of the final regulation” or a date “60 days after [the] effective date of the final rule”; these references throughout should be replaced with the correct proposed date of November 16, 2020.
We are correcting our previous statement in the August 17, 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking accordingly.
Therefore, FR Proposed Rule Doc. 2020-18208, published August 20, 2020, beginning on page 51396, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 51398, in the first column, the second sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“If the proposed rule is finalized, following November 16, 2020, each guidance document issued by HHS, or any of its components, would be required specifically to state that it is a “guidance” document and use the following language, unless the guidance is authorized by law to be binding: “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, unless specifically incorporated into a contract. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law.”
2. On page 51398, in the first column, the first sentence of the second paragraph sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“HHS proposes to require that each guidance document issued by it or any component after November 16, 2020, if finalized, must also include the following information: (1) The activities to which and the persons to whom the guidance applies; (2) the date HHS issued the guidance document; (3) a unique agency identifier; (4) a statement indicating whether the guidance document replaces or revises a previously issued guidance document and, if so, identifying the guidance document that it replaces or revises; (5) a citation to the statutory provision(s) and/or regulation(s) (in Code of Federal Regulations format) that the guidance document is interpreting or applying; and (6) a short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document.”
3. On page 51398, in the third column, the third sentence of the second paragraph sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“By November 16, 2020, the Department would be required to have posted to the guidance repository all guidance documents in effect that were issued by any component of the Department.”
4. On page 51398, in the third column, the first sentence of the third paragraph sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“Under this proposal, any web page in the guidance repository that contains guidance documents would clearly indicate that any guidance document previously issued by the Department would no longer be in effect and would be considered rescinded, if it is not included in the guidance repository by November 16, 2020.”
5. On page 51398, in the third column, the fourth paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
“If the Department would desire to reinstate a rescinded guidance document not posted to the guidance repository by November 16, 2020, the Department would be able to do so only by following all requirements applicable to newly issued guidance documents.”
6. On page 51398, in the third colum, the first sentence of the fifth paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
“If this proposed rule is finalized, guidance documents issued after November 16, 2020 would be required to comply with all applicable requirements in § 1.3.”
7. On pages 51398-51399, in the third column, the last sentence in the fifth paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
“For significant guidance documents issued after November 16, 2020, HHS would be required to post proposed versions of significant guidance documents to the guidance repository as part of the notice-and-comment process.”
On page 51401, in the first column, added § 1.4 is corrected to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The guidance repository shall be fully text searchable and contain or link to all guidance documents in effect that have been issued by any component of the Department.
(2) If the Department does not include a guidance document in the guidance repository by November 16, 2020, the guidance document shall be considered rescinded.
(3) Any web page in the guidance repository that contains or links to guidance documents must state:
(i) That the guidance documents contained therein:
(A) “Lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as specifically incorporated into a contract.”; and
(B) “The Department may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance that is not posted on the guidance repository, except to establish historical facts.”
(ii) That any guidance document previously issued by the Department is no longer in effect, and will be considered rescinded, if it is not included in the guidance repository.
(4) If the Department wishes to reinstate a rescinded guidance document, the Department may do so only by complying with all of the requirements applicable to guidance documents issued after November 16, 2020.
(b)
(2) For significant guidance documents issued after November 16, 2020, the Department shall post proposed new significant guidance to the guidance repository as part of the notice-and-comment process.
(ii) The posting shall clearly indicate the end of each significant guidance document's comment period and provide a means for members of the public to submit comments.
(ii) The Department shall also post online all responses to major public comments.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to list the marron bacora (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before October 26, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Edwin Muñiz, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, Road 301 Km 5.1, Boquerón, PR 00622; telephone 787-851-7297. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species and withdraw our proposal. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal, as long as we: (a) Base the decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available after considering all of the relevant factors; (2) do not rely on factors Congress has not intended us to consider; and (3) articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our conclusion.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The marron bacora's reproductive biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including microhabitat requirements for establishment and availability of pollinators;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease (insect pest or pathogens), predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range,
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of marron bacora habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of the species, and
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding specific areas.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
On November 21, 1996, we received a petition from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources requesting that we list Eggers' century plant and marron bacora as endangered. On November 16, 1998, we published in the
On September 1, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit alleging that the Service failed to publish a 12-month finding for Eggers' century plant and marron bacora (
On September 9, 2008, CBD filed a complaint challenging our determination that Eggers' century plant and marron bacora did not warrant listing (
We published a request for additional information to inform the status review of marron bacora on January 20, 2010 (75 FR 3190). The subsequent 12-month finding for marron bacora, published on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9722), determined the species was warranted for listing, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The threats to the species included the lack of natural recruitment, absence of dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of genetic variation, climate change, and habitat destruction or modification by exotic mammal species. The species received a listing priority number (LPN) of 2 based on the high magnitude and immanency of the threats. The listing of this species was determined to be warranted but precluded in subsequent annual candidate notices of review (CNORs) (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016; 84 FR 54732, October 10, 2019). This document constitutes a new 12-month finding for the marron bacora.
A species status assessment (SSA) team, composed of Service biologists in consultation with other species experts, prepared an SSA report for marron bacora. The SSA report provides a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species to determine the viability of the species. The Service sent the SSA report to six independent peer reviewers and received one response from colleagues at the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Gardens. The Service also sent the SSA report to two partners for review—the National Park Service (NPS) and Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)—and received a response from DPNR. The comments we received provided support for the conclusions in the SSA report and provided additional information to improve that document.
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of marron bacora is presented in the SSA report version 1.0 and evaluates the species' overall viability (Service 2019, entire). Below, we summarize the key results and conclusions of the SSA report, which can be viewed under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050 at
Marron bacora is a dry-forest, perennial shrub of the Solanaceae (or nightshade) family that is endemic to the Virgin Islands. It has small purple flowers and can grow to the height of around 9.8 feet (ft) (3 meters (m)). The plants produce a green fruit with white striations and golden yellow when ripe (Acevedo-Rodriguez 1996, p. 415). The species typically requires pollinators for reproductive success, but may self-pollinate under certain conditions.
The historical range of the species includes St. John and possibly St. Thomas, USVI; however, recent surveys found the species on the neighboring island, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (BVI). There is an additional, unconfirmed record from plant material collected in 1969 at Gordon Peak on Virgin Gorda, BVI (Acevedo-Rodríguez 1996, p. 415). There is suitable habitat for the species on Virgin Gorda; however, that is the only record of the species on another island and there have been no other records since the single plant was found in 1969. At least three populations on St. John have been extirpated.
The species is currently found on St. John, USVI, and Tortola, BVI, with a fragmented distribution of seven populations on St. John and a single population on Tortola. St. John has a history of land-use changes that resulted in habitat loss and degradation further isolating suitable habitats in patches that were not readily connected. The species is a dioecious (separate male and female plants) obligate out-crosser and typically self-incompatible, so the larger the population, the better for ensuring successful reproduction and maintaining genetic diversity within populations.
The sex ratio of marron bacora is 1:1, and a much longer time is needed for female plants to flower for the first time (from the seedling stage) compared with the males (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 475). This may explain the rarity of the species in the landscape as only half of the wild individuals (based on the 1:1 ratio) have the potential to produce fruits and viable seeds, and thus highlights the importance of introducing an adequate number of plants into the wild (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 482). Nonetheless, there is no available information regarding the seed dormancy or long-term storage potential for marron bacora.
As plant populations become reduced and spatially segregated, important life-history needs provided by pollinators and seed dispersers may be compromised (Kearns and Inouye 1997, p. 305). The fragmented distribution of marron bacora on St. John can be attributed to historical habitat degradation. Based on the hermaphroditic and dioecious biology of marron bacora, the species requires cross-pollination. Pollinators including carpenter bees (
The natural dispersal mechanism of marron bacora remains unknown, but fruit predation is suspected as the explanation of lack of natural recruitment in the wild (USFWS 2011, p. 9726). Although predators may also disperse the species, it is likely that the seeds have not adapted to passing through the gastrointestinal tracts of the exotic mammals currently occurring in the island of St. John (
Little is known of the life history of this plant. Marron bacora is a perennial shrub that may live more than two decades. For example, the Nanny Point population was discovered in 2002 (Carper 2005, pers. comm.), and at that time, the population was already composed mainly of adult individuals and little natural recruitment was recorded. Thus, the current known natural individuals at Nanny Point should be approximately 20 years old. Marron bacora material was under cultivation from an individual
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050 on
To assess marron bacora's viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its needs, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. Requirements for individuals to survive include having appropriate habitat, with both male and female plants present in a balanced sex ratio, and seasonal rainy periods. The habitat is described as dry deciduous and coastal scrub forests with dry soils at lower elevations (less than 85 m (278.9 ft)) restricted to the U.S. and British Virgin Islands; however, marron bacora shows little fidelity to any particular suite of community associations. Plants may reach a reproductive size in less than 2 years under greenhouse conditions; however, it may take decades for wild plants to effectively reproduce.
Due to the nature of marron bacora's narrow endemic distribution, the species is confined to the available habitat on St. John, USVI, and Tortola, BVI. Most of the species' habitat and the largest population on St. John occur within the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), an area managed by NPS. Across St. John, NPS manages about 60 percent of the island's area, with VINP consisting of about 14,737 acres (ac) (5,963.9 hectares (ha)).
Resilient populations require a population size and density that provides a balanced sex ratio (proportion of male and female plants). The demographics and population structure should reflect evidence of successful recruitment within each population. In order to maintain resilient populations, marron bacora needs continuous suitable habitat that allows for room for growth and dispersal, as well as connectivity between populations and availability of pollinators.
The species is typically found in dry deciduous forests at lower elevations (less than 85 m (278.9 ft)) with low annual rainfall with seasonal runoff conditions. Many plants have been found in open, eroded areas. The plant's growth and reproductive phenology are synchronized with the rainy seasons associated with the Virgin Islands. Maintaining conditions that facilitate the reproductive biology of marron bacora, along with maintaining forest connectivity and habitat corridors among known populations, is critical for the long-term conservation of the species and will contribute to the ecological interactions with native pollinators and dispersers to ensure these systems remain functional.
The stressors acting on the species as described in the SSA report include invasive species (plants and animals), predation, demographic and genetic consequences of small population size and density, human-induced fires, habitat loss/degradation, insect pests and pathogens, changes in phenology and breeding systems, recreation, and climate change and hurricanes. The primary stressors acting on the species are impacts from nonnative, invasive species that preclude natural recruitment.
Marron bacora is directly affected by nonnative, invasive plants and animals. White-tailed deer (
Another major threat acting on marron bacora is the lack of natural recruitment most likely due to depredation of its fruits and seedlings by feral ungulates. There is ongoing research studying the impact by feral browsers on the viability of marron bacora. The effects of foraging on marron bacora plants during a post-hurricane study on St. John in 2018 showed 35.5 percent of the known population at Nanny Point exhibited signs of herbivory from mammals, such as white-tailed deer. During the same study, 61 percent (11 plants) of the John's Folly population exhibited a combination of impacts by herbivorous insects and browsing by invasive mammals (IC Report 2018, p. 5). White-tailed deer were introduced to St. John in the 1920s in order to provide hunting opportunities. Since then, the deer range freely across the island, foraging on the native vegetation, and according to local experts, populations of deer are increasing on the island (Gibney 2017, pers comm.). There are currently no estimates on the deer abundance on St. John, and there are no native predators to control the deer population.
Marron bacora currently shows overall low numbers of individuals, low numbers of populations, and low numbers of individuals at each population site, which is reflected with low resiliency, redundancy, and representation. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the abundance and roles of dispersers and pollinators at the population and species levels. Current knowledge of the ecology and genetic diversity of Virgin Islands rare flora is sparse (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 173). While the genetic diversity at the species level of marron bacora is relatively high, the majority of its diversity is confined to the largest population at Nanny Point (Stanford 2013, p. 178). The current fragmented population distribution may result in Allee effects due to small population sizes, a lack of genetic exchange among populations, and eventual genetic drift.
In the Caribbean, native plant species, particularly endemics with limited distribution, may be vulnerable to manmade events such as human-induced fires. Fire is not a natural component of subtropical dry forests in the Virgin Islands; thus, most species found in this type of forest are not fire-adapted and are not likely to withstand frequent fire events (Monsegur, cited in USFWS 2011, p. 9726). Marron bacora is associated with lower elevation dry forests. This habitat may be susceptible to forest fires, particularly on private lands, where fire could be accidentally ignited. Furthermore, regenerating forests, such as the ones prevalent on St. John, are prone to wildfires that perpetuate the succession of persistent shrub land dominated by introduced tree species and grasses; this inhibits native species' growth and subsequently contributes to more intense and more severe fires (Wiley and Vilella 1998, p. 340). Given the growth pattern of marron bacora, it is unlikely that individuals would survive a fire even of moderate intensity (Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 15). Intrusion by exotic plants
Although known marron bacora populations are relatively protected, the small size of populations coupled with the effects of insect pests or pathogens could contribute to local extirpation. For example, although the Reef Bay Valley population consisted of 6 wild individuals and 60 introduced individuals in 2011, the population was considered extirpated by 2017 most likely due to a low survival rate for the introduced marron bacora. However, an unknown pathogen was documented in that population (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178), which also may have contributed to its loss. More recently, in 2018, 63.2 percent of the marron bacora individuals at Nanny Point showed some sort of stem dieback; however, it is not clear if this is due to some pest or disease (IC Report 2018, p. 5). Nonetheless, recent observations indicate that dieback is clustered mainly to the eastern corner of the Nanny Point population and associated to edge vegetation (vines and shrub land vegetation exposed to salt spray).
In addition, the assessment by Service staff in 2017 recorded the presence of the Jacaranda bug (
The hermaphroditic and dioecious biology of marron bacora was confirmed by lack of pollination in crossings of pollen to the stigma of other male flowers or transferred to the stigma of the same flower (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 479). A 1:1 sex ratio and a much longer time for marron bacora female plants to flower for the first time (from the seedling stage) compared with the males has been documented (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 475). At this point, the natural disperser of marron bacora remains unknown, and fruit predation is suspected as the explanation of lack of natural recruitment in the wild (76 FR 9722, February 22, 2011, p. 76 FR 9725). It is possible that natural fruit dispersers of marron bacora have targeted other food sources as the populations of this shrub became increasingly patchy, as a result of historical land-use changes and introduction of exotic plant species. The absence of a fruit disperser may also indicate that the disperser of the species is extinct or that the populations are too small to attract the disperser (Roman 2006, p. 82). The above information highlights the vulnerability of extirpation of relatively small populations of marron bacora as they may become functionally extinct and cannot support recovery or rescue of neighboring populations, limiting their value for redundancy and species resiliency.
Some evidence of damage consistent with trail maintenance was recorded along Brown Bay trail, and additional habitat disturbance was observed at the John Folly site (park boundary) (USFWS 2011, p. 9724). Also, site disturbance (vegetation clearing) was recorded in 2017 at the John Folly population, where, for example, one seedling in the middle of the trail was susceptible to being trampled by hikers (USFWS 2017a, p. 9). However, considering the remoteness of the marron bacora habitat and given that the majority of the populations are within NPS land, recreational uses have a low likelihood of affecting the survival of the species.
Hurricanes and tropical storms frequently affect the islands of the Caribbean; thus, native plants should be adapted to such disturbance. In fact, successional responses to hurricanes can influence the structure and composition of plant communities in the Caribbean islands (Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 576). However, climate change is predicted to increase tropical storm frequency and intensity, but also cause severe droughts (Hopkinson et al. 2008, p. 255). Climate model simulations indicate an increase in global tropical cyclone intensity in a warmer world, as well as an increase in the number of very intense tropical cyclones, consistent with current scientific understanding of the physics of the climate system (USGCRP 2018, p. 2). The vulnerability of species to climate change is a function of sensitivity to changes and exposure to those changes, and the adaptive capacity of the species (Glick et al. 2011, p. 1). Within natural conditions, it is likely that marron bacora is well-adapted to these atmospheric events. However, the cumulative effects of severe tropical storms and associated increased sediment runoff (erosion), along with the species' small population size and reduced natural recruitment, may jeopardize the future establishment of seedlings along drainage areas usually associated with suitable habitat for marron bacora (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 2). There is evidence of direct impacts to the Nanny Point population due to a flash flood event associated with Hurricane Irma that hit St. John on September 6, 2017 (USFWS 2017b, p. 3).
Additive climate change stressors projected for the future include: (a) Increased number and intensity of strong storms, (b) increased temperatures, and (c) shifts in the timing and amounts of seasonal precipitation patterns. Despite projected increased storm intensity and frequency related to future hurricane seasons, recent works on climate change models for tropical islands predict that, for example, by the mid-21st century, Puerto Rico will be subject to a decrease in overall rainfall, along with increase annual drought intensity (Khalyani et al. 2016). Thus, due to the proximity of Puerto Rico to St. John, and that these islands belong to the same biogeographical unit (Puerto Rican Bank), these model predictions could also extend to the USVI (including St. John). Given the low number of known populations and individuals, and the lack of natural recruitment of marron bacora, the species may not have the genetic breath to adapt to these predicted conditions. In addition, there is little knowledge of marron bacora's
By 1717, the forested landscape of St. John was parceled into more than 100 estates for agriculture (
At present, the Friis Bay (St. John, USVI) and Sabbath Hill (Tortola, BVI) populations are located on private lands vulnerable to habitat modification due to urban development. In addition, the Nanny Point and Johns Folly populations are situated within VINP lands just at the park boundary, and there is potential for urban and tourism development in the future, resulting in possible direct impacts to the species and interrelated effects (lack of habitat connectivity and cross pollination, and further habitat encroachment by exotic plant species). While the land that harbors the Nanny Point population is located on VINP, the adjacent private land could be at risk of development which may directly affect the species' most resilient population.
Synergistic interactions are possible between the effects of climate change and other potential threats such as nonnative species, pests, and development. The extent of impacts to the species due to synergistic threats is not well understood, as there is uncertainty in how nonnative species (plants and animals) may respond to climate variables such as increased drought and changes in hurricane frequency and intensity. We expect the synergistic effects of the current and future threats acting on the species will exacerbate the decline in the species' viability by continued declines in reproductive success. Projecting the extent of synergistic effects of climate change on marron bacora is too speculative due to the complexity and uncertainty of the species' response to the combination of dynamic factors that influence its viability.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Efforts to conserve the species have included a captive propagation and planting program. Marron bacora has successfully been propagated by a St. John horticulturist with cuttings and manually assisting pollination by dusting the flowers (Kojis and Boulon 1996, pers comm.). Marron bacora specimens were then distributed to various places with suitable habitat in the Virgin Islands (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 3). An implementation plan was developed to conduct shade-house propagation of marron bacora using both seedlings and cuttings for reintroduction within VINP (Ray and Stanford 2003, p. 3). A Nanny Point landowner funded and implemented a propagation program of marron bacora through germination and cloning of adult individuals to enhance natural populations of the species at Nanny Point, Brown Bay Trail, and Johns Folly (Ray and Carper 2009, p. 6). While the species has been successfully propagated, the reintroductions have yielded unsuccessful results with a very low survival rate for propagated and reintroduced plants, and even lower for relocated adult plants.
The NPS has its own regulatory mechanisms to protect the species within VINP on St. John. The NPS is responsible under the Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101(a)
In 2017, funding was provided to Island Conservation through the Service's Coastal Program to: (1) Propagate at least 100 marron bacora individuals to enhance the largest known population at Nanny Point, (2) introduce propagated materials to the Nanny Point population, (3) assess the extent of impacts of invasive mammal species to marron bacora and its habitat, (4) assess the extent of impacts by invasive mammal species to additional sites identified for marron bacora introduction, and (5) provide management recommendations for invasive mammals in order to significantly advance the recovery of marron bacora (IC Report 2018, p. 1). This project has been temporarily delayed in order to allow archaeological surveys to be completed prior to any outplanting.
To determine the current condition of the species, we evaluated the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of populations across the landscape considering past and current stressors acting on the species and its habitat. The description of the species' current condition is described in more detail in the species status assessment (SSA) report (Service 2019, pp. 22-30).
In order to determine population resiliency, we generated resiliency scores for marron bacora by combining scores using habitat and population metrics. The best available information for each population was gathered from the literature and species experts. Each of the four metrics were weighted equally, with the overall effect that habitat (
The species is found on two islands with 11 known populations, of which 3 have become extirpated. The resiliency of the extant populations vary according to the abundance of individuals and habitat conditions at each location. The remaining eight extant populations vary between a single individual to 201 plants, and the habitat conditions vary according to the site location. The most recent abundance estimates of each population is described in the current condition and provided in Table 3, below.
The largest known population is on St. John at Nanny Point; in 2017, this population consisted of 75 mature adult individuals, 4 natural seedlings, and 44 planted individuals from past population enhancement efforts (USFWS 2017b, pers. obs.). During the 2017 survey, most plants were observed in flower, with some already producing fruit; however, despite this evidence of reproduction, only three seedlings were observed. The low number of seedlings, despite the relatively high fruit production, is consistent with the information already available to the Service indicating that this population continues to show low recruitment (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 18; USFWS 2011, p. 9726; USFWS 2017a, p. 7). Hurricane Maria resulted in flash floods that caused a loss of canopy (USFWS 2017b, p.3). Following Hurricane Maria, individual plants were covered with tree branches or sediment and several individuals were uprooted or lying on the ground (USFWS 2017b, p. 6-8). A 2018 assessment found 201 individual plants with an increase in natural seedlings and juveniles, suggesting the hurricane created favorable conditions for seedling establishment. A follow-up survey in 2019 found invasive grasses and vines were covering much of the area that was exposed from the canopy loss from the hurricanes.
This population is also affected by herbivory from invasive mammals and the Jacaranda beetle. The Nanny Point population has low resilience because the site is partially within VINP but also overlaps with unprotected, private lands; the population has a high presence of feral ungulates, high insect predation, and has a declining population size.
With the discovery of a new population in the British Virgin Islands, this is now the third largest natural population of marron bacora, with an estimated 33 individuals (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). The site has not been visited since 2005; thus, no current information is available on the status of this population. Based on our data and knowledge, it is our assumption that this population is also impacted by ungulates as they are free-roaming throughout the entire island of St. John. In addition, by being located on private land, the population is vulnerable to impacts from habitat modification as residents may not have knowledge of the species.
This site is located upslope in a ravine about 700 m (2,296.6 ft) northwest of the Nanny Point population. A 2017 population assessment identified only 4 natural individuals and 1 natural seedling, and 13 plants corresponding to planted material from a previous population enhancement with material from the Nanny Point population (USFWS 2017a, p. 7). Despite the evidence of flowering events, natural recruitment appears to be minimal, as only one natural seedling was observed. The distribution of the natural individuals is similar to Nanny Point with the majority of the plants at the bottom of the drainage. This site is located along the Park boundaries and the populations appear to be affected by human disturbance such as vegetation clearing for a hiking trail that begins nearby and former evidence of dumping (USFWS 2017a, p. 9).
In 2018, a post hurricane assessment of the population found 18 adult
The Brown Bay Trail site is located along the Brown's Bay hiking trail within the VINP, an area of mature secondary dry forest located on the northeastern shore of St. John. The site is located on a slope approximately 60 m (196.85 ft) from shore and the populations is composed of a remnant natural individual and planted individuals that were part of a 2009 population enhancement using material propagated from the Nanny Point population. The wild individual occurs on the edge of an NPS-maintained hiking trail and showed signs of direct impacts from trail maintenance activity (
In 2018, a post-hurricane assessment reported that the population was composed of 18 individuals—17 adults and 1 juvenile. The population here was described as an aged structure, with 94.4 percent of the individuals being classified as adults with no signs of flowers or fruit on any plants in this population. This population showed evidence of dieback on their leaves, impacts by herbivorous insects, and browsing by potential invasive mammals, and all of the plants at this location were described as suffering from severe dry conditions (IC Report 2018, p. 8). The Brown Bay Trail population has low resilience due to high presence of feral ungulates, high insect predation, and a declining population trend.
The Reef Bay Trail locality is a new population located during a 2017 population assessment (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). The site lies within VINP along the NPS hiking trail from Europa Bay to Reef Bay. A population assessment in 2017 discovered 7 wild individuals, 85 percent in flower and some individuals producing fruits. Additional habitat surveys may be required for a more thorough assessment of this area. No post hurricane assessments were carried out for this population. The Reef Bay Trail population has moderately low resilience due to high presence of feral ungulates that are causing an overall decline across all populations (Roberts 2017, entire).
The population at Base Hill consists of 1 natural individual (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). There have been no subsequent visits to this population since 2005; thus, no further data on the status of this individual are known. The current condition of this population is unknown.
In 2017, one wild individual was discovered on top of a ridge approximately 0.25 miles from the Brown Bay Trail population (Cecilia Rogers 2017, pers. comm.). Additional habitat surveys may be required for a more thorough assessment of this area, and no post hurricane assessments were carried out in this area. The Brown Bay Ridge population has moderately low resilience because, while there is a high presence of feral ungulates in the area, the area harbors suitable habitat and in addition, the single documented wild individual was a juvenile plant suggesting possible evidence of recruitment.
This population was reported as a single natural individual in 2005 (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; 76 FR 9722, February 22, 2011, p. 76 FR 9724). The individual was never relocated in a subsequent site visit, and the site showed evidence of disturbance based on the abundance of
This locality is on the southern coast of St. John, along the shore near White Cliffs. In 2005, 6 wild and 60 introduced individuals were reported at the Reef Bay site (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). Further assessments of this area were unsuccessful in detecting any marron bacora (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). Thus, the best available information indicates this population is extirpated, and no individuals are known in its proximity.
The Europa Ridge population was a single individual when documented in the early 1990s (Acevedo-Rodriguez, P. 1996, p. 415). In 2005, the site was composed of 1 natural individual and 60 planted individuals (population enhancement) (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). However, based on the latest habitat assessments by the Service, this population is likely extirpated (USFWS 2017a, p. 11).
In 2018, surveys on Tortola identified a plant morphologically consistent with marron bacora, near Sabbath Hill. On a follow-up trip to confirm marron bacora in the area, a population of approximately 46 to 48 individuals was identified with most plants described as small and only about 7 as large. Three of the large plants were described as fertile, with one having flowers with no fruit, another having flowers and immature fruit, and the last having fruit but no flowers. The habitat was described as having open vegetation compared with the surrounding forest and containing a lot of nonnative annuals and
There is little evidence of natural recruitment in any of the known
Efforts have been conducted to enhance existing natural populations by planting seedlings, including planting of 128 seedlings (different seed sources) at two localities in the south coast of St. John (Europa Ridge and Reef Bay Valley) (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178). Overall survival of these seedlings over a 32-month period was approximately 81.3 percent in Europa Ridge, and 78.1 percent in Reef Bay Valley, and irrespective of seed source, survival rate was not significantly different between the two sites (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 177). However, growth rates for these sites were recorded as highly erratic, and plant material was affected by drought stress and insect herbivory (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178). Further monitoring of these sites by NPS staff has not located living material of marron bacora, either natural or planted, and these populations are presumed extirpated (McKinley 2017, pers. comm.). In fact, the species was not detected in these areas in 2017 (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). Additional population enhancements from seedling and cuttings have been conducted at Nanny Point (50), Johns Folly (37), and Brown Bay (36) (76 FR 9722, February 22, 2011, p. 76 FR 9724). The current number of surviving individuals for these sites is 44 (88 percent), 13 (35 percent), and 10 (27 percent), respectively (USFWS 2017a, p. 13).
All eight extant populations are declining and have moderately low to low resiliency; many populations are on the brink of extirpation. The entire species consists of 324 known individuals, with 201 of those plants located within a single population (Nanny Point).
The species is showing very low to no natural recruitment across all populations. Only three populations have more than 18 individuals, two populations have 18 individuals, and the three remaining populations have fewer than 7 individuals. Most of the populations are small and isolated with little to no connectivity. Marron bacora currently shows overall low numbers of individuals, low numbers of populations, and low numbers of individuals at each population site. The overall resiliency, redundancy, and representation of this species are low.
As part of the SSA, we also developed multiple future condition scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the projected responses by marron bacora. Our scenarios included a status quo scenario, which incorporated the current risk factors continuing on the same trajectory that they are on now. We also evaluated two additional future scenarios, one that that considered increasing levels of risk factors resulting in elevated negative effects on marron bacora populations. The other scenario considered improved environmental and habitat conditions through conservation actions including land management and invasive plant and animal management. We determined that the current condition of marron bacora and the projections for all scenarios are consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of Species Status, below); we are not presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2019) for the full analysis of future conditions and descriptions of the associated scenarios.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a “threatened species” as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have determined that the major threats acting on marron bacora are the habitat destruction or modification by nonnative mammal species (
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that the lack of recruitment will cause a continued decline in the species' viability through loss of representation, redundancy, and resiliency.
Marron bacora is adapted for life in the dry forests of St. John, USVI, and Tortola, BVI. These islands have endured landscape changes over time and will continue to be affected by human visitation and development. The largest extant population on St. John is within the VINP boundaries and is protected from future development; however, neighboring areas are vulnerable to development as the human population increases. Depredation from ungulates is largely responsible for the low levels of seedling recruitment that have caused the lack of natural recruitment. The species is also affected by insect pests along with habitat degradation by nonnative plants and animals.
There are currently 11 known historical and current populations. Three of these populations are considered extirpated, two are represented by only a single individual (possibly functionally extirpated), and five are represented by very low numbers of individuals. Only the single population at Nanny Point has more than 100 individuals, and between 2010 and 2017, this population declined by over half. Seedlings were discovered at this site, likely assisted by release/reproduction due to opening of canopy/moist soil conditions from the
The threats acting on the species are likely to continue at the existing rate or increase without management of the marron bacora and the identified threats, such as nonnative, invasive species. The species is a narrow endemic and has suffered extirpation of populations across its limited range; most remaining populations have only a single or few individuals. The species has lost redundancy, and remaining populations have low resiliency. The impacts from herbivory by nonnative species have impaired the viability of marron bacora to the point of imminent decline across the species' entire range. Despite efforts to propagate the species and re-establish it in the wild, plants are not reproducing offspring sufficiently to support resilient populations. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that marron bacora is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We have determined that marron bacora is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly, did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that marron bacora warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the decision in
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data information indicates that marron bacora meets the definition of an endangered species because the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range due to the low resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species; threats acting on the species across its range; and the lack of recruitment to support resilient populations. Therefore, we propose to list the marron bacora as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the marron bacora. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Although marron bacora is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by NPS (Virgin Islands National Park).
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export; remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of a State or in the course of an violation of a State criminal trespass law; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permit issuance are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they are not authorized in accordance with applicable law (this list is not comprehensive):
• Modifying the habitat of the species on Federal lands without authorization (
• Removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of the species on any non-Federal lands in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands or in the course of any violation of the Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands' criminal trespass law.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government or public to access private lands, nor does designation require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species, the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data available.
There is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSA report for the marron bacora and this document, we determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to marron bacora and that threat in some ways can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. The species occurs under the jurisdiction of the United States and the United Kingdom. We are able to identify areas under U.S. jurisdiction that meet the definition of critical habitat.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for marron bacora is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.” When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species is located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for marron bacora.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species” as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the conservation of a species might include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
The specific physical or biological features required for marron bacora were derived from available observations and current information on the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. To identify the physical and biological needs of the species, we have relied on current conditions at locations where marron bacora occurs. In addition, available literature on the species' genetics, reproductive biology, and habitat modeling were used (Stanford et al. 2013; Anderson et al. 2015; Palumbo et al. 2016).
Marron bacora is a shrub endemic to the islands of St. John (USVI) and Tortola (BVI), and its distribution is restricted to the subtropical dry forest life zone (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 72). The vegetation in this life zone usually consists of a nearly continuous, single-layered canopy, with little groundcover. Tree heights usually do not exceed 49 ft (15 m) and crowns are typically broad, spreading, and flattened (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 72). It is estimated that more than 80 percent of the overall land surface of St. John is covered by subtropical dry forest (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 173).
The climate within the subtropical dry forest life zone (
The specific microhabitat requirements of marron bacora remain unknown, but like other species within the genus
Based on the hermaphroditic and dioecious biology of marron bacora, the species requires cross-pollination. Recent surveys by the Service (May 2017) recorded carpenter bees (
We cannot attribute the lack of natural recruitment to low seed viability, as germination under nursery conditions is almost 100 percent (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 6). Fruit and seedling predation
As indicated above, marron bacora is a shrub endemic to the dry forest of St. John (USVI) and Tortola (BVI). At approximately 53 square kilometers (20.5 square miles) in area, the island of St. John has the greatest amount of forest cover (91.6 percent) and mature secondary forest (20 percent) in relation to land area compared to the adjacent islands (USVI). NPS, under its Organic Act, is responsible for managing the National Parks to conserve their scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife. In addition, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 requires NPS to inventory and monitor its natural resources. NPS has implemented its resource management responsibilities through its management policies, section 4.4.1, which state that NPS “will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystems of parks all plants and animals native to park ecosystems” (NPS 2006, p. 42).
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the marron bacora from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2018, entire; available on
(i) Native forest within the subtropical dry forest life zone in St. John.
(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, and semi-deciduous forest vegetation at elevations lower than 150 meters (492 feet).
(iii) Continuous native forest cover with low abundance of exotic plant species (
(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the presence of regional endemic plant species, including
(v) Open understory with appropriate microhabitat conditions, including shaded conditions and moisture availability, to support seed germination and seedling recruitment.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. All the proposed units are occupied habitat by the species at the time of proposed listing (
The features essential to the conservation of marron bacora may require special management considerations or protection to ameliorate the following stressors: Habitat modification and fragmentation (development); erosion (from storm water runoff); feral ungulates (predation); and invasive, exotic plants (habitat intrusion). Special management considerations or protection may be required within critical habitat areas to ameliorate these stressors, and include, but are not limited to: (1) Protect and restore native forests to provide connectivity between known populations and secure availability of pollinators and dispersers; (2) reduce density of feral ungulates; (3) remove and control invasive plants; and (4) avoid physical alterations of habitat to secure microhabitat conditions.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat designation includes all currently occupied areas within the historical range that have retained the necessary physical or biological features that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of these existing populations. The occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing (
We analyzed recent satellite images to identify areas dominated by native forest vegetation associated to known localities for the species within St. John. Finally, we adjusted the elevation to 150 m (492 ft), as the latest discovered population of marron bacora was at an elevation higher than the records available to Palumbo et al. (2016). We further cropped the units using the contour of the coastline, excluding wetland areas (
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for marron bacora. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing (
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are proposing two units as critical habitat for marron bacora. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for marron bacora. The two units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) South and (2) North. Table 4 shows the proposed critical habitat units, the land ownership, and the approximate area of each unit. Both units are occupied at the time of listing.
We present brief descriptions of both units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for marron bacora, below.
Unit 1 consists of a total of 1,706 ac (690 ha). Approximately 1,635 ac (664 ha) are managed by NPS within the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), and approximately 71 ac (29 ha) are in private ownership adjacent to the east corner of VINP. This unit is within the geographical area occupied by marron bacora at the time of the proposed listing. This unit harbors the largest population and core of known individuals of marron bacora in St. John, USVI. It contains all of the identified physical or biological features essential to the conservation of marron bacora.
Ongoing and potential threats or activities that occur in this unit are urban and tourist development, trampling and predation by feral ungulates, and forest management actions (
Unit 2 consists of a total of 844 ac (343 ha) of federally owned land managed by NPS within the VINP. This unit is within the geographical area occupied by marron bacora at the time of proposed listing and harbors the habitat structure that supports marron bacora's viability. This unit contains all of the identified physical or biological features essential to the conservation of marron bacora.
Ongoing and potential threats or activities that occur in this unit are roaming feral mammals and forest management actions (
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), is documented through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the structure of the native forest. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, habitat fragmentation and development (
(2) Actions that would increase habitat modification. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, predation and erosion cause by feral animals, and risk of human-induced fires. These activities could significantly reduce the species' recruitment and could exacerbate the vulnerability of the species to stochastic events (
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.”
The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for marron bacora (IEc 2019). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely to be affected if we adopt the critical habitat designation as proposed. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the marron bacora, first we identified, in the IEM dated September 16, 2019 (Service 2019, entire), probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management from recreational activities (
Additionally, we considered whether these activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The economic costs of implementing the rule associated with section 7 of the Act would most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification during consultations. This finding is based on the following factors:
(1) For the purposes of consultation, the Service considers both proposed critical habitat units to be occupied by the species. Thus, incremental consultations resulting solely from the designation of critical habitat are unlikely.
(2) Project modifications likely to be recommended by the Service to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat are anticipated to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Based on a review of available information, no more than two technical assistance projects and no more than one informal consultation are likely to occur in a given year. The additional administrative cost of addressing adverse modification in these projects is not expected to exceed $3,300 in a given year.
The designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger additional requirements under territorial or local regulations. We are unable to quantify the degree to which the public's perception of possible restrictions on the use of public land could reduce the value of private property. We recognize that a number of factors may already result in perception-related effects, including the presence of marron bacora and other federally listed species, which may temper any additional perception-related effects of critical habitat designation.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our required determinations. During the development of the final designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any information on economic impacts we receive during the public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, in the final designation, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for marron bacora are not owned, managed, or used by the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. However, during the development of a final designation, we will consider any additional information we receive through the public comment period on the impacts of the proposed designation on national security or homeland security to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security discussed above. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for marron bacora, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Additionally, as described above, we are not proposing to exclude any particular areas on the basis of impacts to national security or economic impacts.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any additional information we receive through the public comment period regarding other relevant impacts to
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the designation of this proposed critical habitat will significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use due to the absence of any energy supply or distribution lines in the proposed
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the lands proposed for critical habitat designation are primarily Federal lands (97 percent), with a small amount of private land (3 percent). Small governments would be affected only to the extent that any programs involving Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their actions would not adversely affect the designated critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for marron bacora in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation of critical habitat for marron bacora, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
The additions read as set forth below.
(a)
Family Solanaceae:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of marron bacora consist of the following components:
(i) Native forest within the subtropical dry forest life zone in St. John.
(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, and semi-deciduous forest vegetation at elevations lower than 150 meters (492 feet).
(iii) Continuous native forest cover with low abundance of exotic plant species (
(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the presence of regional endemic plant species, including
(v) Open understory with appropriate microhabitat conditions, including shaded conditions and moisture availability, to support seed germination and seedling recruitment.
(3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: South Unit, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: North Unit, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
We are advising the public that we are recognizing Romania as being free of highly pathogenic avian influenza and Newcastle disease. This recognition is based on a risk evaluation we prepared and made available for public review and comment.
This change of disease status will be recognized on August 26, 2020.
Mr. Javier Vargas, Senior Staff Officer, Regionalization Evaluation Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and Newcastle disease. Within part 94, § 94.6 contains requirements governing the importation of carcasses, meat, parts or products of carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds from regions where HPAI and Newcastle disease is considered to exist.
In accordance with § 94.6(a)(1)(i), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) maintains a list of regions in which Newcastle disease is not considered to exist. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) states that APHIS will add a region to this list after it conducts an evaluation of the region and finds that Newcastle disease is not likely to be present in its commercial bird or poultry populations.
In accordance with § 94.6(a)(2)(i), APHIS maintains a list of regions in which HPAI is considered to exist. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) states that APHIS will remove a region from this list only after it conducts an evaluation of the region and finds that HPAI is not likely to be present in its commercial bird or poultry populations.
In 9 CFR part 92, § 92.2 contains requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region (as well as for the approval of the export of a particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region). If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, APHIS believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a document published in the
In accordance with that process, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending November 15, 2019. We received no comments by that date.
On November 29, 2019, Romania's National Sanitary Veterinary Authority confirmed Newcastle disease in one commercial farm with laying hens located in the Nicolae Bălcescu locality, Călăraşi County, after an absence of more than 2 years. The affected flock experienced a total mortality of 3,815 birds, and the remaining birds were culled for a total of 6,871 birds. The National Sanitary Veterinary Authority, through the local competent authority, placed restrictions to eradicate the disease and to prevent commodities that could harbor the disease from being exported, in conformity with European Community (EC) regulations regarding the Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease. These measures included a control zone with a radius of at least 3 kilometers (km), and a surveillance zone with a radius of at least 10 km around the affected farm.
Tracing, additional testing, preliminary cleaning, and disinfestation measures were completed on December 5, 2019. Other measures, including disinfection of bedding material and treatment of surfaces, were carried out between December 6 and December 20, 2019. A final disinfection was completed on December 27, 2019. Sentinel birds were used to confirm the eradication of the disease. The event was closed on March 2, 2020.
The epidemiological investigation concluded that the occurrence of the disease was due to a combination between breaches in the farm biosecurity that allowed contact with wild birds and failure to comply with the vaccination protocol. No other sick or dead poultry were found in either the surveillance zone or the protection zone. The movement of live poultry and poultry products from Călăraşi County was prohibited during the entire period of the event.
On January 14, 2020, Romania's National Sanitary Veterinary Authority confirmed H5N8 avian influenza on a farm in Seini, Maramur County, the first such outbreak in nearly 3 years. The affected flock experienced increased mortality of a total of 11,190 birds out of a flock of 18,699; the remaining 7,509 birds were culled. Romania immediately implemented strict movement restrictions in this area according to EC regulations on protective measures in relation to HPAI. These measures included a control zone with a radius of at least 3 km and a surveillance zone with a radius of at least 10 km around the affected farm.
A second outbreak was confirmed on January 17, 2020, on a farm with 22,762 laying hens located approximately 300 meters from the first outbreak. The affected flock experienced a mortality of 220 birds, and the remaining 22,542 were culled. Strict movement restrictions were implemented, including a control zone with a radius of at least 3 km and a surveillance zone with a radius of at least 10 km around the affected farm. The epidemiological investigation concluded that a vehicle used at both farms was likely the cause of spread. The sequence analysis of isolates showed close relationship to viruses detected in wild birds in Russia in 2018.
No further outbreaks had been detected, and the cleaning, disinfection and treatment of affected premises and of materials and equipment were ongoing in accordance with the procedures established by EC regulations. Commodities from restriction zones (protection and surveillance zones) due to HPAI or Newcastle disease were not allowed to exit zones until the restrictions were lifted. Officials certifying commodities from areas outside of the restriction zones must follow the certification procedures enforced by Romania under national legislation and by the EU under EC regulations.
As we stated in the initial notice, HPAI and Newcastle disease are known to exist in wild populations in Romania. This can lead to periodic events such as those detailed above. However, the scope of the disease events and Romania's response are consistent with our evaluation and do not undermine our conclusion that Romania can be added to the EUPTR. Moreover, because APHIS has determined that the affected birds have been depopulated, we have no reason to believe that HPAI or Newcastle disease currently exists in commercial bird or poultry populations within Romania.
We are therefore adding Romania to the list of countries in which Newcastle disease is not considered to exist, removing Romania from the list of countries in which HPAI is considered to exist, and adding Romania to the EUPTR.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Grand Targhee Resort (GTR) has submitted a proposal to the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF) to pursue approval of select projects from its 2018 Master Development Plan (MDP). The CTNF is considering this proposal and is initiating the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing the projects. The proposed action includes: Two areas to be incorporated into the existing special use permit (SUP) boundary with new terrain and lifts; lift replacements and realignments within the existing SUP boundary; additional terrain and on-mountain infrastructure improvements; and enhancement of non-winter and alternative activities.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by September 25, 2020.
The draft EIS is expected to be available for public review in March 2021, and the final EIS is expected October 2021.
Send written comments to: Mel Bolling, Forest Supervisor, c/o Jay Pence, Teton Basin District Ranger, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401; or by email at
Additional information related to the proposed project can be obtained from: Jay Pence, Teton Basin District Ranger, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Mr. Pence can be reached by phone at 208-354-6610 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 Forest Service is responding to an application submitted under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 (SAROEA) by GTR to implement projects from their accepted MDP. In the MDP, GTR identified a need to improve the recreational experience and address shortcomings in their terrain offerings and operations in order to remain viable in the competitive destination skier/rider market.
To address the growth in the Idaho and Wyoming skier markets and to provide quality guest experiences for all skier levels, GTR will need to continue to develop and improve its terrain and guest services offerings in direct response to evolving consumer demands and the competitive regional and destination skier markets.
The CTNF, through consideration and acceptance of GTR's MDP, has identified a need to:
• Provide additional undeveloped, minimally maintained lift-served terrain and additional traditionally cleared alpine trails to enhance terrain variety and advanced skiing experiences at GTR;
• Provide an appropriate learning progression in an uncongested beginner area and increase the quantity of beginner, intermediate, and advanced-intermediate skiing terrain to enhance the skiing experience for beginner and intermediate skiers;
• Improve the efficiency of the lift and trail network and skier circulation across the mountain by providing more reliable and consistent snowmaking coverage in key areas;
• Update and improve facilities and guest services in the base area and on the mountain to meet the changing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets; and
• Expand alternative snow-based and non-winter activities to provide a variety of year-round recreational options to guests and to more effectively utilize existing infrastructure during non-winter months.
The proposed action includes the following nine elements:
• SUP boundary adjustments to incorporate the South Bowl and Mono Trees areas into GTR's SUP Area. Combined, these areas total
• Construction of two new aerial lifts, one surface lift, two new beginner carpet lifts, the replacement of the Shoshone Lift, and the realignment of the Papoose carpet;
• Terrain enhancements including trail widening, extensions, grading, and new traditional and gladed terrain development that would result in approximately 118 acres of traditional terrain and 550 acres of gladed terrain;
• Implementation of a Mountain Road Rehabilitation Program to improve existing roads, remove unnecessary roads, and construct new roads;
• Installation of new snowmaking infrastructure to provide an additional 57 acres of snowmaking coverage;
• Construction of two full-service on-mountain guest service facilities (one at the summit of Fred's Mountain and one at the top terminal of the Sacajawea Lift), a guest yurt at the top of the Shoshone Lift, two on-mountain warming cabins (one in Rick's Basin and the other at the top of Lightning Ridge), and a basic warming hut within the proposed South Bowl SUP area;
• Installation of a permanent snow tubing facility and expansion of the existing Nordic skiing, snowshoeing, and winter (fat) biking offerings;
• Development of six (6) miles of downhill biking trails, two (2) miles of hiking trails, and 21 miles of multi-use trails. Development of a summer activity hub around the Shoshone Lift, including a canopy tour and zip line, aerial adventure course, and disc golf course; and
• Amendment of the 1997
A full description of each element can be found at:
The responsible official is Mel Bolling, Forest Supervisor for the CTNF.
Given the purpose and need, the responsible official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to decide the following:
• Whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for the adjustment of GTR's SUP boundary, the associated projects within the proposed SUP boundary adjustments, and the projects within GTR's existing SUP boundary;
• Whether to prescribe conditions needed for the protection of the environment on National Forest System lands; and
• Whether or not to approve a Forest-wide forest plan amendment changing the management area boundaries for the SUP adjustment, as well as any other forest plan amendments necessary identified in the EIS.
Amendment to the Forest Service SUP.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed projects. During the public scoping comment period a virtual public open house will be held. Information on the virtual public open house will be distributed through the project website (
To be most helpful, comments should be specific to the project area and should identify resources or effects that should be considered by the Forest Service. Submitting timely, specific written comments during this scoping period or any other official comment period establishes standing for filing objections under 36 CFR 218 Parts A and B. Additional information and maps of this proposal can be found at:
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered as well; however, those who participate in the comment process anonymously will not have standing to object.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing countervailing duty orders on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). In addition, Commerce is amending its final determination with respect to wind towers from Canada to correct ministerial errors.
Applicable August 26, 2020.
Moses Song at (202) 482-7885 or Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 (Canada); Alex Wood at (202) 482-1959 (Indonesia); and Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698 (Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 705(a), 705(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on July 6, 2020, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of wind towers
On August 19, 2020, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determination that pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
The merchandise covered by these orders is wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
On July 6, 2020, Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., and cross-owned affiliate Gestion Marmen (collectively, Marmen) timely alleged that the
Commerce reviewed the record and on August 5, 2020, agreed that a certain error referenced in Marmen's allegation constituted a ministerial error within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
On July 7, 2020, PT Kenertec Power System (Kenertec) timely alleged that the
On August 19, 2020, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 13, 2019, the date of publication of the
On July 30, 2020, the ITC found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Indonesia.
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam, as described in the appendix to this notice, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 11, 2020, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
This notice constitutes the CVD orders with respect to wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by these orders consists of certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those components are shipped with the tower sections.
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination goods with a wind turbine (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) orders on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Applicable August 26, 2020.
Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (Canada); Benjamin Luberda at (202) 482-2185 or Brittany Bauer at (202) 482-3860 (Indonesia); Adam Simons at (202) 482-6172 or David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 (Korea); Joshua A. DeMoss at (202) 482-3362 (Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on July 6, 2020, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam.
The merchandise covered by these orders is wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On August 19, 2020, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its
As a result of the ITC's final affirmative determinations, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam. For entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, or Vietnam, the cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties will be adjusted for export subsidies found in the final determinations of the companion countervailing duty investigations.
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of wind towers from Korea and Vietnam, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of wind towers from Korea and Vietnam, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 16, 2019 (
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam as described in the Appendix to this
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amount as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for each AD order are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except that Commerce may extend the four-month period to no more than six months at the request of exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam, we extended the four-month period to six months in the
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 13, 2020, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by these orders consists of certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those components are shipped with the tower sections.
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination goods with a wind turbine (
The merchandise covered by this order consists of certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those components are shipped with the tower sections.
Further, excluded from the scope are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination goods with a wind turbine (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 26, 2020.
Darla Brown at (202) 482-1791 or Katherine Sliney at (202) 482-2437, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 16, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of non-refillable steel cylinders from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On August 7, 2020, the petitioner, Worthington Industries, submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in this LTFV investigation.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 19, 2020.
William Langley, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3681.
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the People's Republic of China (China) filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers (the petitioner), the members of which are domestic producers of chassis.
Between August 3 and 11, 2020, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in separate supplemental questionnaires and a phone call with the petitioner,
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of chassis in China and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing chassis in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is supported by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on July 30, 2020, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is chassis from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On August 3, 2020, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must also be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided it the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2019 and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, shipments, net sales, and capacity utilization; decline in employment; and declining financial performance.
Based upon our examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of chassis from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the 30 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
The petitioner named two companies in China as producers/exporters of chassis subject to the scope of this investigation.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of chassis from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is chassis and subassemblies thereof, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpins or kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels;
• Landing gear (legs) or landing gear assemblies, for connection to the chassis frame, capable of supporting the chassis when it is not engaged to a tractor; and
• Assemblies and/or components that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as, but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with or for further assembly with components such as, but not limited to: Hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load-carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to this investigation are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 19, 2020.
William Langley; AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3861.
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the People's Republic of China (China) filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers (the petitioner), the members of which are domestic producers of chassis.
On August 3 and 7, 2020, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the
On August 11, 2020, Commerce officials spoke via phone call with the petitioner's counsel regarding certain issues pertaining to the proposed scope, import statistics, and U.S. price.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of chassis from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic chassis industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegation.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigation.
Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation is January 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020.
The products covered by this investigation are chassis from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On August 3, 7, and 11, 2020, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of chassis to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOPs) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 8, 2020, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of chassis in 2019 and compared this to the estimated total chassis production for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, shipments, net sales, and capacity utilization; decline in employment; declining financial performance; and the magnitude of the estimated dumping margin.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate the AD investigation of imports of chassis from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the China AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based constructed export price (CEP) on information from a sale or offer for sale for chassis produced in and exported from China by a Chinese producer and adjusted for movement and other expenses, where appropriate.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioner states that Malaysia is an appropriate surrogate country because Malaysia is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selections and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
The petitioner used the product-specific consumption rates and production costs of a U.S. manufacturer of chassis as a surrogate to value Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of chassis from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on a comparison of CEP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for chassis from China is 188.05 percent.
Based upon our examination of the Petition on chassis from China and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of chassis from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
The petitioner named two companies in China as producers/exporters of chassis subject to the scope of this investigation.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, producers/exporters must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of China via ACCESS.
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of chassis from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is chassis and subassemblies thereof, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpins or kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels;
• Landing gear (legs) or landing gear assemblies, for connection to the chassis frame, capable of supporting the chassis when it is not engaged to a tractor; and
• Assemblies and/or components that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as, but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with or for further assembly with components such as, but not limited to: Hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load-carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to this investigation are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 70 Assessment Webinar IV for Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack.
The SEDAR 70 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack will consist of a series of data and assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 70 Assessment Webinar III will be held September 11, 2020, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the data webinars, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Ecopath Model Review Workgroup.
The SSC Ecopath Model Review Workgroup meeting will be conducted via webinar on Thursday, September 10, 2020, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The SSC Ecopath Model Review Workgroup meeting is open to the public and will be available via webinar as it occurs. Registration is required. Webinar registration information and other meeting materials will be posted to the Council's website at:
The Workgroup will discuss and provide input to finalize the South Atlantic Ecopath Model Review Workgroup document.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its
This webinar will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Skate Advisory Panel will review the 2020 Northeast Skate Complex Annual Monitoring Report (for FY 2019). The panel will also review Skate Committee work on developing problem statements, goals, and objectives and provide additional recommendations in Amendment 5 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (limited access). They will also develop recommendations for 2021 Council management priorities regarding the Northeast Skate Complex FMP and recommendations for addressing Executive Order 13921 on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC) and South Atlantic Fishery Management (SAFMC) Councils will hold a joint workgroup via webinar for Section 102 for the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018.
The meeting will convene on Thursday, September 10, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., EST.
The meeting will take place via webinar.
Ryan Rindone, Lead Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
Thursday, September 10, 2020; 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
The meeting will begin with introductions, adoption of the agenda and the minutes from the May 18, 2020, webinar, and review of the Scope of Work. The Workgroup will review: Alternative Approaches to Collect Recreational Catch and Effort Data; the Gulf of Mexico Headboat Collaborative Program; Interim Analyses in the Southeastern U.S.; Zone Management in the GMFMC and SAFMC; Carryover and Phase-in Strategies; and, Conditional Accountability Measures. The Workgroup then receive public comment. The Workgroup will discuss other business items, if any.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Workgroup for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Workgroup will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Committee via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2020, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Skate Committee will review the 2020 Northeast Skate Complex Annual Monitoring Report (for FY 2019). The committee will also review work on developing problem statements, goals, and objectives and provide additional recommendations in Amendment 5 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (limited access). They will also develop recommendations for 2021 Council management priorities regarding the Northeast Skate Complex FMP and recommendations for addressing Executive Order 13921 on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an existing information collection.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before September 25, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-18 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence/Communications, Navigation and Identification; Autonomic Logistics Global Support System, Autonomic Logistics Information System; Flight Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center access and F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; flight test instrumentation; aircraft ferry and tanker support; spare and repair parts; support equipment, tools and test equipment; technical data and publications; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Japan has requested to buy sixty-three (63) F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, forty-two (42) F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia-Pacific region. It is vital to U.S. national interest to assist Japan in developing and maintaining a strong and effective self-defense capability.
The proposed sale of aircraft and support will augment Japan's operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force's F-4 aircraft are being decommissioned as F-35s are added to the inventory. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas; and Pratt and Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Connecticut. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Japan involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, programs management, and training over a period of 25 years. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Japan to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act
(vii)
1. The F-35A Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft is a single-seat, singleengine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole aircraft. The F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant is capable of operating from short airfields and ships. Both variants contain sensitive technology including the low observable airframe/outer mold line, the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine, AN/APG-81 radar, an integrated core processor central computer, a mission systems/electronic warfare suite, a multiple sensor suite, technical data/documentation, and associated software. Sensitive elements of the F-35A and F-35B are also included in operational flight and maintenance trainers. Sensitive and classified elements of the F-35A CTOL and F-35B STOVL aircraft include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software for the following major subsystems:
a. The Pratt and Whitney F135 engine is a single 40,000-lb thrust class engine designed for the F-35 and assures highly reliable, affordable performance. The engine is designed to be utilized in all F-35 variants, providing unmatched commonality and supportability throughout the worldwide base of F-35 users. The STOVL propulsion configuration consists of the main engine, diverter-less supersonic inlet, a three (3) Bearing Swivel Module, Roll Posts and Duct Assembly System, and Lift Fan.
b. The AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) is a high processing power/high transmission power electronic array capable of detecting air and ground targets from a greater distance than mechanically scanned array radars. It also contains a synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which creates high-resolution ground maps and provides weather data to the pilot, and provides air and ground tracks to the mission system, which uses it as a component to fuse sensor data.
c. The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) provides long-range detection and tracking as well as an infrared search and track (IRST) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) capability for precision tracking, weapons delivery, and bomb damage assessment (BDA). The EOTS replaces multiple separate internal or podded systems typically found on legacy aircraft.
d. The Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) provides the pilot with full spherical coverage for air-to-air and air-to-ground threat awareness, day/night vision enhancements, a fire control capability, and precision tracking of wingmen/friendly aircraft. The EODAS provides data directly to the pilot's helmet as well as the mission system.
e. The Electronic Warfare (EW) system is a reprogrammable, integrated system that provides radar warning and electronic support measures (ESM) along with a fully integrated countermeasures (CM) system. The EW system is the primary subsystem used to enhance situational awareness, targeting support and self-defense through the search, intercept, location and identification of in-band emitters and to automatically counter IR and RF threats.
f. The Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence/ Communications, Navigation, and Identification (C4I/CNI) system provides the pilot with unmatched connectivity to flight members, coalition forces, and the battlefield. It is an integrated subsystem designed to provide a broad spectrum of secure, anti-jam voice and data communications, precision radio navigation and landing capability, self-identification, beyond visual range target identification, and connectivity to off-board sources of information. It also includes an inertial navigation and global positioning system (GPS) for precise location information. The functionality is tightly integrated within the mission system to enhance efficiency.
g. The aircraft C4I/CNI system includes two data links, the Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Link 16. The MADL is designed specifically for the F-35 and allows for stealthy communications between F-35s. Link 16 data link equipment allows the F-35 to communicate with legacy aircraft using widely-distributed J-series message protocols.
h. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) provides a fully integrated logistics management solution. ALGS integrates a number of functional areas, including supply chain management, repair, support equipment, engine support, and training. The ALGS infrastructure
i. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) provides an intelligent information infrastructure that binds all the key concepts of ALGS into an effective support system. ALIS establishes the appropriate interfaces among the F-35 Air Vehicle, the warfighter, the training system, government information technology (IT) systems, and supporting commercial enterprise systems. Additionally, ALIS provides a comprehensive tool for data collection and analysis, decision support, and action tracking.
j. The F-35 Training System includes several training devices to provide integrated training for pilots and maintainers. The pilot training devices include a Full Mission Simulator (FMS) and Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainer (DMRT). The maintainer training devices include an Aircraft Systems Maintenance Trainer (ASMT), Ejection System Maintenance Trainer (ESMT), Outer Mold Line (OML) Lab, Flexible Linear Shaped Charge (FLSC) Trainer, F135 Engine Module Trainer, and Weapons Loading Trainer (WLT). The F-35 Training System can be integrated, where both pilots and maintainers learn in the same Integrated Training Center (ITC). Alternatively, the pilots and maintainers can train in separate facilities (Pilot Training Center and Maintenance Training Center).
k. Other subsystems, features, and capabilities include the F-35's low observable air frame, Integrated Core Processor (ICP) Central Computer, Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), Pilot Life Support System, Off-Board Mission Support (OMS) System, and publications/maintenance manuals. The HMDS provides a fully sunlight readable, bi-ocular display presentation of aircraft information projected onto the pilot's helmet visor. The use of a night vision camera integrated into the helmet eliminates the need for separate Night Vision Goggles (NVG). The Pilot Life Support System provides a measure of Pilot Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protection through use of an OnBoard Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); and an escape system that provides additional protection to the pilot. OBOGS takes the Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) air and enriches it by removing gases (mainly nitrogen) by adsorption, thereby increasing the concentration of oxygen in the product gas and supplying breathable air to the pilot. The OMS provides a mission planning, mission briefing, and a maintenance/intelligence/tactical debriefing platform for the F-35.
2. The Reprogramming Center is located in the United States and provides F-35 customers a means to update F-35 electronic warfare databases.
3. The highest level of classification of information included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furthering U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Japan.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-28 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are avionics and Mode 5 equipment and software upgrades, integration, and test; software and software support; ARC-238 Radios; Combined Altitude Radar Altimeters (CARA); Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) support; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) AN/APX-126 Combined Interrogator Transponders, cryptographic appliques, keying equipment, and encryption devices; weapon system spares and support; bomb components; High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Modules (HCTMs); secure communications and precision navigation equipment; aircraft displays; additional spare and repair/return parts; publications, charts, and technical documentation; integration and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Chile has requested to buy equipment and related services for F-16 Modernization to include: nineteen (19) Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); six (6) inert MK-82 (500LB) general purpose bomb bodies; two (2) MXU-650KB Air Foil Groups (AFG); forty-four (44) LN-260 Embedded GPS/INS (EGI); forty-nine (49) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radios (MIDS JTRS). Also included are avionics and Mode 5 equipment and software upgrades, integration, and test; software and software support; ARC-238 Radios; Combined Altitude Radar Altimeters (CARA); Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) support; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) AN/APX-126 Combined Interrogator Transponders, cryptographic appliques, keying equipment, and encryption devices; weapon system spares and support; bomb components; High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Modules (HCTMs); secure communications and precision navigation equipment; aircraft displays; additional spare and repair/return parts; publications, charts, and technical documentation; integration and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $634.70 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner in South America.
The proposed sale will improve Chile's capability to meet current and future threats by modernizing its F-16 fleet, which will allow Chile to maintain sovereignty and homeland defense, increase interoperability with the United States and other partners, and deter potential adversaries. Chile will have no difficulty absorbing the upgrades into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Chile.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display (HUD) to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets enabling the pilot to monitor aircraft information without interrupting his field of view through the cockpit canopy.
2. Embedded GPS-INS (EGI) LN-260 is a sensor that combines GPS and inertial sensor inputs to provide accurate location information for navigation and targeting.
3. Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Joint Tactical Radio (JTRS) is a software defined radio and data link. MIDS JTRS terminals can be loaded with sensitive cryptographic keys which secure data and radio communications.
4. Enhanced Paveway II (EP II) Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) is a maneuverable, all-weather, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off the target. The “enhanced“ component is the addition of GPS-aided Inertial Navigation Systems (GAINS) guidance to the laser seeker. Laser designation for the LGB can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The EP II consists of an Enhanced Computer Control Group (ECCG) that is not warhead specific and a warhead-specific Air Foil Group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of a GP bomb body.
GBU-49 is a 5001b weapon that can use an inert or live MK-82 bomb body fitted with MXU-650 or WGU-63 type AFGs, and MAU-210 ECCGs to guide to either a laser designated target or GPS coordinates of a target.
5. High-Bandwidth Compact Telemetry Modules (HCTM) are flight test instrumentation hardware that gathers real-time weapon data during testing of a munition.
6. The Modular Mission Computer (MMC) 7000AH is the central aircraft computer of the F-16. It serves as the hub for all aircraft subsystems and avionics data transfer.
7. AN/ARC-238 radio is a secure voice communications radio system.
8. Combined Altitude Radar Altimeter (CARA) is a radar system used to measure the aircraft altitude above the terrain. It is comprised of four components: a Receiver/Transmitter, Signal Data Converter, and Transmit and Receive Antennas. The upgrade will involve the Receiver/Transmitter as part of the overall Avionics upgrades.
9. Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) is a multi-platform PC based mission planning system.
10. The AN/APX-126 Combined Interrogator Transponder is an Identification Friend or Foe system capable of transmitting and interrogating Modes 4 and 5.
11. The highest level of classification of information included in this potential sale is SECRET.
12. If a technologically-advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
13. A determination has been made that Chile can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
14. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Chile.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
None
Included are Ground System Modernization (GSM) and sustainment of Prime Mission Equipment (PME); Field Service Representatives (FSR); minor modifications and upgrades; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); spares and repair and return of parts; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Republic of Korea has requested to buy items and services to extend follow-on support to its Peace Krypton reconnaissance aircraft. Included are Ground System Modernization (GSM) and sustainment of Prime Mission Equipment (PME); Field Service Representatives (FSR); minor modifications and upgrades; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); spares and repair and return of parts; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total program cost is $250 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve Korea's capability to meet current and future threats by supporting operation of its fleet of Peace Krypton aircraft and enabling continued Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) interoperability with the United States. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this follow-on support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset requirements associated with this sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-31 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Twenty-seven (27) M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles
Twenty-seven (27) M2 Flex .50 Cal Machine Guns
Also included are AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancers; AN/VIC-3 Vehicle Intercom Systems; AN/VRC-91E Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS); Basic Issue Items (BIi); Components of End Items (COEI); Additional Authorized List (AAL); Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE); M6 Smoke Grenade launchers and associated spares; Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) De-processing Service; OCONUS Contractor-provided training; Field Service Representatives (FSR); technical manuals; spare parts; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Argentina has requested to buy twenty-seven (27) M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles and twenty-seven (27) M2 Flex .50 Cal Machine Guns. Also included are AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancers; AN/VIC-3 Vehicle Intercom Systems; AN/VRC-91E Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS); Basic Issue Items (BIi); Components of End Items (COEI); Additional Authorized List (AAL); Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE); M6 Smoke Grenade launchers and associated
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally that is a strategic partner in South America.
The proposed sale will improve Argentina's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing operational capabilities and force availability. Argentina will use the Stryker vehicles to conduct stability operations in support of disaster relief and international peace keeping obligations. Argentina will have no difficulty absorbing these vehicles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be General Dynamics Land Systems, Anniston, AL. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary assignment of two (2) U.S. contractor representatives to Argentina to support the program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The M1126 Stryker is an infantry carrier vehicle transporting nine soldiers, their mission equipment, and a crew of two, consisting of a driver and vehicle commander. It is equipped with armor protection, M2 machine guns, and M6 smoke grenade launchers for self-protection. The Stryker is an eight-wheeled vehicle powered by a 350 hp diesel engine. It incorporates a central tire inflation system, run-flat tires, and a vehicle height management system. The Stryker is capable of supporting a communications suite, a Global Positioning System (GPS), and a high frequency and near-term digital radio systems. The Stryker is deployable by C-130 aircraft and combat capable upon arrival. The Stryker is capable of self-deployment by highway and self-recovery. It has a low noise level that reduces crew fatigue and enhances survivability. It moves about the battlefield quickly and is optimized for close, complex, or urban terrain. The Stryker program leverages non-developmental items with common subsystems and components to quickly acquire and filed these systems.
2. The AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer is a compact thermal camera providing armored vehicle drivers with day or night time visual awareness in clear or reduced vision (fog, smoke, dust) situations. The system provides the driver a 180 degree viewing angle using a high resolution infrared sensor and image stabilization to reduce the effect of shock and vibration. The viewer and monitor are ruggedized for operation in tactical environments.
3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that Argentina can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Argentina.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-47 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are fifteen (15) EAGLE +429 Embedded Global Positioning/ Inertial Navigation (EGI) System (12 production and 3 spares); eight (8) AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder (6 production and 2 spares); fifteen (15) AN/ARC-201D (twelve (12) production and three (3) spares); fifteen (15) AN/ARC-231 radios (12 production and 3 spares); eight (8) AN/ARC-220 radios (6 production and 2 spares); two (2) VRC-100 HF Radio Ground Stations (1 for primary operations and 1 spares); eight (8) AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Receiver (6 production and 2 spares); twelve (12) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) User Data Module (UDM); eight (8) TALON Forward Looking Infrared Radar (TALON FLIR) (6 production and 2 spares); eight (8) EBC-406 Emergency Locator Transmitter (6 production and 2 spares); thirty (30) AN/AVS-6 Military Grade Night Vision Goggles; fifteen (15) AN/AVS-7 Improved Heads Up Display (IHUD) (Day) (12 for primary aircrew and 3 spares); fifteen (15) AN/AVS-7
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Lithuania has requested to buy six (6) UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in standard U.S. Government configuration with designated unique equipment and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) with fourteen (14) T700-GE-701D engines (12 installed and 2 spares); eight (8) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) (6 production and 2 spares); twelve (12) M240H machine guns. Also included are fifteen (15) EAGLE +429 Embedded Global Positioning/Inertial Navigation (EGI) System (12 production and 3 spares); eight (8) AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder (6 production and 2 spares); fifteen (15) AN/ARC-201D (twelve (12) production and three (3) spares); fifteen (15) AN/ARC-231 radios (12 production and 3 spares); eight (8) AN/ARC-220 radios (6 production and 2 spares); two (2) VRC-100 HF Radio Ground Stations (1 for primary operations and 1 spares); eight (8) AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Receiver (6 production and 2 spares); twelve (12) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) User Data Module (UDM); eight (8) TALON Forward Looking Infrared Radar (TALON FLIR) (6 production and 2 spares); eight (8) EBC-406 Emergency Locator Transmitter (6 production and 2 spares); thirty (30) AN/AVS-6 Military Grade Night Vision Goggles; fifteen (15) AN/AVS-7 Improved Heads Up Display (IHUD) (Day) (12 for primary aircrew and 3 spares); fifteen (15) AN/AVS-7 Improved Heads Up Display (IHUD (Night) (12 for primary aircrew and 3 spares); five hundred (500) 1305-A965, CTG, 25.4mm, decoy M839; eight hundred (800) flare, aircraft, countermeasure, M206; thirty-eight thousand four hundred (38,400) 7.62mm, 4 Ball, M80, 1 Tracer, Linked A; eight (8) cartridge, impulse, MH44-0; twenty-four (24) cartridge, aircraft fire extinguisher; eight (8) cartridge, impulse, CCU-92/A; one thousand four hundred forty (1,440) cartridge, impulse, BBU-35/B; aircraft warranty, air worthiness support, spare and repair parts, support equipment, communication equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, ground support equipment, site surveys, tool and test equipment, Security Assistance Training Field Activity (SATFA) Aviation Courses, Technical Assistance Fielding Team (TAFT), U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of program, technical and logistics support. The total estimated program cost is $380 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring peace and stability in Europe.
The proposed sale of these UH-60 helicopters to Lithuania will significantly increase its capability to provide troop lift, border security, anti-terrorist, medical evacuation, search and rescue, re-supply/external lift, combat support in all weather. These UH-60 helicopters will allow for interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces in rapid response to a variety of missions and quick positioning of troops with minimal helicopter assets.
Lithuania intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize and expand its armed forces to provide multi-mission support in its region and combat terrorism threats. Lithuania will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Sikorsky Aircraft Company, Stratford, CT; and General Electric Aircraft Company (GEAC) in Lynn, MA. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of an additional three U.S. Government and five contractor representatives in country full-time to support the delivery and training for approximately two-five years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The UH-60M aircraft is a medium lift four bladed aircraft which includes two (2) T-701D Engines. The aircraft has four (4) Multifunction Displays (MFD), which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The instrumentation panel includes four (4) Multifunction Displays (MFDs), two (2) Pilot and Co-Pilot Flight Director Panels, and two (2) Data Concentrator Units (DCUs). The Navigation System will have Embedded GPS/INS (EGIs), and two (2) Advanced Flight Control Computer Systems (AFCC), which provide 4 axis aircraft control.
2. The EAGLE +429 Embedded Global Positioning / Inertial Navigation (EGI) System provides GPS and INS capabilities to the aircraft. The EGI will include Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) security modules to be used for secure GPS PPS.
3. The ARC-231(V)(C) Radio System operates from 30 to 512 MHz, AM/FM Very High Frequency (VHF), Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Line-of-Sight (LOS) with frequency agile modes Electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), UHF Satellite Communications (SATCOM), Demand Assigned Multiple Access (DAMA), Integrated Waveform (IW), Air Traffic Control (ATC) channel spacing is operator selectable in 5, 8.33, 12.5, and 25kHz steps. Standard Ship-to-Shore Maritime operation is also available. Communications security is achieved via an updated embedded encryption engine, certified by the National
4. The AN/APX-123A, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder, is a space diversity transponder and is installed on various military platforms. When installed in conjunction with platform antennas and the Remote Control Unit (or other appropriate control unit), the transponder provides identification, altitude and surveillance reporting in response to interrogations from airborne, ground-based and/or surface interrogators.
5. The AN/ARC-201D, Single Channel Ground to Air Radio System (SINCGARS), is a tactical airborne radio subsystem that provides secure, anti-jam voice and data communication. The integration of COMSEC and Data Rate Adapter (DRA) combines three Line Replaceable Units into one and reduces overall weight of the aircraft.
6. The VRC-100 High Frequency (HF) Communication System is the ground station version of the AN/ARC-220 for use in Aviation Operation Centers. It provides for advanced voice and data capabilities for short-and long-distance communications. The systems is software programmable with a frequency range of 2.0000-29.9999 MHz, in 100-Hz steps and provides for providing embedded automatic Link establishment (ALE), serial tone data modem, text messaging, GPS position reporting and anti-jam (ECCM) functions. System purchased with all required mounts, amplifiers, antennas, power supplies, and accessories.
7. The AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) is an integrated infrared (IR) countermeasures suite utilizing five ultraviolet (UV) sensors to display accurate threat location and dispense decoys/countermeasures either automatically or under pilot/crew control to defeat incoming missile threats. CMWS is a detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by infrared guided missiles.
8. The Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) User Data Module (UDM) (NSN 7025-01-647-8526) is a classified, removable Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) module that is installed in the UDM housing on the CMWS ECU. The UDM contains the Operational Flight Program (OFP), aircraft, threat/countermeasure file library, and mission specific information used in the embedded system.
9. The TALON Forward Looking Infrared Radar (TALON FLIR) is a compact multi-sensor thermal imaging system utilized for personnel recovery. Search and rescue missions are supported with the thermal imaging, daylight camera, and laser rangefinder payloads. Includes Joystick Control Unit (JCU).
10. AN/ARC-220, High Frequency (HF) Radio multifunctional, fully Digital Signal Processing (DSP) high frequency radio for rotary wing applications. Provides embedded Automatic Link Establishment (ALE), serial tone data modem, text messaging, GPS position reporting and anti-jam (ECCM) functions. Embedded ECCM and data modem.
11. EBC-406 (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is loaded with country unique codes (at delivery in country) that aid in the recovery of a down aircraft/personnel with a loud beeping tone and flashing LED. The ELT transmits on 406.028 MHz, the civil 121.5 MHz, and the military 243.0 MHz emergency frequencies.
12. The AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Receiver detects laser rangefinders, target designators and beam rider laser-aided systems targeting an aircraft or vehicle. The AVR-2B is a detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by laser designated or guided weapons.
13. The AN/AVS-6 Military Grade Night Vision Goggles are helmet mounted, optoelectronic devices that allows images be produced in levels of light approaching total darkness. The image may be a conversion to visible light of both visible light and near-infrared.
14. The AN/AVS-7 Improved Heads Up Display (IHUD) (Day and Night) is a standard helicopter aviator day and night helmet mounted display system. The IHUD is an advanced, proven electro-optic system that displays critical aircraft navigation and flight symbology. The IHUD can be used alone during daylight operations, or combined with the AN/AVS-6 goggles during night operation.
15. The M206, a magnesium Teflon flare, provides protection against a wide range of surface to air threats.
16. The highest level of information required to furnish the equipment, training, and data associated with this proposed sale is classified SECRET.
17. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the enclosed Policy Justification. A determination has been made that Lithuania can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government.
18. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Lithuania.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-38 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
One hundred fifty-six (156) M240B 7.62x51mm Machine Guns
Also included are thirty-six (36) 9M Scout Boats (SB); thirty-six (36) 10M Assault Boats (AB); eighteen (18) 16M Light Support Boats (LSB); thirty-six (36) units of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) 280HD; twenty-four (24) M2A1 .50 caliber machine guns; thirty-six (36) M134D-M, 7.62x51mm, 6-barrel rotary Gatling guns; three hundred ninety-nine (399) NFS-NVG/IR Lasers (AN/PVS-14 and AN/PEQ-15); one hundred two (102) Thermal Imager Scope (handheld); two hundred ten (210) Heavy Thermal Weapon Sights (AN/PAS-13); ninety (90) Harris Falcon III RF-7850M radios; two hundred seventy (270) Harris Falcon III RF-7850S radios; boat spare parts; spare engines and engine components; safety and rescue equipment; training; contractor engineering technical services; engineering technical assistance; transportation cost services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Philippines has requested to buy one hundred fifty-six (156) M240B 7.62x51mm machine guns. Also included are thirty-six (36) 9M Scout Boats (SB); thirty-six (36) 10M Assault Boats (AB); eighteen (18) 16M Light Support Boats (LSB); thirty-six (36) units of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) 280HD; twenty-four (24) M2A1
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner that continues to be an important force for political stability, peace, and economic progress in South-East Asia.
The proposed sale will improve the Philippines' capability to meet current and future threats by force multiplying the Army's present ability to operate and control both inland and coastal waterways of southern Philippines. The Philippines will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor for the Scout and Assault Boats will be Willard Marine Inc., Anaheim, CA. The principal contractor for the Light Support Boat will be determined through an open competition contract. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement required by Philippines will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of one (1) additional U.S. contractor representative to the Republic of the Philippines for a duration of five (5) years to provide maintenance and logistical support.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Included are:
a. The M240B 7.62x51mm machine gun is a general purpose, gas-operated, medium machine gun fired from a mount. The M240B machine gun provides protection and is used extensively by infantry, most often in rifle companies, as well as on ground vehicles, watercraft and aircraft.
b. The 9M Scout Boat is an agile vessel. The 9M Scout Boat provides reconnaissance capabilities.
c. The 10M Assault Boat is a high speed patrol vessel. The 10M Assault Boat provides search and seizure capabilities.
d. The 16M Light Support Boat is a lightweight unit support vessel. The 16M Light Support Boat provides extended range for the mission.
e. The Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) 280HD is an imaging system. The FLIR 280HD is designed to identify and track threats in the day and night.
f. The M2A1 .50 caliber machine gun is an automatic, air-cooled machine gun either mounted or crew transported (over short distances). The M2A1 .50 caliber machine gun provides defensive and offensive capabilities and can be used as an anti-personnel and anti- aircraft weapon.
g. The M134D-M, 7.62x51mm, 6-barrel rotary Gatling gun, is a machine gun. The M134D-M, 7.62x51mm, 6-barrel rotary Gatling guns provides defensive and offensive capabilities.
h. The Night Fighting System-Night Vision Goggle (NFS-NVG)/Infrared Lasers (AN/PVS-14 and AN/PEQ-15). The NFS/NVG (AN/PVS-14) is a multi-functional night vision monocular. The NFS/NVG provides night vision capabilities and can be used as a hand-held pocket scope, helmet-mounted monocular, or a weapon sight when mounted in tandem with an infrared laser aimer. The Advanced Target Pointer/Illuminator/Aiming Laser (AN/PEQ-15) is an infrared laser aimer. The Advanced Target Pointer/Illuminator/Aiming Laser (AN/PEQ-15) provides direct-fire aiming and illumination for nighttime use.
i. The Thermal Imager Scope is a device which creates an image by the target's emitted heat signature and its contrast to its immediate surroundings. The Thermal Imager Scope provides a sharper capability for precision targeting in the absence of illumination.
j. The Heavy Thermal Weapon Sights (AN/PAS-13) is a portable infrared sensor for use on rifles, surveillance missions, and shoulder-launched missiles. The Thermal Weapon Sight provides a capability to acquire targets at long range, night, during the day in adverse weather conditions and through smoke and dust.
k. The Harris Falcon III RF-7850M Radio is a multiband networking vehicular radio. The Harris Falcon III RF-7850M Radio provides high-speed, long-range tactical communications and is engineered for space-constrained platforms.
l. The Harris Falcon III RF-7850S Radio is an advanced wideband, secure personal radio. The Harris Falcon III RF-7850S Radio provides personal, secure and full communications capabilities (for both wideband and narrowband operation) and meets specific needs of soldier-level communications with multiple talk groups, ad-hoc mesh networking, and multi-hop forwarding.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Republic of the Philippines can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of the Philippines.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
None
Approximately 990 million gallons of Petroleum-based products, to include JP-8 Aviation Fuel, Diesel Fuel, and Unleaded Gasoline
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Israel has requested to buy approximately 990 million gallons of Petroleum-based products, to include JP-8 Aviation Fuel, Diesel Fuel, and Unleaded Gasoline. The total estimated cost is $3.0 billion.
The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and
The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain operational aircraft. Diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline will be used for ground vehicles. The proposed sale will improve Israel's ability to meet current and future threats in order to defend its borders.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
U.S. vendors will be selected using a competitive bid process through Defense Logistics Agency Energy for supply source(s). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional US Government or contractor representatives to Israel.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-41 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Twenty-nine (29) All Up Round MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo Mod 0
Also included are two (2) Fleet Exercise Section conversion kits, torpedo support equipment, training and publications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Belgium requests to buy twenty-nine (29) All Up Round MK 54 LWT Mod 0. Also included are two (2) Fleet Exercise Section conversion kits, torpedo support equipment, training and publications, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $33.3 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The Belgian Navy is phasing out its inventory of MK 46 torpedoes. The MK 54 will give them the ability to engage submarines from its fleet of NH-90 helicopters and the new generation of Multi-Mission Frigates. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Integrated Defense System, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Belgium; however, U.S. Government Engineering and Technical Services may be required on an interim basis for installations and integration.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MK 54 Torpedo is a conventional torpedo that can be launched from surface ships, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft. The MK 54 is an upgrade to the MK 46 Torpedo, which is currently in-service in Belgium. The MK 54 replaces MK 46's sonar and guidance and control systems with modern technology. The new guidance and control system uses a mixture of commercial-off-the-shelf and custom-built electronics. The warhead, fuel tank and propulsion system from the MK 46 torpedo are re-used in the MK 54 configuration with minor modifications. There is no sensitive technology in the MK 54 or its support and test equipment. Belgium has not requested nor will it be provided with the source code for the MK 54 operational software. The highest classification of items to be transferred by this possible sale is SECRET.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the Government of Belgium can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Belgium.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-24 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
None
Recertification of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles, including the replacement of expiring limited life components and certification testing in order to support an operational life of thirty years; test and repair of PAC-3 missiles, including stockpile reliability testing and field returns; repair and return of classified and unclassified PAC-3 missile items and ground support equipment (GSE) component level parts; replenishment of classified and unclassified missile spares and GSE spares, as well as a seeker spares pool to improve the turnaround time of the repair and recertification efforts; air transportation services for missile processing; U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support; and other related elements of logistics support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
TECRO has requested to buy Recertification of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles, including the replacement of expiring Limited Life Components (LLCs) and certification testing in order to support an operational life of thirty years; Test and repair of PAC-3 missiles, including Stockpile Reliability Testing (SRT) and Field Returns; Repair and Return (R&R) of classified and unclassified PAC-3
This proposed sale is consistent with U.S. law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.
This proposed sale will help sustain the recipient's missile density and ensure readiness for air operations. The recipient will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Camden, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the prospective purchasing country.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Patriot Air Defense System contains classified SECRET components and critical/sensitive technology. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Four Pack is classified CONFIDENTIAL. With the incorporation of the PAC-3 missile, the Patriot system will continue to hold a significant technological lead over other surface-to-air missile systems in the world.
2. The PAC-3 Missile sensitive/critical technology is in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development, and/or manufacturing data related to certain components. Information on system performance capabilities and effectiveness, select software documentation, and test data are classified up to SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems, which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the recipient can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Karma Job at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-45 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are torpedo containers; Recoverable Exercise Torpedoes (REXTORP) with containers; Fleet Exercise Section (FES) and fuel tanks to be used with MK 54 conversion kits (procured as MDE); air launch accessories for fixed wing; torpedo spare parts; training, publications, support and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Germany has requested to buy sixty-four (64) MK 54 All Up Round Lightweight torpedoes and ten (10) MK 54 Conversion Kits to be used with fleet exercise sections as MK 54 Exercise torpedoes. Also included are torpedo containers; Recoverable Exercise Torpedoes (REXTORP) with containers; Fleet Exercise Section (FES) and fuel tanks to be used with MK 54 conversion kits (procured as MDE); air launch accessories for fixed wing; torpedo spare parts; training, publications, support and test equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally which is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Germany's capability to meet current and future threats by upgrading the Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities on Germany's P-3C aircraft. Germany will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Integrated Defense System, Portsmouth, RI. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require long-term assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Germany; however, U.S. Government Engineering and Technical Services may be required on an interim basis for training and technical assistance.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MK 54 Torpedo is a conventional torpedo that can be launched from surface ships and rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. The MK 54 is an upgrade from the MK 46 Torpedo. The upgrade to the MK 54 entails replacement of the torpedo's sonar and guidance and control systems with modem technology. The new guidance and control system uses a mixture of commercial-off-the-shelf and custom-built electronics. The warhead, fuel tank, and propulsion system from the MK 46 torpedo are re-used in the MK 54 configuration with minor modifications.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Germany can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Germany.
Institute for Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision to an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Stephanie Stullich, 202-245-6468.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
President's Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity, Office of Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions for public participation in the August 31, 2020 virtual meeting of the President's Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity (Commission) and provides information to members of the public regarding the meeting. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 41 CFR 102-3.150(b) provides “In exceptional circumstances, the agency . . . . may give less than 15 calendar days notice, provided that the reasons for doing so are included in the advisory committee meeting notice published in the
The virtual meeting of the Commission will be held on August 31, 2020, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Emmanuel Caudillo, Designated Federal Official, President's Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7E324, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-5529, or email:
The Commission's Statutory Authority and Function: The Commission is established under Executive Order 13935 (July 9, 2020). The Commission's duties are to advise the President and the Secretary on educational and economic opportunities for the Hispanic American community in the following areas: (i) Promoting pathways to in-demand jobs for Hispanic American students, including apprenticeships, internships, fellowships, mentorships, and work-based learning initiatives; (ii) strengthening HSIs, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and increasing the participation of the Hispanic American community, Hispanic-serving school districts, and HSIs in the programs of the Department and other agencies; (iii) promoting local-based and national private-public partnerships to promote high-quality education, training, and economic opportunities for Hispanic Americans; (iv) promoting awareness of educational opportunities for Hispanic American students, including options to enhance school choice, personalized learning, family engagement, and civics education; (v) promoting public awareness of the educational and training challenges that Hispanic Americans face and the causes of these challenges and; (vi) monitoring changes in Hispanic Americans' access to educational and economic opportunities.
The agenda for the Commission meeting is the creation of strategic plan to meet its duties under its charter.
Members of the public may submit written statements regarding the work of the Commission via
Members of the public may register to obtain dial-in instructions at the below link. Due to technical constraints, registration is limited to 200 participants and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Executive Order 13935 (July 9, 2020).
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of Request for public comment on standardized EAC Progress Report (EAC-PR) format to be used for both interim and final progress reporting for all EAC grants and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
Comments should be submitted by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to
To view the proposed EAC-PR format and instrument, see:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The EAC Office of Grants Management (EAC/OGM) is responsible for distributing, monitoring and providing technical assistance to states and grantees on the use of federal funds. EAC/OGM also reports on how the funds are spent to Congress, negotiates indirect cost rates with grantees, and resolves audit findings on the use of HAVA funds.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the EAC to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Office of Grants Management.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years.
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will allow BPA to exercise management and oversight awarding of contracts in a cost-effective manner, and for safeguarding the interests of Bonneville in its contractual relationships. In order to perform these responsibilities, Contracting officers require information collections from prospective or current vendors regarding how they are fulfilling their contractual obligations. We have one correction to make on the annual estimated number of burden hours.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 25, 2020. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the OMB Desk Officer by email or mail.
Written comments should be sent to OMB Desk Officer: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Attn: Laura McCarthy, CGI-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, or by fax Attn: Laura McCarthy, CGI-7 at 503-230-4619, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
This document of the Department of Energy, was signed on June 9, 2020, by Candice D. Palen, Information Collection Clearance Manager, Bonneville Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of revision of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on revisions of the information collection FERC-725R (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: BAL Reliability Standards), and will be submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Comments on the collection of information are due October 26, 2020.
Comments should be submitted to the Commission, in Docket No. RD20-9-000, by one of the following methods:
•
•
• 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
On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted into law the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).
On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.
On December 19, 2019, NERC submitted for approval proposed Reliability Standard BAL-003-2, as well as a proposed implementation plan, Violation Risk Factors, and Violation Severity Levels. The revisions in proposed Reliability Standard BAL-003-2 are concentrated in Attachment A of the revised Standard, “BAL-003-2 Frequency Response and Frequency
NERC's filed petition was noticed on May 28, 2020, with interventions, comments and protests due on or before June 29, 2020. No interventions or comments were received. Reliability Standard BAL-003-2 was approved by FERC on 7/15/2020 in a Delegated Letter Order (DLO).
Balancing authorities and the FRSG report their previous-year Frequency Response Measure and Frequency Bias Setting to NERC, and revised Frequency Bias Settings are based on data from events the balancing authorities and FRSG report on FRS Form 1, as revised by RD20-9-000. The information provided on the FRS Form 1 is based on events which qualify for analyses, and NERC states that it will identify between 20 to 35 events in each Interconnection for calculating the Frequency Response Measure and Frequency Bias Setting. FRS Form 1 will automatically calculate the balancing authority's frequency response measure (FRM) for the past 12 months as the median of the Single Event Frequency Response Data (SEFRD) values.
In order to comply with Reliability Standard BAL-003-2, the balancing authority will be required to retain data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements R1, R2, R3 and R4 and Measures M1, M2, M3 and M4 for the current year plus the previous three calendar years unless directed by its Compliance Enforcement Authority to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an investigation. The frequency response sharing group will be required to retain data or evidence to show compliance with Requirement R1 and Measure M1 for the current year plus the previous three calendar years, unless directed by its Compliance Enforcement Authority to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an investigation.
Estimates for the additional average annual burden and cost
Take notice that on August 17, 2020, Magnum Gas Storage, LLC (Magnum) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grant a four- and one-half-year extension of time, until May 17, 2025, to construct and place into service the Magnum Gas Storage Project facilities (Facilities) which were originally authorized by the Commission on March 17, 2011 (Certificate Order)
Magnum has experienced delays in initiating construction of the Facilities due to delays in permitting of the related state jurisdictional facilities, changes in the overall project scope and changing market conditions. As a result, construction of Magnum's facilities has not yet begun. In its August 17, 2020 request, Magnum explains that it is continuing to diligently develop the Magnum Gas Storage Project and has secured the necessary permits for construction and has secured substantial land, mineral and water rights associated with construction of the Facilities. Magnum further explains that its Facilities are directly adjacent to the site of the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) which is converting its electric power plant from coal to natural gas and the Advanced Clean Energy Storage (ACES) Project which is developing renewable energy storage using hydrogen, compressed air, large-scale flow batteries and solid oxide fuel cells, which will require the use of natural gas in the conversion process for the foreseeable future. Magnum states that it is uniquely positioned to provide delivery and storage of natural gas in the vicinity of the ACES and IPP Projects.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Magnum's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file 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 Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
On April 2, 2020, the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) issued a notice granting, among other things, waiver through May 1, 2020 of the Commission's regulations that govern the form of filings submitted to the Commission to the extent entities are unable to meet those requirements due to the emergency conditions caused by Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). On May 8, 2020, the Secretary waived through September 1, 2020, the
Given the ongoing emergency conditions caused by COVID-19, there is good cause to waive through and including January 29, 2021,
Take notice that on August 7, 2020, Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC (Cimarron), 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver, Colorado 80202, and Ladder Creek LLC (Ladder Creek), 41707 County Road P, Cheyenne Wells, Colorado 80810 (jointly, the Applicants), filed in Docket No. CP20-508-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization for its proposed Tekas Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project). Specifically, Cimarron proposes to: (1) Abandon the Tekas Pipeline system, which is an independent, noncontiguous portion of Cimarron's interstate pipeline operations, by transfer to Ladder Creek; (2) find that, upon transfer, the bulk of the Tekas Pipeline System will be performing non-jurisdictional natural gas gathering activities; and (3) issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Ladder Creek pursuant to NGA section 7(c) to own, operate, and maintain the Ladder Creek Residue Line located near the Colorado-Kansas border that delivers natural gas processed at the Ladder Creek Processing Plant to Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG). The Applicants also request that the Commission determine that, in light of the fact that Ladder Creek will operate the Ladder Creek Residue Line for the sole purpose of transporting gas owned by Ladder Creek to CIG, Ladder Creek qualifies for waivers of those aspects of the Commission's interstate gas pipeline regulatory program that have routinely been afforded to jurisdictional plant residue lines that do not carry third-party gas.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Douglas F. John, Counsel for Ladder Creek, John & Hengerer LLP, 1629 K Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20006, by phone (202) 429-8801; and Daniel P. Archuleta, Counsel for Cimarron, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sander LLP, 401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, by phone (202) 274-2926.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review 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
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
On August 6, 2020, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff convened a technical conference to discuss the above-captioned proceeding.
As announced at that conference, all interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments to address any issues raised in this docket. Commenters may reference previously filed material, or file their own presentations from the technical conference, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previously filed material. In addition, the technical conference was transcribed. Transcripts are available from Ace Reporting Company and may be purchased online at
Comments should be filed electronically via the internet.
For more information about this Notice, please contact: John Martinic, (202) 502-8630,
On June 22, 2020, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) and Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), filed applications in Docket Nos. CP20-484-000 and CP20-485-000, respectively, requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and authorization pursuant to Section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act. ANR seeks to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, and Great Lakes seeks authorization to abandon firm capacity by lease to ANR. The proposed projects are known as the Alberta Xpress Project and Lease Capacity Abandonment Project (Projects) and would provide 165,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation capacity on ANR's pipeline system to connect growing Gulf Coast LNG markets with Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin production.
On July 1, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notices of Applications for the Projects. Among other things, those notices alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Projects.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Projects' progress.
ANR proposes to construct and operate one new 15,900 horsepower compressor station (designated as the Turkey Creek Compressor Station) and appurtenant facilities in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, and acquire a lease between ANR and Great Lakes.
Great Lakes proposes to abandon firm capacity by a lease agreement with ANR. No new construction is proposed as part of the Lease Capacity Abandonment Project; however, this is related to the application filed by ANR to construct and operate the Alberta Xpress Project.
On July 20, 2020, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's
Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
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 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 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting comment on data sources and analytical approaches on which to base an EPA determination of an updated weighting factor (F-factor) for E85 flexible fuel vehicles for model years 2021 and later. The F-factor for a given vehicle model year is used to weight the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a flexible fuel vehicle operating on E85 with the GHG emissions of the vehicle operating on conventional gasoline, when calculating the compliance value for that model year. The F-factor is also used in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program for weighting the measured fuel economy of flexible fuel vehicles when operating on E85.
Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2020.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0104, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4584. Fax: (734) 214-4816. Email address:
EPA will keep the record open until October 26, 2020. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0104. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0104, at
The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via
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-19.
Under EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) program for passenger automobiles and light trucks, starting with the 2016 model year, the regulations describe how to determine the GHG value for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that run either on gasoline or on E85 (a fuel mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline). A weighting factor, referred to as the F-factor, is used to weight the gasoline and E85 emissions values of the tested vehicle model together to determine the combined value to be used for the vehicle model in the fleet average calculations. The default approach is to use a F-factor of zero such that the CO
EPA's regulations establish two different approaches that may be used to determine the value of the F-factor. Manufacturers may request that EPA determine and publish by guidance an appropriate value for the E85 F-factor, based on EPA's assessment of the real-world use of E85, to be used fleetwide. Alternatively, a manufacturer may submit data demonstrating the actual real-world use of E85 by its vehicles. EPA would determine whether the data is adequate and what an appropriate F-factor should be for the manufacturer.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations specify that starting with MY 2020, an F-factor, once established by EPA, will also be used in CAFE to weight FFV fuel economy on conventional gasoline test fuel and E85 in determining the FFV's model type fuel economy.
After receiving a request in mid-2012 that EPA establish an F-factor, EPA released a draft letter to auto manufacturers and published a notice in the
EPA received a request from auto manufacturers to establish an F-factor for model year 2020 and later.
EPA's intention had been to update the methodology used to set the original 2016-2018 F-factor as the basis for a new F-factor for 2020 and beyond using the latest information. However, there are at least two key factors that EPA believes must be considered further. First, in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (AEO2020),
Stakeholders have suggested that AEO2020 may not properly reflect the amount of E85 consumed in future years by FFVs.
Given the potential impact that both of these factors have on the F-factor, and recognizing the need to provide certainty to the automakers for purposes of their planning for MY 2020, EPA has extended the use of the existing F-factor of 0.14 to model year 2020.
The 0.14 F-factor will remain in place beyond MY2020 until such time as EPA adopts a revised F-factor based on new data and updated methodology.
In order to better inform our approach to assessing an updated F-factor for MY2021 and later, EPA requests comment on the various data sources, analytical approaches, and potential alternatives to our draft methodology for assessing the F-factor for MY2021 and later. Specifically, EPA has prepared a technical memorandum to the docket for this action.
This technical memorandum also discusses technical information EPA has received on these topics from the automotive industry and the ethanol industry, and describes the associated alternative F-Factor values commensurate with the technical information we have assessed. The materials provided by the industry stakeholders are also available for review in the docket.
EPA requests comment on the appropriate sources of data for establishing an updated F-factor for MY2021 and later vehicles, including the forecasting of E85 consumption and the use of AEO in general (
EPA has consulted with the Department of Transportation on the development of the F-factor draft technical assessment, as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations point to EPA's F-factor regulations for 2020 and later model years.
Interested parties should submit comments according to the guidelines described in this notice. EPA plans to consider the comments we receive, as well as additional available data, including AEO2021 when it is released, in determining an updated F-factor applicable for MY2021 and later.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations to terminate uses, voluntarily requested by the registrant and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a June 14, 2018
The cancellations are effective August 26, 2020.
Steven Snyderman, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0249; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0769, is available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
This notice announces the cancellations, as requested by registrant, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the June 14, 2018
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II are cancelled. The effective date of the cancellations and amendments listed in Table 1 that are subject of this notice is August 26, 2020. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be cancelled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. The existing stocks provision for the products subject to this order is as follows.
For voluntary product cancellations, identified in Table 1 of Unit II, in conjunction with the publication of the cancellation order in the
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of cancelled products until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled products.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before September 25, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0077, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 07/01/2020 to 07/31/2020. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the following chemicals: 2,4-DP-p, Aliphatic alcohols C6-C16, Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS),
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table. The interim registration review decisions are supported by rationales included in the docket established for each chemical.
The proposed interim registration review decisions for the chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were received may
Background on the registration review program is provided at:
7 U.S.C. 136
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) is amending an existing system of records, FCA-11—Litigation and Administrative Adjudication Files—FCA.
You may send written comments on or before September 25, 2020. FCA filed an amended System Report with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget on July 20, 2020. This notice will become effective without further publication on October 5, 2020 unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received from the public.
We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's website. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we are no longer accepting comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may review copies of comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our website at
Autumn R. Agans, Privacy Act Officer, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4019.
The FCA-11—Litigation and Administrative Adjudication Files—FCA system is used to track litigation matters and to draft legal opinions and litigation reports. The Agency is updating the notice to make administrative updates as well as non-substantive changes to conform to the SORN template requirements prescribed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108. This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 that agencies publish a system of records notice in the
1. Identifying the records in the system as unclassified.
2. Revising the safeguards section to reflect updated cybersecurity guidance and practices.
3. Updating the purposes of the system.
4. Updating the categories of records in the system.
Additionally, non-substantive changes have been made to the notice to align with the latest guidance from OMB.
The amended system of records is: FCA-11—Litigation and Administrative Adjudication Files—FCA. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, FCA sent notice of this proposed system of records to the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The notice is published in its entirety below.
FCA-11—Litigation and Administrative Adjudication Files—FCA.
Unclassified.
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090.
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090.
12 U.S.C. 2243, 2252; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
We use information in this system of records to actively manage and engage in litigation and administrative matters, track litigation and administrative matters, and to draft legal opinions and litigation reports.
Parties involved in litigation or administrative adjudication with FCA or litigation in which FCA has an interest, including: (a) Administrative proceedings before the FCA (
This system may contain: (1) Documents comprising or included in the case record, such as briefs, affidavits, reports of investigation, motions, pleadings, orders, and correspondence; and (2) other
Person to whom the record applies, current and former FCA employees, witnesses, participants, attorneys, others working on behalf of FCA, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. District Courts, parties to the proceedings, or other Federal, State, or local agencies.
See the “General Statement of Routine Uses”. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None.
Records are maintained in file folders and electronically in one or more computerized databases.
Records are retrieved by name.
Records are retained in accordance with retention schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration and with the FCA Comprehensive Records Schedule.
FCA implements multiple layers of security to ensure access to records is limited to those with a need-to-know in support of their official duties. Records are physically safeguarded in a secured environment using locked file rooms, file cabinets, or locked offices and other physical safeguards. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of user roles, passwords, firewalls, encryption, and other information technology security measures. Only the personnel with a need-to-know in support of their duties have access to the records.
To obtain a record, contact: Privacy Act Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090, as provided in 12 CFR part 603.
Direct requests for amendments to a record to: Privacy Act Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090, as provided in 12 CFR part 603.
Address inquiries about this system of records to: Privacy Act Officer, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090.
None.
Vol. 70, No. 183/Thursday, September 22, 2005, page 55621.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The 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 10, 2020.
A.
1.
B.
1.
C.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The 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 25, 2020.
A.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Improving Safety of Human-Robot Interaction. The purpose of this data collection is to gather experimental information in the CDC Division of Safety Research Virtual Reality Laboratory on the effects of robot characteristics (
CDC must receive written comments on or before October 26, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2020-0074 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Improving Safety of Human-Robot Interaction—NEW—National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. NIOSH has initiated a study among manufacturing workers to improve safety of workers that work in close proximity with robots. Study results will be used to improve safety standards and lead to better design guidelines for industrial robots.
Rapid growth of advanced collaborative and mobile robots warrants investigation on safe human-robot interaction for their potential injurious energy transmission from a robot to a worker. Traditional safety measures for industrial robots, such as protective barriers, are no longer valid for the emerging collaborative and mobile robots. Physical contacts between human workers and robots are inevitable and even desired when they share a common workspace or work directly with each other under collaborative operations. Therefore, NIOSH is proposing a study to evaluate the effects of different characteristics of robots on human behaviors, perceived safety, workload, and trust.
The study will take advantage of virtual reality technology to simulate human-robot interaction during data collection sessions. Participants will conduct two related experiments that will involve performing simulated warehouse tasks (
Data collections will occur at the NIOSH facility in Morgantown, West Virginia. The target study population will be workers who currently work or had worked in the manufacturing industry, with varying job experiences. The burden table below accounts for 111 respondents over a three-year data collection period. Respondents will complete all forms only once, besides the Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire, which will be administered at the beginning and end of the data collection, and the three questionnaires (NASA Task Load Index, Perceived Safety Questionnaire, and Robot Trust Questionnaire), which will be administered after each of the 63 combined experiment trials. The total estimated burden hours are 217. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 25, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Administration for Children and Families, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is realigning the Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR), including the U.S. Repatriation Program. OHSEPR will be a direct report to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) for the ACF. The Division of Emergency Policy and Planning will be realigned into the following Divisions:
1. Division of Operations;
2. Division of Intelligence;
3. Division of Planning, Training, and Exercises.
Lastly, it changes the reporting relationship from a direct report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs to a direct report to the PDAS for ACF.
Natalie Grant, Director for OHSEPR, (202) 205-7843, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201.
This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), ACF, as follows: Chapter KA, Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary as last amended in 80 FR 63555-63558, October 20, 2015; Chapter KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response as last amended in 80 FR 63555-63558, October 20, 2015; and Chapter KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response as last amended in 83 FR 40517-40519, August 15, 2018.
I. Under KW, The Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response, delete KW.00 Mission in its entirety and replace with:
II. Under KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response, delete KW.10 Organization in its entirety and replace with:
III. Under KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response, delete KW.20 Functions in its entirety and replace with:
The Office of the Director manages budgetary and legal matters affecting OHSEPR, administers human resources and program evaluation functions, and ensures alignment of activities by all OHSEPR divisions with the Director's strategy and applicable laws, policies, doctrines, and frameworks related to the provision of HHS and ACF's disaster human services, repatriation, and business continuity operations. The Office of the Director develops guidance, legislative proposals, and routine interpretations of policy.
The Office of the Director provides administrative, grant-making, financial management, budget, and contract officer representative (COR) direction and support to OHSEPR. Staff responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (1) Serving as the Executive Secretariat for OHSEPR, including managing correspondence, correspondence systems, and public requests; (2) coordinating human resources activities; and (3) as appropriate, development of internal policies and procedures relating to these activities. The Office of the Director supports the implementation of strategic initiatives and oversees communications for the offices, including responses to media and Congressional inquiries in coordination through ACF's Office of Communications and Office of Legislation and Budget.
B. The Division of Operations is responsible for leading ACF's disaster human services operations in response to emergencies, major disasters, public health emergencies, and the repatriation of U.S. citizens and their dependents. Deployable missions may include the DHSCM Program, the U.S. Repatriation Program missions, and ACF human services subject matter experts and staffing assets for incident planning, response, and recovery. This Division works closely with emergency management, public health, and human service federal and non-federal partners.
The DHSCM Program supports states, tribes, and territories in establishing the capacity to coordinate and provide disaster case management services. This Division maintains the capability to deploy DHSCM teams upon activation by the Director. The Division administers an electronic case record management system to provide DHSCM services in accordance with data management laws and regulations.
The U.S. Repatriation Program provides temporary assistance to U.S. citizens and their dependents returning to the United States by the Department of State as authorized under Section 1113 of the Social Security Act and Public Law 86-571, 24 U.S.C. 321-329, and other applicable regulations and
This Division manages capabilities for other operations, including deployment and management of requested human services subject matter experts and response and recovery staffing assets; coordinates ACF support for federal emergency missions; and liaises with federal interagency and other partners in response and recovery.
C. The Division of Intelligence is responsible for maintaining situational awareness of developing and no-notice incidents, monitoring conditions that may prompt the repatriation of U.S. citizens back to the United States, coordinating information management needs of disaster human services response and recovery operations, and conducting threat assessments in response to emergencies, major disasters, public health emergencies in order to identify impacts to ACF grantees, human services providers, and vulnerable communities.
D. The Division of Planning, Training, and Exercises is responsible for administering OHSEPR's planning activities to support readiness of operations. This Division carries out “steady state” activities to ensure readiness of deployable and non-deployable assets and programs, including the development of plans, guides, procedures, training, exercises, and staffing assets. This Division ensures human service impacts from disasters affecting ACF programs and human services providers are addressed in HHS-wide and government-wide emergency planning and policymaking. This Division works closely with ACF programs, grantees and stakeholders, HHS operating divisions, federal human service programs, and state and local human service programs.
The Division is responsible for coordinating the development and currency of ACF Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) as required by the Presidential Policy Directive 40 (PPD-40), National Continuity Policy, and as directed by the Administrator of FEMA. This Division ensures the COOP meets established continuity program and planning requirements for executive departments and agencies, and contains defined elements outlined in established frameworks, requirements, and processes.
IV. Under Chapter KA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, delete KA.20 Functions, Paragraph A in its entirety and replace with the following:
V. Continuation of Policy. Except as inconsistent with this reorganization, all statements of policy and interpretations with respect to organizational components affected by this notice within ACF, heretofore issued and in effect on this date of this reorganization, are continued in full force and effect.
VI. Delegation of Authority. All delegations and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further re-delegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
VII. Funds, Personnel, and Equipment. Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied in each instance by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies, and other resources.
This reorganization will be effective upon date of signature.
Office on Trafficking in Persons, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS.
Notice of meeting; call for public comments on strategies to engage stakeholders to improve the Nation's response to the sex trafficking of children and youth.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, that a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on the Sex Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States (Committee) will be held on September 17, 2020. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss the dissemination of its State Self-Assessment Survey, as well as its interim report on recommended best practices for States to follow to combat the sex trafficking of children and youth based on multidisciplinary research and promising, evidence-based models and programs.
The members of the Committee request examples and comments from the public to inform their work. The Committee requests input on strategies to engage stakeholders across states that relate to the Committee's recommendations in the interim report as well as strategies to support states as they complete the State Self-Assessment. Please email your examples and/or comments to
The meeting will be held on September 17, 2020.
The meeting will be held virtually. Please register for this event online at:
Katherine Chon (Designated Federal
The formation and operation of the Committee are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee joint meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on September 10, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time and September 11, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19 pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2020-N-0982. The docket will close on October 13, 2020. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by October 13, 2020. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2020. The
Comments received on or before September 4, 2020, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and
• 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.” FDA 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
Philip Bautista, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Philip Bautista (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Synthetic biology is a multidisciplinary field of research that involves the design, modification, and creation of biological systems and holds broad promise to advance both basic and applied research in areas ranging from materials science to molecular medicine. However, synthetic nucleic acids and associated technologies may also pose risks if misused. To reduce the risk that individuals with ill intent may exploit the application of nucleic acid synthesis technology to obtain genetic material derived from or encoding Select Agents and Toxins and, as applicable, agents on the Export Administration Regulations' (EAR's) Commerce Control List (CCL), the U.S. Government issued guidance in 2010 providing a framework for screening synthetic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). This document, the
Please submit all comments related to this request for information (RFI) through the web form on the Screening Framework Guidance for Providers of Synthetic Double-Stranded DNA website at
Responses to this RFI must be received no later than 12 p.m. (ET) on October 25, 2020.
Dr. C. Matthew Sharkey; Division of Policy; Office of Strategy, Policy, Planning, and Requirements; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; phone: 202-401-1448; email:
Should the focus of the Guidance extend beyond the Select Agents and Toxins list and CCL?
Are there potential benefits and/or downsides to screening for sequences not on the Select Agents and Toxins list or CCL?
Should the scope of the Guidance be broadened beyond synthetic dsDNA? If so, how? Should the scope of the Guidance be broadened to other synthetic nucleic acids? If so, what synthetic sequences? Or, should the scope of the Guidance be broadened beyond providers of synthetic dsDNA? If so, to whom? Why?
Should the scope of the Guidance be narrowed, either in terms of types of sequences screened or the audience of the Guidance? Why or why not?
Should the Guidance be further clarified or otherwise updated to identify embedded “sequences of concern” within larger-length orders? If so, how?
Are there approaches other than the Best Match, using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) or other local sequence alignment tools, to check against the National Institutes of Health's (HIH's) GenBank database that should be considered? What are the benefits and/or downsides of those approaches compared with the current Guidance?
Are there other approaches (
Are there other considerations that would be appropriate (
Is maintenance and use of broader list-based approach(es) now feasible? If so, how might this approach be realized? If not, what are major roadblocks to implementing this approach? Since the release of the original Guidance, have providers or other entities developed customized database approaches, or approaches that evaluate the biological risk associated with non-Select Agent and Toxin sequences or, for international orders, sequences not associated with items on the CCL? If so, how effective have they been, and have there been any negative impacts?
Are there other security or screening approaches (
Given that nucleic acid sequences not encompassed by SAR and the CCL may pose biosecurity risks, are there alternative approaches to the screening mechanism that could be established? If such approaches have been established, how effective have they been, and have there been any negative impacts?
What, if any, mechanisms for pre-screening customers or categories of customers for certain types of orders, if any, should be considered to make secondary screening for providers of synthetic oligonucleotides more efficient?
Are there additional types of end-user screenings or follow-up mechanisms that should be considered to mitigate the risk that synthetic genetic materials containing sequences assessed to pose biosecurity risks are transferred to a second party who does not have a legitimate purpose to receive them?
Does implementation of the current Guidance unduly burden providers of synthetic dsDNA? If so, how could it be modified without compromising effectiveness?
Have customers experienced delays in receiving orders of synthetic dsDNA due to screening?
Have there been any undue burdens, financial, logistical, or otherwise since implementing the Guidance? If so, has it increased, especially as other costs associated with dsDNA synthesis have decreased?
What challenges, if any, do the recommendation to retain records of customer orders, “hits,” and/or follow-up screening for at least eight years present for your organization?
How might potential changes to the Guidance to expand the scope or methodologies affect the burden for providers of dsDNA and customers (including delays to scientific progress caused by extended review)?
Is your organization concerned about legal liability challenges between customers and providers?
Do other oligonucleotide types and other synthetic biological technologies, currently not covered by the Guidance, pose similar biosecurity risks as synthetic dsDNA (
Are there other appropriate security measures that should be established to address the potential threats arising from the use of nucleic acid synthesis, given new and emerging technologies in the life sciences?
Are there new biosecurity risks posed by the introduction of new generations of benchtop DNA synthesizers capable of synthesizing and assembling dsDNA, RNA, single-stranded DNA, or oligonucleotides in-house that should be addressed by the Guidance?
As synthetic biology becomes an increasingly digital enterprise with large databases, digital tools, robotics, and artificial intelligence, what new risks are presented to providers and consumers of synthetic oligonucleotides?
If new risks are evident, how should these risks be addressed, keeping in mind the potential impacts on providers, customers, and scientific progress?
Are there other mechanisms that the U.S. Government should consider for screening sequences, customers, or end-uses that may help mitigate the biosecurity risks associated with synthetic nucleotides and their applications, while minimizing undue impacts on providers, customers, and scientific progress?
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.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
A portion of 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NIMHD:
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to scheduling difficulties.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be open to the public via NIH videocast. The URL link to this meeting is
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee no later than 15 days after the meeting by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the HEAL Multi-Disciplinary Working Group (MDWG) Meeting, August 31, 2020, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, Virtual Meeting, which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from a one-day to a two-day meeting. The August 2020 HEAL MDWG Meeting will now be held on August 31, 2020 to September 1, 2020, with the open and closed portions of the meeting as indicated below. The meeting is partially closed to the public.
The open portion of the meeting will be live webcast at:
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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 or new 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0027 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0041. 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 (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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0037 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0030. 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 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0017 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0009. 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 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0007 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0018. 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 extension of a currently approved collection of information or new 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0032 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0047. 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)
USCIS uses the information provided through Form I-690 to adjudicate waiver requests from individuals who are inadmissible to the United States. Based upon the instructions provided, a respondent can gather and submit the required documentation to USCIS for consideration of an inadmissibility waiver.
(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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0030 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0012. 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 (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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0106 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0010. 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 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0016. 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)
USCIS also collects biometric information from respondents to verify their identity and check or update their background information.
(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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0151 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2019-0001. 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
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 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 26, 2020.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0125 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2011-0008. 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)
Respondents are required to have their photograph and fingerprints taken at the USCIS District/Field Office to be inputted into the Customer Profile Management System-IDENTity Verification Tool (CPMS-IVT). The only U.S. citizen respondents subject to enrollment in CPMS-IVT are petitioners filing orphan or adoption petitions (Forms I-600/600A) and U.S. citizen petitioners of family-based petitions required to appear at an ASC for biometric capture for purposes of complying with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 1996, Public Law 109-248.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; reopening of public comment period.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the public comment period for the draft environmental assessment (DEA) and proposed Otay Ranch amendment to the County of San Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (Amendment).
The comment period for the DEA and Amendment, which published on July 23, 2020 (85 FR 44544), is reopened. Please submit your written comments by 11:59 p.m. PST on September 4, 2020.
We request that you submit comments by only the methods described above.
Susan Wynn, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760-431-9440. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 800-877-8339.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an incidental take permit (ITP) application for an Amendment to the Multiple Species Conservation Program, County of San Diego Subarea Plan for Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19, on May 21, 2020, from the County of San Diego in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We are reopening the public comment period on the DEA and Amendment documents (see
We issue this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 25, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On February 11, 2020, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Regulations at 50 CFR 21 establish depredation orders and impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All persons or entities acting under depredation orders must provide an annual report. The capture and disposition of all non-target migratory birds, including Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate species must be reported on the Annual Report. In addition to the name, address, phone number, and email address of each person or entity operating under the Order, we collect the following information for each target and non-target species taken:
• Species taken,
• Number of birds taken,
• Months and years in which the birds were taken,
• State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken,
• General purpose for which the birds were taken (such as for protection of agriculture, human health and safety, property, or natural resources), and
• Disposition of non-target species (released, sent to rehabilitation facilities, etc.).
We use the information to:
• Identify the person or entity acting under depredation orders;
• Assess the impact to non-target migratory birds or other species;
• Ensure that agencies and individuals operate in accordance with the terms, conditions, and purpose of the orders;
• Inform us as to whether there are areas in which control activities are concentrated and might be conducted more efficiently; and
• Help gauge the effectiveness of the following orders in mitigating order-specific related damages:
§ 21.43—Depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, grackles, and magpies;
§ 21.44—Depredation order for horned larks, house finches, and white-crowned sparrows in California;
§ 21.46—Depredation order for depredating California scrub jays and Steller's jays in Washington and Oregon;
§ 21.49—Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and military airfields;
§ 21.50—Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs;
§ 21.51—Depredation order for resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities;
§ 21.52—Public health control order for resident Canada geese;
§ 21.53—Control order for purple swamphens;
§ 21.54—Control Order for Muscovy ducks in the United States;
§ 21.55—Control order for invasive migratory birds in Hawaii;
§ 21.60—Conservation Order for light geese; and
§ 21.61—Population control of resident Canada geese.
Persons and entities operating under these orders must keep accurate records to complete Forms 3-436. The records of any taking must be legibly written or reproducible in English and maintained for 5 years after the persons or entities have ceased the activity authorized by this Order. Persons or entities who reside or are located in the United States and persons or entities conducting commercial activities in the United States who reside or are located outside the United States must maintain records at a location in the United States where the records are available for inspection.
If attempts to trap any species under a depredation order injure a bird of a non-target species that is federally listed as endangered or threatened, or that is a candidate for listing, the bird must be delivered to a rehabilitator and must be reported by phone or email to the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office or Special Agent. Capture and disposition of all non-target migratory birds must also be reported on the annual report.
To more accurately reflect the purpose of this collection, the Service is proposing to change the title of this information collection from “Depredation Orders Under 50 CFR 21.43 and 21.46” to “Depredation and Control Orders Under 50 CFR 21.”
In addition, we are proposing to merge information collection requirements associated with the management of geese contained in 50 CFR subparts D and E into OMB Control Number 1018-0146. OMB previously approved these information collection requirements under two OMB control numbers:
• 1018-0103, “
• 1018-0133, “
We are not proposing any changes to the currently approved requirements for either collection and are merely transferring the requirements into 1018-0146. Upon receiving OMB approval of this submission under 1018-0146, we will discontinue both 1018-0103 and 1018-0133 to avoid a duplication of burden.
Previously, all persons or entities acting under depredation orders provided information on the annual report via FWS Form 3-202-21-2143, “Annual Report—Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Grackles, Magpies, and Crows” or FWS Form 3-2500, “Depredation Order for Depredating Jays in Washington and Oregon.” In February 2019, the Service received OMB approval to pretest FWS Form 3-2436 under the Department of the Interior “Fast Track” generic clearance process (OMB Control Number 1090-0011). With this submission, in an effort to streamline submissions and reduce public burden, the Service is proposing to discontinue FWS Forms 3-202-21-2143 and 3-2500, and use FWS Form 3-2436, “Depredation and Control Orders—Annual Reporting” as the sole annual reporting form.
As part of this revision, we will also request OMB approval to automate FWS Form 3-2436 in the Service's new “ePermits” initiative, an automated system that will allow the agency to move towards a streamlined permitting and reporting process to improve customer experience and to reduce public burden. Public burden reduction is a priority for the Service; the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; and senior leadership at the Department of the Interior. This new system will enhance the user experience by allowing users to enter data from any device that has internet access, including personal computers (PCs), tablets, and smartphones.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• Monitor the quality of services provided by commercial guides.
• Gauge client satisfaction with the services.
• Assess the impacts of the activity on refuge resources.
The client is the best source of information on the quality of commercial guiding services. We collect:
• Client name.
• Guide name(s).
• Type of guided activity.
• Dates and location of guided activity.
• Information on the services received, such as the client's expectations, safety, environmental impacts, and client's overall satisfaction.
We encourage respondents to provide any additional comments that they wish regarding the guide service or refuge experience, and ask whether or not they wish to be contacted for additional information.
The above information, in combination with State-required guide activity reports and contacts with guides and clients in the field, provides a comprehensive method for monitoring permitted commercial guide activities. A regular program of client evaluation helps refuge managers detect potential problems with guide services so that we can take corrective actions promptly. In addition, we use this information during the competitive selection process for big game and sport fishing guide permits to evaluate an applicant's ability to provide a quality guiding service.
The Service plans to review the current evaluation form to identify ways to improve the information collected to:
• Provide more quantifiable and defensible data;
• Provide statistical data for each completed and submitted form;
• Provide more quantifiable rather than qualitative information;
• Translate the client responses into useful information in order for refuge management to make informed decisions.
The Service plans to submit the updated evaluation form to OMB for approval to pre-test under the Department of the Interior Programmatic Clearance (OMB Control No. 1040-0001). After conclusion of the pre-testing during the calendar year 2020 Alaska guide season, the final evaluation form will be submitted to OMB for approval under this collection for full deployment prior to the calendar year 2021 Alaska guide season.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of the Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Department of the Interior are proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 25, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Amira Boland, Office of Government-wide Policy, 1800 F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405, or via email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving customer service delivery as discussed in Section 280 of OMB Circular A-11 at
As discussed in OMB guidance, agencies should identify their highest-impact customer journeys (using customer volume, annual program cost, and/or knowledge of customer priority as weighting factors) and select touchpoints/transactions within those journeys to collect feedback.
These results will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on
As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
The Department of the Interior will only submit collections if they meet the following criteria.
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes;
• Upon agreement between OMB and the agency, all or a subset of information may be released as part of A-11, Section 280 requirements on
• Additional release of data must be done in coordination with OMB.
These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency, its customers and stakeholders, and OMB as it monitors agency compliance on Section 280. These responses will inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on services will be unavailable.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Signed:
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of contract actions.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007;
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, and the rules and regulations published in 52 FR 11954, April 13, 1987 (43 CFR 426.22), Reclamation will publish notice of proposed or amendatory contract actions for any contract for the delivery of project water for authorized uses in newspapers of general circulation in the affected area at least 60 days prior to contract execution. Announcements may be in the form of news releases, legal notices, official letters, memorandums, or other forms of written material. Meetings, workshops, and/or hearings may also be used, as appropriate, to provide local publicity. The public participation procedures do not apply to proposed contracts for the sale of surplus or interim irrigation water for a term of 1 year or less. Either
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
The Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region has no updates to report for this quarter.
53. Shasta County Water Agency, CVP, California: Proposed partial assignment of 50 acre-feet of the Shasta County Water Agency's CVP water supply to the City of Shasta Lake for M&I use.
54. Friant Water Authority, CVP, California: Negotiation and execution of a repayment contract for Friant Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project.
11. Mendota Wildlife Area, CVP, California: Reimbursement agreement between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for conveyance service costs to deliver Level 2 water to the Mendota Wildlife Area during infrequent periods when the Mendota Pool is down due to unexpected but needed maintenance. This action is taken pursuant to Public Law 102-575, Title 34, Section 3406(d)(1), to meet full Level 2 water needs of the Mendota Wildlife Area.
17. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in California, Nevada, and Oregon: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to ARRA. Added costs to rates to be collected under irrigation and interim M&I ratesetting policies.
46. San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, CVP, California: Contract for repayment for XM and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11. Contract executed June 29, 2020.
47. City of West Sacramento, CVP, California: Negotiation and execution of a 40-year long-term water service contract. Contact executed May 29, 2020.
19. City of Yuma, BCP, Arizona: Extend the term of the contract with the City for delivery of its Colorado River water entitlement to October 1, 2027, through Amendment No. 6.
4. City of Yuma, BCP, Arizona: Enter into a long-term consolidated contract with the City for delivery of its Colorado River water entitlement.
10. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease for San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 13,068 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2020. Lease executed March 24, 2020.
12. San Carlos Apache Tribe and Stone Applications, LLC, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease for San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 10,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to Stone Applications, LLC during calendar year 2020. Lease executed March 25, 2020.
26. Ft. Sumner ID, Carlsbad Project, New Mexico: Reclamation is seeking a contract to lease water from the District for the forbearance of exercising their priority water rights on the Pecos River.
27. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District, Carlsbad Project, New Mexico: Reclamation is seeking a contract to lease water from the District for the forbearance of surface water diversions from the Pecos River and the Hagerman Canal. This contract has a term of 10 years and up to 1,158 acre-feet of forborne water per year to benefit endangered species and the Carlsbad Project. Contract executed March 3, 2020.
28. The Jicarilla Nation, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: Reclamation is seeking a multi-year contract to lease water with the Nation to stabilize flows in a critical reach of the Rio Grande in order to meet the needs of irrigators and the endangered silvery minnow. This contract has a 5-year term for up to 5,900 acre-feet of Project water per year. Contract executed March 20, 2020.
31. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, New Mexico: Reclamation is entering negotiations with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority to provide excess capacity for non-project water, pursuant to Public Law 111-11, Section 10602(h).
40. Griemsman L/S, LLC; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Consideration for renewal of water service contract No. 009E6A0012.
41. Glen Elder ID; Glen Elder Unit, P-SMBP; Kansas: Consideration of a repayment contract for XM funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11.
43. H&RW ID; Frenchman-Cambridge Division, P-SMBP; Nebraska: Consideration for renewal of water service contract No. 5-07-70-W0738.
42. Milk River Joint Board of Control, Milk River Project, Montana: Consideration of a repayment contract for EXM funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11.
34. Dickey-Sargent ID; Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration for a repayment contract for assigned power investment costs.
31. Fort Clark ID; Fort Clark Project, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration for new 5-year water service contract to replace expiring contract No. 159E620073. Contract executed May 15, 2020.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C. Street NW, Room 4556-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4556-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4556-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of institution of investigation and scheduling of a public hearing.
Following receipt on August 13, 2020, of a joint request from the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance (the Committees), under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted Investigation No. 332-580,
All Commission offices are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be submitted electronically and addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Co-Project Leader Samantha DeCarlo (202-205-3165 or
• A brief overview of key U.S. industry sectors producing COVID-related goods, including, but not limited to, medical devices; personal protective equipment; and medicines (pharmaceuticals). These overviews should include, to the extent practicable, information on U.S. production, employment, and trade.
• More detailed case studies on key products within each relevant industry sector, such as N95 respirators, ventilators, vaccines, and COVID-19 test kits. The Committees stated that they are particularly interested in case studies on products for which there were reported shortages in the first half of 2020, including those affected by supply chain fragility, blockages, or barriers. The Committees stated that the case studies should draw upon all available information including the relevant literature, and to the extent practicable, should include information on:
○ The U.S. industry, market, and trade, including, to the extent available:
An overview of the product, including key components and the production process;
Information on the size and characteristics of the U.S. market;
An overview of the U.S. manufacturing industry, including key producers of finished goods and intermediate inputs, the extent of U.S. production, and employment;
Information on U.S. imports of finished goods and inputs, including leading source countries and supplying firms (to the extent available); and
○ Information on supply chain challenges and constraints, including, but not limited to:
Information on factors affecting domestic production, including, to the extent practicable, regulatory requirements that may impact entry into the market; and
Information on foreign trade barriers and restrictions and other factors that may affect U.S. imports of finished goods or inputs needed for domestic production.
The Committees asked that the Commission deliver the report no later than December 15, 2020. The Committees stated that they intend to make the Commission's report available to the public and asked that the report not include any confidential business information.
Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary no later than 5:15 p.m., September 11, 2020, in accordance with the requirements in the “Written Submissions” section below. All prehearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., September 14, 2020, and all post-hearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., September 30, 2020. Post-hearing briefs and statements should address matters raised at the hearing. To facilitate the hearing, including the preparation of an accurate written transcript of the hearing, oral testimony to be presented at the hearing must be submitted to the Commission electronically no later than the close of business September 21, 2020. In the event that, as of the close of business on September 11, 2020, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled.
As requested by the Committees, the Commission will not include any confidential business information in the report that it sends to the Committees. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel (a) for cybersecurity purposes or (b) in monitoring user activity on U.S. government classified networks. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a way that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Schedule for 2021 report and opportunity to submit information.
The Commission has prepared and published annual reports in this series under Investigation No. 332-345,
September 28, 2020: Deadline for filing written submissions.
April 7, 2021: Anticipated date for online publication of the report.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E St. SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E St. SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket information system (EDIS) at
Information specific to this investigation may be obtained from Junie Joseph, Project Leader, Office of Industries, Services Division (202-205-3363,
The initial notice of institution of this investigation was published in the
The Commission intends to prepare only a public report in this investigation. The report that the Commission makes available to the public will not contain confidential business information. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel solely for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that: (i) The respondents have violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by importing, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after importation certain unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”) that infringe complainant's U.S. Patent No. 9,260,184 (“the '184 patent”); (2) the respondents' redesigned rotor locking assemblies were not ripe for adjudication in this investigation; (3) the appropriate remedies are a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders; and (4) enforcement of said remedial orders will be suspended pending final resolution of a Final Written Decision by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) that the asserted claims of the '184 patent are unpatentable. This investigation is terminated.
Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket system (“EDIS”) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 2, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Autel Robotics USA, Inc. (“Autel”) of Bothell, Washington. 83 FR 49575-76 (Oct. 2, 2018). The complaint accuses respondents of violating 19 U.S.C. 1337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”) by importing into the United States, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after importation certain unmanned aerial vehicles and components thereof that infringe the asserted claims of the '184 patent as well as of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,979,174 (“the '174 patent”) and 10,044,013 (“the '013 patent”).
The notice of investigation named the following respondents: SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; DJI Europe B.V. of Barendrecht, Netherlands; DJI Technology Inc. of Burbank, California; iFlight Technology Co., Ltd. (“iFlight”) of Hong Kong; DJI Baiwang Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; DJI Research LLC of Palo Alto, California; DJI Service LLC (“DJI Service”) of Cerritos, California; and DJI Creative Studio LLC of Burbank, California (collectively, “DJI”).
On September 13, 2019, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued Order No. 21, granting in part Autel's motion to strike evidence and expert opinions relating to DJI's “new designs” for rotor and battery locking mechanisms that DJI allegedly disclosed after the close of discovery. Order No. 21 at 2-4 (Sept. 13, 2019).
On October 17, 2019, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 22, which partially terminated the investigation with respect to certain patent claims withdrawn by Autel. Order No. 22 (Sept. 30, 2019),
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on October 21-23, 2019. At the start of that hearing, the ALJ announced that DJI's new designs are not part of this investigation.
On March 2, 2020, the ALJ issued a combined Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) on Remedy and Bonding, finding a violation of Section 337 by way of infringement of the '184 patent but no violation with respect to the '174 or '013 patents. On March 9, 2020, the ALJ issued an errata, which corrects a misstatement in the original ID regarding the '174 patent but does not change the ID's findings on infringement or violation.
On March 16, 2020, the parties filed petitions for review of certain findings in the final ID, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a) (19 CFR 210.43(a)). The parties filed their respective responses on March 24, 2020, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(c) (19 CFR 210.43(c)).
On May 15, 2020, the Commission issued a notice soliciting public comments on the public interest factors, if any, that may be implicated if a remedy were to be issued in this investigation. 85 FR 30735 (May 20, 2020). The Commission did not receive any comments in response to its notice.
On May 29, 2020, while the petitions for review were still pending before the Commission, respondents' counsel filed a letter with the Commission attaching four recent Final Written Decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in which the PTAB found the challenged claims of the '184, '174, and '013 patents, including the claims asserted in this investigation, to be unpatentable.
On June 8, 2020, the Commission issued a notice stating that it determined to partially review the ID with respect to infringement of the '184 patent, whether DJI's new rotor locking assemblies should be adjudicated as part of this investigation, and the impact on this investigation, if any, of the PTAB's Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims of the '184 patent
The parties filed their initial responses to the Commission's review questions on June 24, 2020, and their respective reply briefs on July 1, 2020.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the ID, and the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined that DJI has violated Section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after importation certain unmanned aerial vehicles and components thereof that infringe claims 1 and 2 of the '184 patent. In particular, the parties did not petition for review of the ID's findings that DJI's Mavic Pro, Mavic Air, and Spark UAVs infringe claim 1 of the '184 patent. The Commission has determined that those UAVs also infringe claim 2 and that DJI's Phantom 4 Pro UAV infringes both claims 1 and 2. The Commission further determines that DJI's Inspire UAV does not infringe either claim 1 or 2 of the '184 patent. The Commission also affirms the ALJ's decision not to adjudicate DJI's new rotor locking designs in the present investigation.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is: (a) A limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain unmanned aerial vehicles and components thereof that are covered by claims 1 or 2 of the '184 patent; and (b) cease and desist orders against respondents iFlight and DJI Service. The Commission has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in Section 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist orders. The Commission has also determined to set a bond in the amount of 11.5 percent of the entered value of the excluded products imported during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission has also determined to suspend enforcement of the limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and bond provision pending final resolution of the PTAB's Final Written Decision regarding the '184 patent.
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The Commission voted to approve these determinations on August 20, 2020. This investigation is hereby terminated.
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.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Department of Labor Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by October 26, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Crystal Rennie by telephone at (202) 693-0456, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Crystal Rennie by telephone at (202) 693-0456, TTY 202-693-8064, (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes, in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the DOL and its customers and stakeholders. The collections will also allow feedback to contribute directly to
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative result.
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 under the PRA 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 Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
We are announcing an upcoming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the second United States Open Government National Action Plan.
The meeting will be on September 10, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. You must register by midnight EDT September 8, 2020, to attend the meeting.
This meeting will be held virtually. We will send instructions on how to access it to those who register according to the instructions below.
Kirsten Mitchell, Designated Federal Officer for this committee, by email at
This will be the first meeting of the new committee term. The purpose of this meeting will be to introduce all of the members, hear a report from the co-chairs of the Chief FOIA Officers' Council Technology Committee, and discuss topics for the Committee to consider in the next two years.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
This meeting will be held virtually. The final meeting agenda and instructions to register will be posted on the ACCI website:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is re-issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG) DG-1351 (proposed new Regulatory Guide 1.239), originally titled, “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications that are Insufficient to Ensure Plant Safety.” This DG has been revised to include changes as a result of the public comments received in the original publication of DG-1351 in 2018 and the issuance of Revision 3 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 15-03, “Licensee Actions to Address Nonconservative Technical Specifications,” in 2020. This revision of DG-1351 (Revision 1) removes the exceptions and clarifications that were in the 2018 version of DG-1351 and endorses NEI 15-03, Revision 3. The title of this DG-1351 has also changed to “Licensee Actions to Address Nonconservative Technical Specifications.”
Submit comments by September 25, 2020. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shawn Williams, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1009, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0137 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0137 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, titled, “Licensee Actions to Address Nonconservative Technical Specifications,” is a proposed new Regulatory Guide 1.239 and is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1351, Revision 1. This DG provides methods and procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for licensee actions to address nonconservative technical specifications.
The DG-1351 was issued originally for public comment on July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31429), and it endorsed NEI 15-03, Revision 2, with exceptions and clarifications. On October 17, 2019, the NRC staff held a public meeting to discuss the staff's disposition of public comments on DG-1351. Subsequently, by letter dated April 9, 2020, the NEI submitted Revision 3 of NEI 15-03 to address the exceptions and clarifications in DG-1351. The NRC review of the April 9 submittal determined that NEI 15-03, as revised, is acceptable and addresses the exceptions and clarifications in DG-1351. As a result, the NRC revised DG-1351 to remove the exceptions and clarifications. Members of the public that submitted comments on the July 5, 2018, version of DG-1351 and believe such comments are not adequately addressed in the updated DG-1351, Revision 1, are encouraged to resubmit their comments or provide additional comments.
If the NRC finalizes DG-1351, Revision 1, and issues RG 1.239, then the NRC would also withdraw Administrative Letter (AL) 98-10, “Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.”
DG-1351, Revision 1, if finalized, would provide guidance on licensee actions to address nonconservative technical specifications. Issuance of DG-1351, Revision 1, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in title 10 of the
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS under the respective ADAMS Accession numbers identified in the table.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
August 21, 2020, at 12:06 p.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Administrative Issues.
2. Strategic Issues.
On August 21, 2020, a majority of the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Michael J. Elston, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
August 20, 2020, at 11:10 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
1. Administrative Issues.
2. Strategic Issues.
On August 20, 2020, a majority of the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Michael J. Elston, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update obsolete references to NASD rules in the Nasdaq rulebook (“Rulebook”) and make other related changes.
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.
In 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) began a process to harmonize and streamline its rules by retiring, consolidating, and relocating NASD rules into the FINRA rulebook.
Generally, where appropriate, the Exchange will replace the term “Association” and the “NASD” acronym with the acronym “FINRA.” Specifically, Nasdaq will provide cites to the updated FINRA rules and current internal references as provided in the relocated FINRA rules. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to update internal cross-references as necessary.
As previously indicated, Nasdaq proposes to replace the terms “Association” and/or “NASD” with the term “FINRA,” without making other accompanying changes to the rules (this will also include a few, necessary grammatical changes, such as removing where appropriate the word “the”). Accordingly, the Exchange will update Rules 2830; 3360; 11210; IM-11710; 11860; 11870; General 1; General 2, Section 5; General 2, Section 7; General 9, Section 21; General 9, Section 33; and Equity 7, Section 111. The Exchange notes that it will not update references to NASD notices in its Rulebook. Specifically, the notices referenced in General 9, Section 20(e) (“NASD Notice to Members 97-19”) and Rule 4630(d) (“NASD Notice to Members 91-45”) will remain unchanged.
The Exchange proposes the following changes to capture the amendments and relocation of rules in the FINRA rulebook. Additionally, the cross-references updates are intended to keep the Nasdaq rules aligned with their corresponding FINRA rules:
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2830 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2341 (“Investment Company Securities”). FINRA Rule 2341 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
Moreover, to be consistent with cross-reference updates in current FINRA Rule 2341, the Exchange will update the cross-reference to NASD Rule 2820 with FINRA Rule 2320. Additionally, the Exchange will update Rule 2830(b)(3) by replacing the NASD Rule 2420 reference with FINRA Rule 2040 and update the Nasdaq rule text to track the text of FINRA Rule 2040(a). Finally, the Exchange will replace the NASD Rule 2230 reference with FINRA Rule 2232.
In 2008, FINRA Rule 4560 was adopted to include the short interest reporting requirements of the substantially similar NASD Rule 3360 and Incorporated NYSE Rules 421(1) and 421.10 with non-substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update Nasdaq Rule 3360(a) by replacing the NASD Rule 3360 reference with FINRA Rule 4560 (“Short-Interest Reporting”). The Exchange will not update Rule 3360 to include the reference to “Restricted Equity Securities” found in FINRA Rule 4560 since, following the termination of the PORTAL Market,
The Exchange also proposes to amend current Rule 3360(b) and (c) and adopt the text of current FINRA Rule 4560(b) and (c).
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2710(b)(11) reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 5190 (“Notification Requirements for Offering Participants”). In 2008, NASD Rules 2710(b)(10) and (11) were relocated into FINRA Rule 5190 to consolidate and streamline all Regulation M-related notice requirements.
The Exchange also proposes to replace in Rule 4200(a)(2) and (b) the cross-reference to Nasdaq Rule 4623 (“Alternative Trading Systems”) with Nasdaq Rule 4624. Consistent with FINRA Rule 5190(e), a Nasdaq member's notification obligation, as described in Nasdaq Rule 4200 is detailed under Nasdaq Rule 4624 (“Penalty Bids and Syndicate Covering Transactions”).
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 6120 reference in Nasdaq Rule 6110(g) and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 7220A (“Trade Reporting Participation Requirements”). In 2008, the NASD Rule 6100 Series was relocated and amended to form the FINRA Rule 7200A Series, applicable to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility, and the Rule 7300 Series, applicable to FINRA's Over the Counter Reporting Facility.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3510 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 4370 (“Business Continuity Plans and Emergency Contact Information”). FINRA Rule 4370 was adopted to include NASD Rules 3510 (“Business Continuity Plans”) and NASD Rule 3520 (“Emergency Contact Information”) without substantive changes to the rule text.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to include a new paragraph (b) that will indicate that references in FINRA Rule 4370 to Rule 4517 shall be construed as references to Nasdaq General 2, Section 16.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD IM-2110-3 reference in the Nasdaq rule and replace it with a reference to current FINRA Rule 5270. The NASD interpretive material was relocated to FINRA Rule 5270 to broaden its scope and provide clarity into an activity that is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange proposes to delete the duplicative text at the beginning of the section that currently reads “Exchange members and persons”. Next, the Exchange proposes to update the NASD IM-2110-6 reference in the Nasdaq rule and replace it with a reference to current FINRA Rule 2232. In 2009, the requirements of the NASD interpretive material were transferred to their current location in the FINRA rulebook.
In 2012, FINRA adopted Rule 2210 (“Communications with the Public”) to encompass, among other provisions, NASD Rules 2210 and 2211, and NASD Interpretive Materials 2210-1 and 2210-4.
Current Nasdaq General 9, Section 3(a) incorporates by reference FINRA Rule 2210 (“Communications with the Public”). Moreover, Section 3(a) provides that references to FINRA Rule 2211 shall be understood as references to Nasdaq Rule 2211. The Exchange proposes to delete from Section 3(a) the reference concerning Rule 2211.
The retired NASD Rule 2210 incorporated the definitions of “Correspondence” and “Institutional Sales Material” from NASD Rule 2211. When FINRA adopted Rule 2210, both definitions were merged into the current rule and the references to Rule 2211 were removed. It follows, that the Exchange removes the reference Rule 2211 as such is no longer necessary.
The Exchange also proposes to delete Section 3(b) and re-letter current Section 3(c) as (b). Current Section 3(b) incorporates by reference NASD IM-2210-1 which, as explained, was merged into FINRA Rule 2210. Updating current Section 3(b) to incorporate FINRA Rule 2210 will make the section redundant. Therefore, Section 3(b) will be deleted as it is no longer necessary.
The Exchange proposes to delete General 9, Section 4(a) because Section 3(a) already incorporates by reference FINRA Rule 2210. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the exception in current Section 4(a) concerning NASD Rule 2211(d)(3) does not need to be added to Nasdaq General 9, Section 3(a), because that provision is no longer referenced in FINRA Rule 2210.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt current Section 4(b)(1) as Section 3(c), with a minor change. New Section 3(c) will provide that references to FINRA “membership” will be construed as references to membership with the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt part of the text in current Section 4(b)(2) as Section 3(d). New Section 3(d) will omit references to FINRA Rule 2210 (as such incorporation is already provided in Section 3(a)) and will state that references to FINRA Rules 4512
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2290 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 5150 (“Fairness Opinions”). The aforementioned NASD rule was relocated to FINRA Rule 5150 with no changes to the rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2440 and IM-2440 references in this rule and replace them
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2340 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2231 (“Customer Account Statements”). FINRA Rule 2231 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
Moreover, the Exchange will update the references to NASD Rules 2810 and 3110 as shown in Section 12(b). Specifically, the Exchange will replace the reference to NASD Rule 2810 with FINRA Rule 2310 (“Direct Participation Programs”)
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 12(c) by replacing the reference to General 5, Section 2 with a reference to the Nasdaq Rule 9600 Series. The Exchange needs to make this correction because there is no Section 2 under the General 5 title.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2341 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2264 (“Margin Disclosure Statement”). FINRA Rule 2264 was adopted with only minor changes to the text of NASD Rule 2341, and those changes were intended to clarify the submission of disclosure statements.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 13(b) by updating the reference to NASD Rule 3110 with FINRA Rule 4512
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2430 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2122 (“Charges for Services Performed”). FINRA Rule 2122 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2441 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2124 (“Net Transactions with Customers”). FINRA Rule 2124 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2510 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3260 (“Discretionary Accounts”). FINRA Rule 3260 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
Moreover, the Exchange will update the cross-references to NASD rules with their respective equivalent FINRA rules. Specifically, the Exchange will replace the NASD Rule 3010 reference with FINRA Rule 3110. Additionally, the Exchange will replace the NASD Rule 3110 reference with FINRA Rule 4512.
The Exchange proposes to consolidate Sections 21 and 22 into one rule, Section 21 (“Supervisory Control System, Annual Certification of Compliance and Supervisory Processes”), as explained below. First, the Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3012 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3120 (“Supervisory Control System”). FINRA Rule 3120 retained the former NASD rule's testing and verification requirements for the member's supervisory procedures and provided requirements for members reporting $200 million or more in gross revenue.
Second, the Exchange will update the NASD Rule 3013 reference in Section 21(c) (“Annual Certification of Compliance and Supervisory Processes”) and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3130 (“Annual Certification of Compliance and Supervisory Processes”). FINRA Rule 3130 was adopted to streamline and combine the requirements of NASD Rule 3013 and IM-3013.
Third, the Exchange will re-letter the next paragraph, currently lettered as “(b)” (“For purposes of this Rule . . .”), as “(d)”. In re-lettered Section (d)(2), as previously explained, the Exchange will update the reference to NASD Rule 3013 with FINRA Rule 3130, which shall be read as a reference to Exchange's corresponding rule under General 9, Section 21. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to update the cross-reference to NASD Rule 2110 with FINRA Rule 2010. In 2008, NASD Rule 2110 was renumbered as FINRA Rule 2010 with no changes to the rule text.
Finally, the Exchange will delete and reserve Current General 9, Section 22, since its sub-sections are duplicative of sub-sections in Section 21.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3030 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3270 (“Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons”). FINRA Rule 3270 was adopted to harmonize and simplify the events that constitute an outside business activity, expanding upon the obligations imposed in NASD Rule 3030, by prohibiting any registered person from doing business with another person as a result of any business activity outside the scope of the relationship with his or her member firm, unless prior written notice was provided to the member.
Moreover, the Exchange will update the cross-reference to NASD Rule 3040 with FINRA Rule 3280.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3040 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3280 (“Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”). FINRA Rule 3280 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
The Exchange will also update the cross-reference to NASD Rule 3050 with FINRA Rule 3210.
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to correct a typo in the quoted text of Nasdaq General 9, Section 24(b)(2). Specifically, the Exchange will substitute the word “immediately” with “immediate.”
Finally, the Exchange will replace a reference to NASD Rule 2790 with FINRA Rule 5130.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3050 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 3210 (“Accounts At Other Broker-Dealers and Financial Institutions”). FINRA Rule 3210 was adopted to consolidate NASD Rule 3050, Incorporated NYSE Rules 407 and 407A, and Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretations 407/01 and 407/02. The rule was designed to streamline the provisions of the NASD and incorporated NYSE rules and to help facilitate effective oversight of the specified trading activities of associated persons of member firms.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3120 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2060 (“Use of Information Obtained in Fiduciary Capacity”). FINRA Rule 2060 was adopted without any changes to the NASD rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3150 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 4540 (“Reporting Requirements for Clearing Firms”). FINRA Rule 4540 was adopted without any substantive changes to the NASD rule text.
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 33(c)(1) by replacing the reference to General 5, Section 2 with a reference to the Nasdaq Rule 9600 Series. The Exchange needs to make this correction because there is no Section 2 under the General 5 title.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to update the reference to Nasdaq Rule 3150, which was relocated to the Nasdaq shell as Nasdaq General 9, Section 33.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 3160 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 4230 (“Required Submissions for Requests for Extensions of Time Under Regulation T and SEA Rule 15c3-3”). FINRA Rule 4230 was adopted largely based on the text of NASD Rule 3160, with a clarification to the original rule text regarding the reporting obligations of clearing members.
The Exchange will also update the reference to Nasdaq Rule 3160, which was relocated to the Nasdaq shell as Nasdaq General 9, Section 34.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2520 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 4210 (“Margin Requirements”). In 2010, NASD Rules 2520, 2521, 2522, and IM-2522 were combined and consolidated into a single rule intended to improve the organization of margin rules and improve their readability.
The Exchange proposes also to amend Section 38(d) by replacing the reference to General 5, Section 2 with a reference to the Nasdaq Rule 9600 Series. The Exchange needs to make this correction because there is no Section 2 under the General 5 title.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2510 reference in this rule and replace it with FINRA Rule 3260 (“Discretionary Accounts”). FINRA Rule 3260 was adopted without any changes to the original NASD rule text.
The Exchange also proposes to delete from the rule the text that reads “(or any successor FINRA rule)” since the NASD rule is now relocated to FINRA Rule 3260. Finally, the Exchange will replace the General 9, Section 18 reference with Section 19 (“Discretionary Accounts”), because it corresponds to FINRA Rule 3260.
Moreover, the Exchange will update General 9, Section 45(b)(2) to provide that General 9, Section 29 is equivalent to FINRA Rule 2070. Finally, the Exchange proposes a minor correction in the rule by deleting the text that reads “and 28” that was inadvertently
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2510 reference in this rule and replace it with FINRA Rule 3260 (“Discretionary Accounts”). FINRA Rule 3260 was adopted without any changes to the original NASD rule text.
The Exchange proposes to update the NASD Rule 2711 reference in this rule and replace it with a reference to FINRA Rule 2241 (“Research Analysts and Research Reports”). Specifically, the research report's definition referenced in General 9, Section 49(b)(3) was relocated to current FINRA Rule 2241(a)(11). That definition was amended to exclude communications concerning open-end registered investment companies not listed or traded on an exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to delete the paragraph at the end of the rule concerning the consolidation of FINRA rules, since FINRA has completed the relocation of its rules.
The Exchange proposes to update the cross-reference to the NASD 6600 Rule Series with a reference to FINRA 6400 Rules Series (“Quoting and Trading in OTC Equity Securities”).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The reference and cross-reference updates, re-lettering, deleting unnecessary or duplicative text, consolidating certain Nasdaq rules, and other minor technical changes will bring greater transparency to Nasdaq's Rule structure. The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit investors and the general public by increasing the transparency of its Rulebook.
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 believes that the proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on competition because the amendments to update the references and cross-references in its Rulebook are intended to bring greater clarity to the Exchange's rules. The reference and cross-reference updates, re-lettering, deleting unnecessary or duplicative text, consolidating certain Nasdaq rules, and other minor technical changes will bring greater transparency to Nasdaq's Rulebook.
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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear Europe to modify its Futures and Options Stress Testing Policy (the “F&O Stress Testing Policy” or “Policy”) to update its F&O market stress scenarios to ensure all relevant products are covered and to make certain other updates and clarifications to be consistent with other ICE Clear Europe policies. In furtherance of these changes, ICE Clear Europe also proposes to adopt a Futures and Options Stress Testing Methodology Document (“F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document”) which describes ICE Clear Europe's methodology for systematically applying the F&O Stress Testing Policy in situations where the required historical price data is not available. The revisions to the F&O Stress Testing Policy and the adoption of the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document do not involve any changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules or Procedures.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend its F&O Stress Testing Policy as follows: (i) With respect to historical stress-testing scenarios, to update the methodology to include additional product groups, benchmark contracts and default shock values, in order to ensure that every cleared instrument is covered in the historical scenarios; (ii) with respect to theoretical stress-testing scenarios, to improve scenario implementations to ensure appropriate coverage of all relevant instruments; (iii) to update provisions relating to policy reviews and breach management; and (iv) to make various drafting clarifications and improvements. ICE Clear Europe is also proposing to adopt an F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document which would provide further detail with respect to the methodology applied to the stress-testing scenarios, particularly the historical stress-testing scenarios.
By way of general drafting clarification and improvements, the amendments to the F&O Stress Testing Policy would remove the background description of the board risk appetite and the limit appetite as these are addressed in other ICE Clear Europe documentation. Certain terminology would be updated throughout the F&O Stress Testing Policy: Original Margin would be updated to Initial Margin. Reference to the F&O Risk Committee would be updated to the F&O Product Risk Committee. Product Groups would
The overall description of the method of testing the size of the Guaranty Fund would be simplified and clarified to state that stress tests are designed to cover the worst price moves over the last 30 years (historical scenarios) and extreme, but as yet unobserved price moves based on potential future events or market moves to a confidence level of 99.9% (theoretical scenarios). A clarification would be added that historical scenarios that are more than 30 years old can only be decommissioned following the standard governance provisions for removal of any scenario. The description of the utilization of the Guaranty Fund would be removed as unnecessary for purposes of this policy. In addition, a diagram illustrating the existing stress testing methodology would be deleted as unnecessary.
The calculation principles relating to stress testing would be amended as described below. Amendments would clarify that historical stress shocks would be calibrated using the official settlement prices history from ICE as well as external market sources. If such market data does not exist, then ICE Clear Europe would calculate shocks using the waterfall proxy methodology which is described in the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document. The amendments would delete the statement that option pricing model calculations would assume theta decay over the holding period (as unnecessarily specific for purposes of the Policy).
The amendments would further clarify that stress scenarios would use risk factor moves over stress periods of risk (“SPOR”) that take into account the time horizon for the relevant liquidation period (rather than a one or two day period under the current policy). The F&O Stress Testing Policy would note that where risk factor moves across periods shorter than the liquidation period time horizon are more extreme due to market reversion, it may be more conservative and appropriate to apply a shorter SPOR. With respect to historical data, the amendments would provide that where a risk factor does not have an internal or external data, ICE Clear Europe would rely on proxy mappings (which may vary depending on the scenario) to calibrate the stress shocks for instruments where historical data is not available or reliable. Such proxy mappings are proposed by the Clearing House's Credit Risk Department and require approval from the Clearing House's Model Oversight Committee. The proxy mappings would be addressed in further detail in the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document. The amendments would also supplement the table of risk factors to address certain limitations of expiry-specific scenarios.
With respect to Stress Groups (formerly referred to as Product Groups), the criteria for choosing such groups and their constituents would be expanded to include the fundamental relationships between products.
Pursuant to the proposed amendments, the definition of the two broad categories of historical scenarios would be clarified: (i) Historical Type A, which would replicate as accurately as possible the historical event; and (ii) Historical Type B which would reflect the intention of the historical stress events, but adjust the market movements either to make them plausible under current market conditions, better capture the stress period moves across different asset classes, or more appropriately reflect the existing risk factor exposures of the Clearing House. The description of historical stress scenarios would be amended to move certain additional scenarios regarding the energy segment and certain assumptions used to examine potential losses from significant changes in correlation relationships from the Policy to the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document. The amended Policy would also remove certain general discussions of the use of proxies for particular markets, such as single stock equity futures products; proxy methodology would instead be discussed in the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document.
With respect to theoretical scenarios, ICE Clear Europe proposes to clarify that scenario implementations include a variety of approaches to create extreme but plausible scenarios that are not contained within the set of historical scenarios and which may utilize expert judgement in their construction. Theoretical scenarios may also include narrative-driven macro or idiosyncratic scenarios driven by broad macroeconomic or specific technical events. Regulatory-driven scenarios from prior supervisory stress testing exercises can also be included. The revised policy would remove a further definition of some theoretical scenarios as “hypothetical” (such that all scenarios would be categorized as either historical or theoretical). The amendments would provide that theoretical scenarios can be targeted and only shock certain instruments relevant to the design of the scenario (rather than all contracts).
The provisions related to reverse stress testing would be revised to remove statements that reverse stress scenarios are generated on a daily basis and that the Clearing House runs daily reverse stress test reports. Under the revised Policy, reverse stress testing results would be presented to the F&O Product Risk Committee every other month, rather than monthly. ICE Clear Europe nonetheless believes the revised approach provides for sufficient reverse stress testing and internal review of the results of such testing, consistent with relevant regulatory requirements.
The amendments would add a new section stating that the uncollateralized stress-testing losses would be compared to the segment of the Guaranty Fund that is relevant to that particular stress scenario. A scenario can be defined against the whole F&O Guaranty Fund or a particular segment (
ICE Clear Europe is also proposing to amend the F&O Stress Testing Policy to reflect changes to the Clearing House's document governance and exception handling, specifically to provide that (i) the document owner is responsible for ensuring that documents remain up-to-date and are reviewed in accordance with the Clearing House's governance processes, (ii) the document owner (as maintained in other relevant ICE Clear Europe internal policies) will report material breaches or unapproved deviations from the F&O Stress Testing Policy to their Head of Department, the Chief Risk Officer and the Head of Compliance (or their delegates) who will determine if further escalation will be made, and (iii) exceptions to the F&O Stress Testing Policy would be approved in accordance with the Clearing House's governance process for the approval of changes to such document.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to adopt the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document in order to comprehensively describe ICE Clear Europe's methodology for applying the F&O Stress Testing Policy in situations where the required historical price data is not available, typically because the
The F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document would provide an overview of the stress testing approach, consistent with the F&O Stress Testing Policy, and include descriptions of the historical and theoretical stress scenarios. The methodology document would provide that ICE Clear Europe ensures product coverage for historical scenarios under the following approach:
(i) Where input returns for a futures product or implied volatility for an options product are not available in a scenario, by using the same stress shock as the proxy benchmark such scenario has been mapped to;
(ii) where the proxy benchmark does not have an input return in a scenario, by using the input return from that benchmark's proxy benchmark and such proxy process is repeated through the proxy waterfall until a benchmark with an input return is found;
(iii) if, at the end of the proxy waterfall, the benchmark has no input returns to use, by using a default value for the return which is derived from the long term expected value of historical returns of the benchmark product (this default value would then be used for all products that ultimately proxy to that benchmark in that scenario); and
(iv) where a default value is used in a historical scenario, running two variants of such scenario, one in which all the default prices are assumed to move up and the other all down, and in both, ICE Clear Europe would assume the default values of option volatility to move up given the lack of correlations between the stress groups. Default values would be recalibrated on at least an annual basis.
The F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document would describe in further detail the proxy waterfall methodology referenced in the F&O Stress Testing Policy. The methodology would describe the techniques used to create price and volatility shocks for historical scenarios in situations where there is no reliable data for that price or volatility shock in the relevant historical period. The waterfall would be based on a series of proxy relationships based on proximity to the relevant products. For any product that does not have historical data required to define its shock under the given base scenario, the relevant proxy would be used instead. Should that proxy not have data, the proxy's proxy would be used, in recursive fashion, until reaching the terminal benchmarks. If there is no data available for the terminal benchmarks, a default value shock would be used. The methodology document would set out calculation of the risk returns used to stress test particular instruments, based on the SPOR, the relevant maturity and a series of price data. The document also sets out the default value calculation and explains the application of the shock for all products under each scenario using the proxy waterfall.
The F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document would identify certain assumptions and limitations that ICE Clear Europe has identified with respect to the proxy waterfall mechanism and default values.
The F&O Stress Methodology Document would also describe the governance and oversight responsibilities relating to the Policy and stress scenarios of each of the Board, the Client Risk Committee and the Model Oversight Committee. All changes to the Policy and the overall framework and methodology are subject to the approval of the Board, as are significant changes to the design, scope or definition of scenarios and the decommissioning of scenarios. The methodology document also addresses procedures for periodic “business as usual” recalibration of parameters for existing scenarios, and further provides that scenario recalibration will be done quarterly rather than semi-annually, but that default shocks which are predicated on average value over the long history would be subject to less frequent calibration
Finally, the appendices to the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document would include: (i) A list of the sources of data that ICE Clear Europe inputs into the stress testing methodology; (ii) a list of the Stress Groups used in the Policy and the methodology document; (iii) a list of the terminal benchmark products applied at the end of the proxy waterfall; (iv) the detailed proxy waterfall algorithm; and (v) a worked example of the Clearing House's historical scenario coverage process.
ICE Clear Europe has evaluated the overall impact of the amended Policy and new framework documentation on its financial resources. ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would have a material impact on its total pre-funded resources or Guaranty Fund size. On average, ICE Clear Europe expects a non-material decrease in total pre-funded resources, largely due to the expanded product coverage covering certain risk reducing trades that may not have been covered previously. On average, ICE Clear Europe expects that a small number of F&O Clearing Members may experience an increase in their Guaranty Fund requirements; although most would see a non-material decrease in requirements, on average.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the F&O Stress Testing Policy and the adoption of the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The proposed changes to the F&O Stress Testing Policy and the adoption of the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document are designed to strengthen the ICE Clear Europe's stress testing methodology by updating the market stress scenarios to ensure that all of the relevant products are covered in each stress scenario. Specifically, the amendments would (i) update the stress shock calibration to include additional product groups for historical scenarios, (ii) improve scenario implementations for theoretical scenarios and (iii) systematically set out ICE Clear Europe's methodology for applying historical stress testing in situations where historical price data is not available. The clarification and other changes to the F&O Stress Testing Policy also enhance readability and ensure that the F&O Stress Testing Policy remains clear and up-to-date. ICE Clear Europe believes that the Policy as so amended and the adoption of the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document will help ICE Clear Europe ensure that it maintains adequate financial resources to support its F&O clearing operations, enhance the stability of the Clearing House and thereby promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody or control or for which ICE Clear Europe is responsible, and the public interest in the sound operation of clearing
In addition, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed revisions to the F&O Stress Testing Policy and the adoption of the F&O Stress Testing Methodology Document are consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments are being adopted to further strengthen ICE Clear Europe F&O stress testing methodology and would apply to all F&O Clearing Members. The proposed amendments are not expected to materially change F&O Guaranty Fund Contribution requirements for F&O Clearing Members (on average, it is expected that most Clearing Members would see a non-material decrease in requirements; while a few Clearing Members may see a non-material increase). Although the change could thus modestly increase the costs of clearing for certain Clearing Members, ICE Clear Europe believes any such additional cost is appropriately tailored to the risks relating to the products being cleared by those Clearing Members, as illustrated through the revised stress testing policy. ICE Clear Europe does not otherwise believe the amendments would affect the costs of clearing, the ability to market participants to access clearing, or the market for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (“BOX”) facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to amend Section III., Liquidity Fees and Credits. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the liquidity fees and credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions. Currently, a Public Customer SPY PIP or COPIP Order receives a $0.45 “removal” credit while the corresponding Primary Improvement Order and any Improvement Order are charged a $0.45 “add” fee. Further, under the current BOX Fee Schedule, when Non-Public Customer SPY PIP or COPIP orders do not trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order receives a $0.45 “removal” credit and any corresponding Improvement Order responses are charged a $0.45 “add” fee.
The Exchange now proposes to no longer assess liquidity fees and credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions as described above, and instead proposes to establish that SPY PIP and COPIP Order submitted to the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary Improvement Order shall receive a “removal” credit of $0.45, while Improvement Orders to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders executed in these mechanisms shall be charged the “add” fee of $0.45. The Exchange notes that a similar fee and credit structure is in place for liquidity fees and credits for Facilitation and Solicitation transactions on BOX.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change to establish new SPY PIP and COPIP liquidity fees and credits is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution in the most actively traded options classes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Section III of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed change
Under this proposal, Public Customer SPY PIP and COPIP Primary Improvement Orders will no longer be assessed the $0.45 “add” fee; however, responses to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders will continue to be charged the $0.45 “add” fee. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms than for initiators of these orders and the contra orders. The Exchange believes it is reasonable when compared to a similar practice for Facilitation and Solicitation fees at a competing venue.
Currently, if a non-Public Customer PIP or COPIP Order does not trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order receives the $0.45 “removal” credit and any corresponding Improvement Order responses are charged the $0.45 “add” fee. Now, under this proposal, all SPY PIP and COPIP Orders submitted to the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary Improvement Order shall receive a “removal” credit of $0.45. Improvements Orders submitted to the SPY PIP and COPIP Orders executed in these mechanisms will continue to be charged the “add” fee of $0.45. The Exchange believes this is reasonable and competitive when compared to similar fees and credits for SPY transactions at a competing venue.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Section III are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that the fees and credits apply to all categories of Participants and across all account types. The Exchange notes that liquidity fees and credits on BOX are meant to offset one another in any particular transaction. The liquidity fees and credits do not directly result in revenue to BOX, but simply allows BOX to provide incentives to Participants to attract order flow. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge lower exchange fees for initiators in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms than for responders because initiators bring liquidity to the Exchange which, in turn, allows responders to interact with customer orders thus increasing the opportunity for more executions on BOX. The Exchange believes that structuring the proposed fees and credits will incentivize initiators to bring order flow to the Exchange thus benefitting all market participants. Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms than for initiators because, as discussed herein, responders to PIP and COPIP Orders are willing to pay a higher fee for liquidity discovery and, in turn, are given the opportunity to interact with customer order flow on BOX.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
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 does not believe that the proposed liquidity fees and credits will burden competition by creating such a disparity between the fees an initiating Participant in the PIP and COPIP auction pays and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain Participants being unable to compete with initiators. In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in PIP and COPIP auction transactions and will help promote competition by providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for customers to receive additional price improvement.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed liquidity fees and credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions will not impose a burden on competition. Rather, BOX believes that the changes will result in Participants being charged or credited appropriately for their PIP and COPIP transactions and is designed to enhance competition in auction transactions on BOX. Submitting an order is entirely voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if any, to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change will not impose an undue burden on intermarket competition as the proposed change will allow BOX to better compete for SPY order flow. Further, as stated above the fees and credits
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Illinois dated 08/19/2020.
Issued on 08/19/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16597 6 and for economic injury is 16598 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Illinois.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster
Issued on 08/19/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16595 6 and for economic injury is 16596 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Missouri, Kansas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 08/20/2020.
Issued on 08/20/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16599 8 and for economic injury is 16600 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is North Carolina.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 26, 2020.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR to either: Ms. Qiana Swayne, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Since 2011, FRA has routinely performed a comprehensive overview of the railroad industry workforce. The Railroad Industry Modal Profile was a response to the DOT National Transportation Workforce Development Initiative that required each DOT Operating Administration to produce an analysis of its industry workforce. The most recent published update in April 2016, Railroad Industry Modal Profile: An Outline of the Railroad Industry Workforce Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities, highlighted numerous workforce challenges including age, diversity, knowledge management and succession planning, work-life balance, recruitment, and the impact of evolving technology.
The prevailing workforce concerns during the early stages of the DOT National Transportation Workforce Development Initiative were the large number of retirement-eligible employees in transportation-related fields and the national shortage of science, technology, engineering, and math graduates. Because the railroad industry had done very little hiring in the late 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s, the retirement-eligible population became quite large, even beyond that of most other industries and transportation modes (each of which was also grappling with similar retirement population concerns).
These workforce challenges persist. Although the industry has recognized the need to focus on recruitment and retention strategies, it continues to face risks in maintaining a viable workforce and building a pipeline of diverse talent. To take effective and efficient action to minimize these risks, FRA requires reliable information on current workforce development challenges, strategies, and outcomes. Initial data collected for the Railroad Industry Modal Profile established a baseline understanding of the risks and status. However, to confirm and further develop the understanding of the risks, potential solutions, and best practices that have been implemented by railroad stakeholders, this revised survey is proposed. With this submission, FRA is requesting permission to gather the needed information about the railroad industry workforce.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Affordable Care Act notice of rescissions.
Written comments should be received on or before October 26, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information should be directed to Sara Covington, at (202) 317-5744 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Income, Gift and Estate Tax.
Written comments should be received on or before October 26, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning certain transfers of domestic stock or securities by U.S. persons to foreign corporations.
Written comments should be received on or before October 26, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Danny S. Green, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 421-1354 or email
Information collected under 38 CFR 21.4250(b), 21.4258, and 21.4259—The SAA prepares notices of approval to inform educational institutions, training establishments, and organizations or entities that their courses, training, or tests are not approved or the approval of previously approved courses, training, or tests is suspended. The SAA must also send VA a copy of each of these notices. There are 57 SAAs, each with its own jurisdiction for approval of courses, training, or tests. Some States have more than one SAA because one internal agency is responsible for schools, another for workplace training. Additionally, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have authorized SAA jurisdictions.
The SAA approves, disapproves, or suspends program approval based on the criteria in 38 U.S.C. chapter 36. Some of the criteria used in these determinations include site visits; and review of course materials, training programs, instructors' credentials, or review of tests for licensure and certification.
VA uses the approval notice information (or lack thereof) to determine if payment of educational assistance is appropriate. Under 38 U.S.C. 3680, VA may not provide educational assistance to any eligible veteran or eligible person if his or her educational program or training program does not meet the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 3670
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Danny S. Green, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 421-1354 or email
(a) VA Form 22-1919 is only used to collect information on two issues:
(i) Section 3683 of title 38, U.S.C., prohibits employees of VA and the SAA from owning any interest in an educational institution operated for-profit. In addition, the law prohibits VA or SAA employees from receiving any wages, salary, dividends, profits, or gifts from private for-profit schools in which an eligible person is pursuing a program of education under an educational assistance program administered by VA. In addition, the law prohibits VA employees from receiving any services from these schools. These provisions may be waived if VA determines that no detriment will result to the government, or to Veterans or eligible persons enrolled at that private for-profit school. Item 1 of VA Form 22-1919 collects the name and title of affected VA and SAA employees known by the President (or Chief Administrative Official) of the school, as well as a description of these employees' association with that school.
(ii) Sections 21.4202(c), 21.5200(c), 21.7122(e)(6), and 21.7622(f)(4)(iv) of
(b) VA only collects this information at the time one (or more) of these events occurs:
(i) The initial approval of a program or course at a proprietary for-profit school;
(ii) Any change of ownership of the school (either reported by the school or found upon review of a school's records during VA's “compliance survey”);
(iii) A change in proprietary status (from non-proprietary to proprietary, or from non-profit to profit status).
When the SAA, or VA acting as the SAA, visits the school in connection with the school's request for approval of its program(s), the representative has either the school's President or chief administrative official sign VA Form 22-1919. VA's Education Liaison Representative (ELR) will associate the completed VA Form 22-1919 with the other documentation compiled for approval of the school's program(s) and will retain this information in the approval folder. The approval folder is retained until such time as the SAA or VA withdraws approval of all courses at the school. All information in the approval folder is then destroyed according to established record control schedules.
(c) The following administrative and legal requirements affect proprietary schools as defined in 38 CFR 21.4200(z) and necessitate the VA Form 22-1919 collection:
i. 38 U.S.C. 3683,
ii. Regulations that reflect the restrictions applicable to all proprietary schools:
A. 38 CFR 21.4202(c).
B. 38 CFR 21.5200(c).
C. 38 CFR 21.7122(e)(6).
D. 38 CFR 21.7622(f)(4)(iv).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the
In the
The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda. The complete publication of the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda containing the regulatory agendas for 71 Federal agencies, is available to the public at
The Spring 2020 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Boris Arratia, Director, MR, Room 2121D, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: Boris Arratia, Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MR), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Room 2221D, Washington, DC 20405, 703-795-0816 You may also send comments to us by email at:
For spring 2020, the Office of the Federal Register and RISC worked together to sign and submit all documents electronically. As a result of this partnership, RISC has been delegated authority from the following agencies to electronically sign on their behalf:
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The Spring 2020 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.
The following agencies have
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated by reference in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Unified Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue or withdraw regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
The
The
The
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Unified Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique RIN is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics.
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Some agencies that participated in the fall 2017 edition of The Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for those entries that appeared in the Plan:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceeding; a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Publishing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of the significant and not significant regulatory and deregulatory actions being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with E.O. 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
• Limiting the types of operations in the organic supply chain that are not required to obtain organic certification;
• Imported organic products must be accompanied by an electronic import certificate to validate organic status;
• Import certificates will be submitted to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE);
• Certifying agents must notify USDA within 90 days of the opening of any new office that conducts certification activities; and,
• Entities acting on behalf of certifying agents may be suspended when there is noncompliant activity.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's spring 2020 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021.
Commerce hereby publishes its spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils also submit to NMFS proposed regulations they deem necessary or appropriate to implement FMPs. The proposed regulations, FMPs, and FMP amendments are subject to review and approval by NMFS, based on consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's spring 2020 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions the Department of Defense (DOD) plans for the next 12 months and those completed since the fall 2019 agenda. It was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This Agenda documents DOD's work under Executive Order 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and many regulatory actions support the recommendations of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force (as indicated in the individual rule abstracts). Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on November 20, 2019, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda will publish in the fall of 2020.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-693-9958.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489, or write to Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571-372-6115, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 571-515-0206, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDO, Building 1458, Suite NW6305, 9301 Chapek Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5605, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Ms. Stacey Jensen, telephone 703-695-6791, or write to Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E441, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Dominic Antenucci, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-614-8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated for each regulatory action.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reports on actions planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, procurement-related actions, and actions planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This agenda also identifies rules impacted by the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Generally, rules discussed in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Department of Energy.
Semi-annual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Contributions from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), a significant regulatory office within the Department, include 49 test procedure and 61 energy conservation standard rulemakings at various stages of completion,
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's Spring 2020 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
DOE's regulatory flexibility agenda is made up of rulemakings setting energy efficiency standards and requirements applicable to DOE sites.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 10, 2020, by William S. Cooper, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2707 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary portion as the point of contact for that action.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011) and Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Jan. 30, 2017), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on December 26, 2019, at 84 FR 71142.
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer,
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Coordination & Analysis Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Policy, Plans, and Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of Department of the Interior (Department) rules scheduled for review or development between Spring 2020 and Spring 2021. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Please direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. Please direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at (202) 208-5257.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation. If that determination is made, such rules will comply with Executive Order 13771.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
A primary goal of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. As such, it is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder. The Department also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified. DOT was the first agency to incorporate the Administration's regulatory reform policies permanently, codifying reforms to the Department's rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement practices. The rule codifies regulatory budgeting, the “2-for-1” plan, and the RRTF, as well as additional procedures for the Department's most costly rules, including enhanced opportunities for public participation. It also clarifies that guidance documents do not impose legal obligations and shall not be used as a basis for enforcement. Finally, the rule ensures due process protections for potential subjects of enforcement actions, including open and fair investigations and proceedings.
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures” (84 FR 248; Dec. 27, 2019), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory and deregulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
In addition, this Agenda was prepared in accordance with three executive orders issued by President Trump, which directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public by over $4.3 billion (in net present value cost savings). With the RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a manner that is fully consistent with safety. For example, on April 30, 2020, NHTSA published the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. The SAFE Vehicles rule increases U.S. competitiveness by reducing regulatory costs by tens of billions of dollars and helps American consumers afford to buy newer, cleaner, and safer vehicles by
While each regulatory and deregulatory action is evaluated on its own merits, the RRTF augments the Department's consideration of prospective rulemakings by conducting monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-regulatory alternatives are considered.
The Department's ongoing regulatory effort is guided by four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. In light of the unprecedented effects of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) public health emergency, these priorities are also grounded in regulatory actions that assist in our Nation's recovery. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and being sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Our planned regulatory actions reflect a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system.
For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working on reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the integration of automated vehicles, while continuing to focus on safety. Automated vehicles are expected to increase safety significantly by reducing the likelihood of human error when driving, which today accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents on our nation's roadways. NHTSA plans to issue regulatory actions that; (1) allow for permanent updates to current FMVSS reflecting new technology; and (2) allow for updates to NHTSA's regulations outlining the administrative processes for petitioning the agency for exemptions, rulemakings, and reconsiderations. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System. UAS are expected to continue to drive innovation and increase safety as operators and manufacturers find new and inventive uses for UAS. For instance, UAS are poised to assist human operators with a number of different mission sets such as inspection of critical infrastructure and search and rescue, enabling beneficial and lifesaving activities that would otherwise be difficult or even impossible for a human to accomplish unassisted. The Department has regulatory efforts underway to further integrate UAS safely and efficiently.
Another example is the Department's work on several rulemakings to facilitate a major transformation of our national space program from one in which the Federal government has a primary role to one in which private industry drives growth in innovation and launches. The FAA has proposed a rule that will fundamentally change how FAA licenses launches and reentries of commercial space vehicles moving from prescriptive requirements to a performance based approach.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated January 16, 2020, establishes the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) long-term actions; and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
Our Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D.
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an account process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the internet at
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Brandon Roberts, Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9677.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Dee Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Amanda Maizel, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-8014.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Stephen Gordon, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1101.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2621.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments via the internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the designation of a Regulatory Reform Officer,
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years; and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEISNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Most agencies provide historical information about the reviews that have occurred over the past 10 years. Thus, Year 1 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019; Year 2 (2019) begins in the fall of 2019 and ends in the fall of 2020, and so on. The exception to this general rule is the FAA, which provides information about the reviews it completed for this year and prospective information about the reviews it intends to complete in the next 10 years. Thus, for FAA Year 1 (2017) begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the fall of 2018; Year 2 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEISNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each Fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEISNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each Fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
1. Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 133 through 139 and parts 157 through 169.
2. Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 133 through 139 and parts 157 through 169 since 2009 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
3. Review of the FAA's regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145, which expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the
None.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (sections 601 through 612 of title 5, United States Code), requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. Section 610 requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE).
In complying with this section, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes. As such, FTA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the analysis year, the listed rules will be analyzed to identify those with a SEISNOSE. During the review year, each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEISNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with Section 610(b) to determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize the impact on small entities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
As an example, the Modal Regulatory Reforms Initiatives, 2137-AF41, rulemaking action is part of PHMSA's response to clarify current regulatory requirements and address public comments received to the Department's regulatory reform and infrastructure notices. This rulemaking also proposes to address a variety of petitions for rulemaking, specific to modal stakeholders, and other issues identified by PHMSA during its regulatory review.
The impact that the 2137-AF41 rulemaking will have on small entities is not expected to be significant. The rulemaking is based on PHMSA's initiatives and correspondence with the regulated community, and PHMSA working in conjunction with its modal partners, including FMCSA, FRA, and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The proposed changes are generally intended to provide relief or clarity and, as a result, positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufacturers and testers, including small entities. In conclusion, many companies are expecting to realize economic benefits, because of the proposed amendments in the 2137-AF41 rulemaking. The proposed amendments are expected to result in an overall net cost savings and ease the regulatory compliance burden for shippers, carriers, manufacturers, and requalifiers, specifically those modal-specific packaging and requalification requirements. This rulemaking is one example of PHMSA's review of rulemakings which ensures that our rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agency Contact: Guido Hassig, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Airport Way, Rochester, NY 14624,
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda available on the internet.
The semiannual agenda of the Department of the Treasury conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC).
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Abstract: This rulemaking would update the Access Board's existing accessibility guidelines for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This document sets forth the regulatory agenda of the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. This agenda is issued in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agenda lists regulations that are currently under development or review or that the Committee expects to have under development or review during the next 12 months. The purpose for publishing this agenda is to advise the public of the Committee's current and future regulatory actions.
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Shelly Hammond, Director, Contracting and Policy, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 603-2127.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), each agency is required to prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) has a similar agenda requirement (5 U.S.C. 602). Under the law, the agenda must list any regulation that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidelines prescribing the form and content of the regulatory agenda. Under those guidelines, the agenda must list all regulatory activities being conducted or reviewed in the next 12 months and provide certain specified information on each regulation. All of the items on this agenda are current or projected rulemakings.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions online at
• Regulations in the Semiannual Agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the Semiannual Agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA is initiating two new 610 reviews in this Agenda and has a third review ongoing.
Online, you can choose how to sort the agenda entries by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—EPA's prerule actions generally are intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
e-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations. If an action that would normally be classified Routine and Frequent is reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, then we would classify the action as either “Economically Significant” or “Other Significant.”
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
a. Deregulatory: when finalized, an action is expected to have total costs less than zero;
b. Regulatory: the action is either
(i) a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
c. Fully or Partially Exempt: The action has been granted, or is expected to be granted, a full or partial waiver under one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) It is expressly exempt by Executive Order 13771 (issued with respect to a “military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States”; or related to “agency organization, management, or personnel”), or
(ii) it addresses an emergency such as critical health, safety, financial, or non-exempt national security matters (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iii) it is required to meet a statutory or judicial deadline (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iv) expected to generate de minimis costs;
d. Not subject to, not significant: Is a NPRM or final rule AND is neither an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action nor an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action;
e. Other: At the time of designation, either the available information is too preliminary to determine Executive Order 13771 status or other reasonable circumstances preclude a preliminary Executive Order 13771 designation.
f. Independent agency: Is an action an independent agency anticipates issuing and thus is not subject to Executive Order 13771.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
EPA maintains a list of its deregulatory actions under development, as well as those that are completed, at
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA is initiating two 610 reviews and has a third review ongoing.
EPA has established public dockets for these 610 reviews. Comments on the newly-initiated 610 reviews can be submitted at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing the RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Julia Burch, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, E143-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2019 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of the Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated January 16, 2020, “Spring 2019 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
Office of Management and Budget.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is publishing its semiannual agenda of upcoming activities for Federal regulations, OMB Guidance, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letters, and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board Cost Accounting Standards.
OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are published in accordance with OMB's internal procedures for implementing Executive Order 12866 (October 4, 1993, 58 FR 51735). OMB policy guidelines are issued under authority derived from several sources, including: Subtitles I, II, and V of title 31, United States Code; Executive Order 11541; and other specific authority as cited. OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters communicate guidance and instructions of a continuing nature to executive branch agencies. As such, most OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are not regulations. Nonetheless, because these issuances are typically of interest to the public, they are generally published in the
CASB Cost Accounting Standards are issued under authority derived from 41 U.S.C. 1501
For purposes of this agenda, we have excluded directives that outline procedures to be followed in connection with the President's budget and legislative programs, as well as directives that affect only the internal functions, management, or personnel of Federal agencies.
See the agency contact person listed for each entry in the agenda, c/o Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. On the overall agenda, contact Lindsay Fraser, (202) 395-8084, at the above address.
Railroad Retirement Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains a list of regulations that the Board is developing or proposes to develop in the next 12 months and regulations that are scheduled to be reviewed in that period.
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-1275.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751-4945, Fax (312) 751-7102, TDD (312) 751-4701.
Regulations that are routine in nature or which pertain solely to internal Agency management have not been included in the agenda.
By Authority of the Board.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). This summary information is intended to enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. Accordingly, SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires SBA to publish in the
The RFA also requires that SBA periodically initiate a review of its rules under Section 610 to determine whether certain rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities. SBA is currently engaged in this process and is soliciting public comments via
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations that affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits, eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation, or are ineffective or outdated.
The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's Administrator the responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and updating small business definitions, commonly referred to as size standards. The Small Business Runway Extension Act amended the Small Business Act, changing the period for calculating average annual receipts from three (3) years to five (5) years.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the dates shown.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR website at
The Government uses suspension and debarment procedures to exercise business judgment. These procedures give Federal officials a discretionary means to exclude parties from participation in certain transactions, while affording those parties due process.
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR, both to bring its coverage into alignment with SBA's regulation, and to give agencies the tools they need, especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
Effective January 15, 2019, PPIRS was officially retired to conclude its merger with the CPARS. Data from PPIRS has been merged into CPARS.gov, making CPARS the official system for past performance information. This merge simplifies functions such as creating and editing performance and integrity records, changes to administering users and running reports, generating performance records, and viewing/managing performance records. Users will now have one location and one account to perform all functionality.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418-5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601,
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's Spring 2020 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Bureau reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. The next agenda will be published in fall 2020 and will update this agenda through fall 2021. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of March 5, 2020.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is publishing its spring 2020 Agenda as part of the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the Bureau reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, as described further below. The Bureau's participation in the Unified Agenda is voluntary.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, consumer education, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the authority to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the Bureau from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose, as specified in section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; that Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
As a general matter, the Bureau believes that it can best achieve these statutory purposes and objectives by using its various tools to focus on the prevention of consumer harm. With specific regard to rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote compliance with the law, foster competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services. If Congress directs the Bureau to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking, the Bureau will comply with the law. If the Bureau has discretion, the Bureau will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and by reducing unwarranted regulatory burden which can adversely affect competition and consumers' access to financial products and services. Consistent with these priorities and to enhance transparency, the Unified Agenda identifies the rulemaking activities in which the Bureau is likely to be engaged over the next 12 months and those that are contemplated in the ensuing year.
The Bureau is conducting the two remaining rulemakings mandated in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018, Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1297 (EGRRCPA). As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to maximize consumer welfare and achieve other statutory objectives through protecting consumers from harm and minimizing regulatory burden, including facilitating industry compliance with rules.
First, section 307 of the EGRRCPA amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to mandate that the Bureau prescribe certain regulations relating to “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (PACE) financing. As defined by EGRRCPA section 307, PACE financing results in a tax assessment on a consumer's real property and covers the costs of home improvements. The required regulations must carry out the purposes of TILA's ability-to-repay (ATR) requirements, currently in place for residential mortgage loans, with respect to PACE financing, and apply TILA's general civil liability provision for violations of the ATR requirements the Bureau will prescribe for PACE financing. The regulations must “account for the unique nature” of PACE financing. Section 307 of the EGRRCPA also specifically authorizes the collection of data and information necessary to support a PACE rulemaking. In March 2019 the Bureau issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and is continuing to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers' financial outcomes.
Second, section 108 of the EGRRCPA directs the Bureau to conduct a rulemaking to exempt from the escrow requirement loans made by certain creditors with assets of $10 billion or less and meeting other criteria, adding to a 2013 rule issued by the Bureau under the Dodd-Frank Act that created an exemption for creditors with under $2 billion in assets and meeting other criteria. In anticipation of future rulemaking activity, the Bureau conducted, and in late summer 2019 released, a preliminary analysis of the number of lenders potentially impacted by implementation of the new exemption in section 108 of EGRRCPA. This analysis showed that a limited number of additional lenders would be exempt under section 108 of EGRRCPA
The Bureau is continuing certain other rulemakings described in its Fall 2019 Agenda to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote compliance with the law, foster competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services.
Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, financial institutions to collect, report, and make public certain information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau hosted a symposium on small business data collection in November 2019 to facilitate its decisionmaking. In addition, the Bureau is working to conduct a survey of lenders to obtain estimates of one-time costs lenders of varying sizes would incur to collect and report data pursuant to section 1071. The Bureau's next step will be the release of materials in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to hear from representatives of small businesses on which Bureau rules to implement section 1071 may impose costs.
In addition, to consider concerns about possible unwarranted regulatory burden, the Bureau issued an NPRM in May 2019 to reconsider the thresholds for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the Bureau's 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule. The NPRM also proposed to incorporate into Regulation C an interpretive and procedural rule that the Bureau issued in August 2018 to clarify partial HMDA exemptions created by the EGRRCPA. In August 2019, the Bureau reopened until mid-October the comment period for certain aspects of the NPRM. The Bureau determined that it would issue two final rules at different times to address different aspects of the proposed rule. The Bureau issued the first of these final rules in October 2019. It finalized the proposed 2-year extension of the 500-loan temporary threshold for collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit and incorporated into Regulation C the EGRRCPA partial exemption provisions. The Bureau plans to issue a second final rule in April 2020 that would address the proposed changes to the permanent thresholds for collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit and closed-end mortgage loans.
Likewise, to consider concerns about possible unwarranted regulatory burden, the Bureau also issued an ANPRM in May 2019 concerning certain data points that are reported under the 2015 HMDA rule and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans. In June 2019, the Bureau extended the comment period on the ANPRM to mid-October 2019. The Bureau expects to issue an NPRM in late summer 2020 to follow up on the ANPRM. The Bureau also expects to issue an NPRM in late summer 2020 addressing the public disclosure of HMDA data in light of consumer privacy interests, so that stakeholders can concurrently consider and comment on the collection and reporting of data points and public disclosure of those data points. This NPRM will follow up on the Bureau's 2018 final policy guidance regarding disclosure of the HMDA data. Until the Bureau promulgates a final rule, it anticipates that it will continue to disclose HMDA data in the manner detailed in the final policy guidance.
In April 2020, the Bureau plans to complete an action begun in February 2019 to revoke the mandatory underwriting requirements of the regulations promulgated in a 2017 rule titled Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. As amended, the regulations will no longer: (1) Identify as an unfair and abusive practice a lender making a covered short-term or longer-term balloon-payment loan, including payday and vehicle title loans, without reasonably determining that consumers have the ability to repay those loans according to their terms; (2) prescribe mandatory underwriting requirements for making the ability-to-repay determination, or exempt certain loans from the mandatory underwriting requirements; and (3) include definitions or impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to the mandatory underwriting requirements. In response to stakeholder input, the Bureau is now evaluating what, if any, other actions to take with respect to the application of the payments provisions of the 2017 Rule to the short-term, longer-term balloon-payment, and certain high cost installment loans covered by those provisions. These actions could include, but are not limited to, updated compliance aids, policy statements, or other guidance.
The Bureau also issued an NPRM in May 2019 that would prescribe rules under Regulation F to govern the activities of debt collectors, as that term is defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Bureau's proposal would, among other things, address communications in connection with debt collection; interpret and apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection; and clarify requirements for certain consumer-facing debt collection disclosures. The proposal builds on the Bureau's research and pre-rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market; the conduct of debt collectors remains a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau expects to take final action in October 2020 with regard to the May 2019 NPRM. The Bureau has also engaged in testing of time-barred debt disclosures that were not the focus of the May 2019 proposal. In early 2020, after completing the testing, the Bureau published a supplemental NPRM related to time-barred debt disclosures.
The Bureau also is continuing work related to a rulemaking to amend the Bureau's Remittance Rule. Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act contains a temporary exception to its requirement that remittance transfer providers disclose actual amounts for remittance transfers. The exception permits insured depository institutions and insured credit unions in certain circumstances to estimate certain required disclosures. As mandated by statute, this exception will expire on July 21, 2020. After completing an assessment in October 2018 of the Remittance Rule and issuing in April 2019 a Request for Information to gather information related to the expiration of the temporary exception and information related to the scope of the Remittance Rule's coverage, the Bureau issued an NPRM in December 2019. In the NPRM, the Bureau proposed to increase a safe harbor threshold under which a person is deemed not to be providing remittance transfers in the normal course of business, from 100 per year to 500 per year. The Bureau also proposed changes to mitigate the effects of the expiration of the statutory temporary exemption. The proposed changes would allow insured institutions to continue to estimate the exchange rate and covered-third party fees under certain circumstances. Finally, the Bureau solicited comment on a permanent exception permitting remittance transfer providers to use estimates for transfers to certain countries and the process for
In July 2019, the Bureau issued an ANPRM to solicit information about possible amendments to the qualified mortgage provisions of Regulation Z. With certain exceptions, Regulation Z requires creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay any residential mortgage loan, and loans that meet Regulation Z's requirements for “qualified mortgages” obtain certain protections from liability. One category of qualified mortgages (QMs) covers certain loans that are eligible for purchase or guarantee by either the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Under Regulation Z, this category of QMs (Temporary GSE QM or “Patch” loans) is scheduled to expire no later than January 10, 2021. The Bureau is planning to propose in May 2020 amendments to the definition of General QM that would move away from the 43 percent Debt-to-Income (DTI) requirement and would instead establish an alternative, such as a pricing threshold (
The Bureau is participating in interagency rulemaking processes with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning appraisals. The FIRREA amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for automated valuation models (AVMs). These standards are designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, seek to avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews, and account for any other such factor that the Agencies determine to be appropriate. The Agencies will continue to work to develop a proposed rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's AVM amendments to FIRREA.
The Bureau is commencing a new rulemaking to address the anticipated expiration of the LIBOR index, which the UK Financial Conduct Authority has stated that it cannot guarantee the publication of beyond the end of 2021. The Bureau's work is designed to facilitate compliance by open-end and closed-end creditors and to lessen the financial impact to consumers by providing examples of replacement indices that meet Regulation Z requirements. For creditors for HELOCs (including reverse mortgages) and card issuers for credit card accounts, the rule would facilitate the transition of existing accounts to an alternative index, beginning around December 2020, well in advance of LIBOR's anticipated expiration. The rule also would address change-in-terms notice provisions for HELOCs and credit card accounts and how they apply to the transition away from LIBOR, to ensure that consumers are informed of the replacement index and any adjusted margin. To facilitate compliance by card issuers, the rule would address how the rate re-evaluation provisions applicable to credit card accounts apply to the transition from LIBOR to a replacement index. Commencing a notice-and-comment rulemaking will enable the Bureau to facilitate compliance by creditors with Regulation Z as they transition away from LIBOR. The Bureau expects to issue an NPRM in May 2020.
Congress tasked the Bureau with ensuring that markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation. One area of innovation we are monitoring is use of artificial intelligence (AI), including a subset of AI, machine learning (ML). Issues concerning use of AI and how it may apply in the context of the Federal consumer financial laws and regulations were raised in response to the Bureau's 2017 Request for Information Regarding Use of Alternative Data and Modeling Techniques in the Credit Process, the Bureau's 2018 Calls for Evidence, and in other outreach since then. As the Bureau continues to monitor developments concerning AI, the Bureau will evaluate whether rulemaking, a policy statement, or other Bureau action may be appropriate.
The Bureau is also actively reviewing existing regulations. Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to conduct an assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law and publish a report of each assessment not later than 5 years after the effective date of the subject matter or order. The Bureau is conducting an assessment of its Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) Rule and certain amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) also requires the Bureau to consider the effect on small entities of certain rules it promulgates. The Bureau published in May 2019 its plan for conducting reviews, consistent with section 610 of the RFA, of certain regulations which are believed to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congress specified that the purpose of such reviews shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.
The Bureau has conducted its first 610 RFA review, concerning the impact on small banks and credit unions of a 2009 Regulation E amendment governing overdraft services. After considering the statutory review factors, including a review of public comment, the Bureau has determined that the rule should continue without change at this time. The Bureau believes that there is a continued need for this rule, which does not overlap with other Federal or State rules and which likely preserves a valuable consumer choice. The overdraft rule is not complex, and no aspect of the rule was identified as
Finally, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is also continuing to monitor markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets. As discussed in a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau's Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations and specifically its Markets Offices continuously monitor market developments and risks to consumers. The Bureau also has created a number of cross-Bureau working groups focused around specific markets which advance the Bureau's market monitoring work. The Bureau's market monitoring work assists in identifying issues for potential future rulemaking work.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866.
The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries. Submit comments to the Division of the Secretariat on or before September 25, 2020.
Caption comments on the regulatory agenda, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda.” You may submit comments by email to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact Meridith L. Kelsch, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing “a brief description of the subject area of any rule which the agency expects to propose or promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 602. The agency must provide a summary of the nature of the rule, the objectives and legal basis for the rule, and an approximate schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
In addition, Executive Order 12866,
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of an agency official who is knowledgeable about items in the agenda.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the RFA, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the RFA's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in the law, may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Karen Schroeder, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
The NPRM proposes changes to improve disclosure of debris mitigation plans. The NPRM also makes proposals and seeks comment related to satellite disposal reliability and methodology, appropriate deployment altitudes in low-Earth-orbit, and on-orbit lifetime, with a particular focus on large NGSO satellite constellations. Other aspects of the NPRM include new rule proposals for geostationary orbit satellite (GSO) license term extension requests, and consideration of disclosure requirements related to several emerging technologies and new types of commercial operations, including rendezvous and proximity operations.
The FNPRM sought comment on three topics: (1) Issues related to the local simulcasting requirement, (2) whether to let broadcasters use vacant channels in the broadcast band, and (3) the import of the Next Gen standard on simulcasting stations.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see Dockets 11-82 and 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. The Commission received comments and replies in August and September 2016.
The Spectrum Act requires that the BIA consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights” and a forward auction of licenses in the reallocated spectrum for flexible-use services, including mobile broadband. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three bidding options: Go off-the-air, share spectrum with another broadcast television licensee, or move channels to the upper or lower VHS band in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers. The Spectrum Act also authorized the Commission to reorganize the 600 MHz band following the BIA including, as necessary, reassigning full power and Class A television stations to new channels in order to clear the spectrum sold in the BIA. That post-auction reorganization (known as the repack) is currently underway and all of the stations who were assigned new channels are scheduled to have vacated their pre-auction channels by July 3, 2020, pursuant to a 10-phase transition schedule adopted by the Commission.
In May 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the BIA. The auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees. The BIA ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice that also marked the start of the 39-month transition period during which 987 of the full power and Class A television stations remaining on-the-air will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television band. Pursuant to the Spectrum Act, the Commission will reimburse 957 of those full power and Class A stations for the reasonable costs associated with relocating to their post-auction channel assignments and will reimburse multichannel video programming distributors for their costs associated with continuing to carry the signals of those stations.
In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-141, at Div. E, Title V, 511, 132 Stat. 348 (2018), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452(j)-(n)) (the Reimbursement Expansion Act or REA), extended the deadline for reimbursement of eligible entities from April 2020 to no later than July 3, 2023, and also expanded the universe of entities eligible for reimbursement to include low-power television stations and TV translator stations displaced by the BIA for their reasonably incurred costs to relocate to a new channel, and FM broadcast stations for their reasonably incurred costs for facilities necessary to reasonably minimize disruption of service as a result of the post-auction reorganization of the television band. On March 15, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order setting rules for the reimbursement of eligible costs to those newly eligible entities.
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a process for wireless providers to disable contraband wireless devices once they have been identified. The Commission also seeks comment on additional methods and technologies that might prove successful in combating contraband device use in correctional facilities, and on various other proposals related to the authorization process for CISs and their deployment.
The Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order addressed several Petitions for Reconsideration submitted in response to the Report and Order and resolved the outstanding issues raised in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The 2017 NPRM sought comment on limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band, adjacent channel emissions limits, and public release of base station registration information.
The Digital Opportunity Data Collection will collect geospatial broadband coverage maps from fixed broadband internet service providers of areas where they make fixed service available. This geospatial data will facilitate development of granular, high-quality fixed broadband deployment maps, which should improve the FCC's ability to target support for broadband expansion through the agency's Universal Service Fund programs. The Report and Order also adopts a process to collect public input on the accuracy of service providers' broadband maps, facilitated by a crowd-sourcing portal that will gather input from consumers as well as from state, local, and Tribal governments.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding—unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930-1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
In 1999, the Commission released the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in CC Docket 99-200. The Notice examined and sought comment on several administrative and technical measures aimed at improving the efficiency with which telecommunications numbering resources are used and allocated. It incorporated input from the North American Numbering Council (NANC), a Federal advisory committee, which advises the Commission on issues related to number administration.
In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRO First Report and Order), released on March 31, 2000, the Commission adopted a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier
In the NRO Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a measure that requires all carriers to use at least 60 percent of their numbering resources before they may get additional numbers in a particular area. That 60 percent utilization threshold increases to 75 percent over the next three years. The Commission also established a 5-year term for the national pooling administrator and an auditing program to verify carrier compliance with the Commission's rules. Furthermore, the Commission declined to amend the existing Federal rules for area code relief or specify any new Federal guidelines for the implementation of area code relief. The Commission also declined to state a preference for either all-services overlays or geographic splits as a method of area code relief. Regarding mandatory nationwide 10-digit dialing, the Commission declined to adopt this measure at the present time. Furthermore, the Commission declined to mandate nationwide expansion of the “D digit” (the “N” of an NXX or central office code) to include zero or one, or to grant State commissions the authority to implement the expansion of the “D” digit as a numbering resource optimization measure presently.
In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed national thousands-block number pooling administration issues, including declining to alter the implementation date for covered CMRS carriers to participate in pooling. The Commission also addressed Federal cost recovery for national thousands-block number pooling, and continued to require States to establish cost recovery mechanisms for costs incurred by carriers participating in pooling trials. The Commission reaffirmed the Months-To-Exhaust (MTE) requirement for carriers. The Commission declined to lower the utilization threshold established in the Second Report and Order, and declined to exempt pooling carriers from the utilization threshold. The Commission also established a safety valve mechanism to allow carriers that do not meet the utilization threshold in a given rate center to obtain additional numbering resources. In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission lifted the ban on technology-specific overlays (TSOs) and delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to resolve any such petitions. Furthermore, the Commission found that carriers who violate its numbering requirements, or fail to cooperate with an auditor conducting either a “for cause” or random audit, should be denied numbering resources in certain instances. The Commission also reaffirmed the 180-day reservation period, declined to impose fees to extend the reservation period, and found that State commissions should be allowed password-protected access to the NANP Administrator database for data pertaining to NPAs located within their State. The measures adopted in the NRO orders will allow the Commission to monitor more closely the way numbering resources are used within the NANP, and will promote more efficient allocation and use of NANP resources by tying a carrier's ability to obtain numbering resources more closely to its actual need for numbers to serve its customers.
In NRO Third Order on Recon in CC Docket No. 99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No, 95-116, the Commission reversed its clarification that those requirements extend to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they have received a request from another carrier to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether the Commission should again extend the LNP requirements to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they receive a request to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether all carriers in the top 100 MSAs should be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required to be LNP capable. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether all MSAs included in Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) on the Census Bureau's list of the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the top 100 MSAs.
In the NRO Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reaffirmed that carriers must deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for which another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. The Commission delegated the authority to State commissions to require carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not received a specific request for LNP from another carrier to provide LNP, under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The Commission concluded that all carriers, except those specifically exempted, are required to participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the national rollout schedule, regardless of whether they are required to provide LNP, including commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers that were required to deploy LNP as of November 24, 2003. The Commission specifically exempted from the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not received a request to provide LNP. The Commission also exempted from the pooling requirement carriers that are the only service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. Additionally, the Commission sought further comment on whether these exemptions should be expanded to include carriers where there are only two service providers receiving numbering resources in the rate center. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed that the 100 largest MSAs are identified in the 1990 U.S. Census reports, as well as those areas included on any subsequent U.S. Census report of the 100 largest MSAs.
In the NRO Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission granted petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-block pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. In granting these petitions, the Commission permitted these States to optimize numbering resources and further extend the life of the specific numbering plan areas. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should delegate authority to all States to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected VoIP providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the States by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers to (1) provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those States, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area. Finally, the Order also modified Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
In 2016, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the separations freeze for an additional 18 months until January 1, 2018. In 2017, the Joint Board issued a Recommended Decision recommending changes to the part 36 rules designed to harmonize them with the Commission's previous amendments to its part 32 accounting rules. In February 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to part 36 consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations. In October 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order adopting each of the Joint Board's recommendations and amending the Part 36 consistent with those recommendations. In July 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 15 years and to provide rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. In December 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the freeze for up to 6 years until December 31, 2024, and granting rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a one-time opportunity to opt out of that freeze.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and a further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
The Fourth RCC Order completed the Commission's implementation of the RCC Act by adopting service quality standards for intermediate providers, as well as an exception to those standards for intermediate providers that qualify for the covered provider safe harbor in our existing rules. The Order also set forth procedures to enforce our intermediate provider requirements. Finally, the Fourth RCC Order adopted provisions to sunset the rural call completion data recording and retention requirements adopted in the First RCC Order one year after the effective date of the new intermediate provider service quality standards.
On June 13, 2017, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rate caps adopted in the Second Report and Order, as well as reporting requirements related to video visitation. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over intrastate ICS calls and that the rate caps the Commission adopted for interstate calls were arbitrary and capricious. The court also remanded the Commission's caps on ancillary fees. On September 26, 2017, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 21, 2017, the court issued two separate orders: One vacating the 2016 Order on Reconsideration insofar as it purports to set rate caps on inmate calling services, and one dismissing as moot challenges to the Commission's First Report and Order on ICS.
On February 4, 2020, the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice seeking to refresh the record on ancillary service charges imposed in connection with inmate calling services.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline Infrastructure Order) that takes a number of actions and seeks comment on further actions designed to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
The Wireline Infrastructure Order took a number of actions. First, the Report and Order revised the pole attachment rules to reduce costs for attachers, reforms the pole access complaint procedures to settle access disputes more swiftly, and increases access to infrastructure for certain types of broadband providers. Second, the Report and Order revised the section 214(a) discontinuance rules and the network change notification rules, including those applicable to copper retirements, to expedite the process for carriers seeking to replace legacy network infrastructure and legacy services with advanced broadband networks and innovative new services. Third, the Report and Order reversed a 2015 ruling that discontinuance authority is required for solely wholesale services to carrier-customers. Fourth, the Declaratory Ruling abandoned the 2014 “functional test” interpretation of when section 214 discontinuance applications are required, bringing added clarity to the section 214(a) discontinuance process for carriers and consumers alike. Finally, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on additional potential pole attachment reforms, reforms to the network change disclosure and section 214(a) discontinuance processes, and ways to facilitate rebuilding networks impacted by natural disasters.
On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order) taking further actions designed to expedite the transition from legacy networks and services to next generation networks and advanced services that benefit the American public and to promote broadband deployment by further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance rules, network change disclosure processes,
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC sought comment on additional issues not addressed in the November Wireline Infrastructure Order or the June Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. It sought comment on changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules to: (1) Streamline the timeframe for gaining access to utility poles; (2) reduce charges paid by attachers for work done to make a pole ready for new attachments; and (3) establish a formula for computing the maximum pole attachment rate that may be imposed on an incumbent LEC.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC also sought comment on whether the Commission should enact rules, consistent with its authority under section 253 of the Act, to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting State and local laws that inhibit broadband deployment. It also sought comment on whether there are State laws governing the maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might seek to preempt.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that: (1) Proposed new backup power rules; (2) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (3) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) Lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) Adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
On August 2, 2018, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling (Wireline Infrastructure Third Report and Order) establishing a new framework for the vast majority of pole attachments governed by Federal law by instituting a one-touch make-ready regime, in which a new attacher may elect to perform all simple work to prepare a pole for new wireline attachments in the communications space. This new framework includes safeguards to promote coordination among parties and ensures that new attachers perform work safely and reliably. The Commission retained its multi-party pole attachment process for attachments that are complex or above the communications space of a pole, but made significant modifications to speed deployment, promote accurate billing, expand the use of self-help for new attachers when attachment deadlines are missed, and reduce the likelihood of coordination failures that lead to unwarranted delays. The Commission also improved its pole attachment rules by codifying and redefining Commission precedent that requires utilities to allow attachers to overlash existing wires, thus maximizing the usable space on the pole; eliminating outdated disparities between the pole attachment rates that incumbent carriers must pay compared to other similarly-situated cable and telecommunications attachers; and clarifying that the Commission will preempt, on an expedited case-by-case basis, State and local laws that inhibit the rebuilding or restoration of broadband infrastructure after a disaster. The Commission also adopted a Declaratory Ruling that interpreted section 253(a) of the Communications Act to prohibit State and local express and
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On April 19, 2018, the Commission decided the legacy support issue arising from the ongoing reform and modernization of the universal service fund and intercarrier compensation systems.
On May 29, 2018, the Commission approved additional funding to restore communications networks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and sought comment on almost $900 million in long-term funding for network expansion.
On June 25, 2018, the Commission addressed the current funding shortfall in the Rural Healthcare Program by raising the annual program budget cap to $571 million.
On January 31, 2019, the Commission temporarily waived the E-Rate amortization requirement and proposed to eliminate the requirement.
On July 11, 2019, the Commission brought Telehealth services to low-income patients, veterans and areas lacking adequate health care.
On August 2, 2019, the Commission targeted areas with at least 4 million rural homes, small businesses that lacked modern broadband service.
On August 20, 2019, the Commission increased transparency, predictability, and efficiency of RHC program funding decisions.
On September 30, 2019, the Commission investment was boosted high-speed internet access on islands.
On October 31, 2019, the Commission took steps to enforce quality standards for Rural Broadband Networks and provided additional flexibility to reduce burden on companies.
On November 15, 2019, the Commission further Strengthened Lifeline Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.
On December 3, 2019, the Commission acted to speed the deployment of Wi-Fi in schools and Libraries.
By using an auction, the FCC will ensure that sought-after numbers are awarded to the parties that value them most. In addition, the FCC will reserve certain 833 numbers for distribution to government and non-profit entities that request them for public health and safety purposes. The FCC will study the results of the auction to determine how to best use the mechanism to distribute toll-free numbers equitably and efficiently in the future as well. Revenues from the auction will be used to defray the cost of toll-free numbering administration, reducing the cost of numbering for all users. The Order establishing the toll-free number auction will also authorize and accommodate the use of a secondary market for numbers awarded at auction to further distribute these numbers to the entities that value them most. The Order also adopted several definitional and technical updates to improve clarity and flexibility in toll-free number assignment.
The Commission sought comment and then adopted auctions procedures and deadlines on August 2, 2019. Bidding for the auction occurred on December 17, 2019, and Somas issued an announcement of the winning bidders on December 20, 2019. On December 16, 2019, to facilitate the preparation of its study of the auction, the Bureau charged the North American Numbering Council, via its Toll Free Access Modernization Working Group, to issue a report evaluating various aspects of the 833 Auction, and recommending improvements for any future toll free number auctions.
In a November 5, 2018 Press Release, the FCC Chairman called on voice service providers to deploy the SHAKEN/STIR call authentication standards into their networks over the next year. On June 6, 2019, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed requiring voice service providers to implement the SHAKEN/STIR caller ID authentication framework, if major voice service providers fail to do so by the end of 2019. (WC Docket No. 17-97)
In December 2019, Congress enacted the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act. Along with numerous other provisions directed at addressing robocalls, the TRACED Act directs the Commission to require all voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks, and to implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions of their networks. The TRACED Act further creates processes by which voice service providers may be exempt from this mandate if the Commission determines they have achieved certain implementation benchmarks, and by which voice service providers may be granted a delay in compliance based on a finding of undue hardship because of burdens or barriers to implementation or based on a delay in development of a caller ID authentication protocol for calls delivered over non-IP networks.
On August 14, 2019, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics submitted its report to Congress recommending that: (1) A 3-digit dialing code be used for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system; and (2) the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider designating 988 as the 3-digit code.
On December 12, 2019, the Commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to designate 988 as a new, nationwide, 3-digit dialing code for a suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. WC Docket No. 18-336. The NPRM proposes that calls made to 988 be directed to the existing National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, which is made up of an expansive network of over 170 crisis centers located across the United States, and to the Veterans Crisis Line. The NPRM also proposes to require all telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers to make, within 18 months, any changes necessary to ensure that users can dial 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period May 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020. The next agenda will be published in fall 2020.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its spring 2020 agenda as part of the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into five sections. The first, Pre-rule Stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. And a fifth section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Barbara Bouchard, Senior Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Special Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
National Labor Relations Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The following agenda of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is published in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Board's agenda refers to
For further information concerning the regulatory actions listed in the agenda, contact Farah Z. Qureshi, Deputy Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570; telephone 202-273-1949, TTY/TDD 1-800-315-6572; email
Farah Qureshi,
Roxanne Rothschild,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The NRC's complete Agenda, available on the Office of Management and Budget's website at
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda September 25, 2020.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in the
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0052 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0052 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those for which an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
The NRC assigns a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when the Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission-delegated rulemaking that does not require a rulemaking plan. The Office of Management and Budget uses this number to track all relevant documents throughout the entire “lifecycle” of a particular rulemaking activity. The NRC reports all rulemaking activities in the Agenda that have been assigned a RIN and meet the definition for a completed, an active, or a long-term rulemaking activity.
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on December 26, 2019 (84 FR 71282). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through March 5, 2020. The NRC provides additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of issuance of those regulations that have or will have a
The comment period on the NRC's last Agenda (published on December 26, 2019, (84 FR 71282)) closed on January 27, 2020. We received one comment; we determined it was out of the scope of the NRC's semi-annual review.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for Spring 2020 reflect only the priorities of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on March 31, 2020, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before September 25, 2020.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
William Miller, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-8372.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Patrick Gilmore, Deputy Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2020.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Chairman's best estimate of rules that may be considered over the next 12 months, but does not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual Board Member. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Chairman is publishing the agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2020 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Chairman Begeman.
Francis O'Connor, Deputy Director, Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains the proposed regulatory actions that the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council or FPISC) plans to undertake in the 12 months following the General Service Administration's fall 2019 edition of its semiannual regulatory agenda, which included the Permitting Council's previous regulatory agenda. The Permitting Council developed this agenda consistent with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
John Cossa, Senior Counsel, Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, Office of the Executive Director, 1800 G Street NW, Suite 2400, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 322-6856,
Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), 42 U.S.C. 4370m
The Permitting Council's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are included in the regulatory flexibility agenda pursuant to the RFA because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 610.
Printing of the semiannual regulatory agenda entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the RFA's Unified Agenda requirements.