Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of the Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Public Health Service
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.72, “Guidance for Implementation of Changes, Tests, and Experiements.” Revision 1 to RG 3.72 endorses Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 12-04, Revision 2. NEI 12-04, Revision 2, updates and revises previous guidance to incorporate operating experience and NRC's inspection findings. In addition, RG 3.72, Revision 1, changes the NRC's guidance on departures from a method of evaluation (MOE) and the NRC's approval of an MOE.
Revision 1 to RG 3.72 is available on September 28, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0059 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
Revision 1 to RG 3.72 and the regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML20220A185 and ML19269B764, respectively.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Marlone Davis, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-7447, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 1 of RG 3.72 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-3054, titled, “Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 72.48, `Changes, Tests, And Experiments' ” (ADAMS Accession No. ML19269B763). Revision 1 to RG 3.72 describes an approach that is acceptable to NRC to meet regulatory requirements related to changes affecting independent spent fuel storage installations, spent fuel storage cask designs, and monitored retrievable storage installations by endorsing guidance document NEI 12-04, Revision 2, “Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation,” with clarifications and exceptions.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-3054 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this regulatory guide in final form would not constitute backfitting as defined in title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is repealing the regulatory requirement that production credit associations (PCAs) amortize their loans in 15 years or less, while requiring Farm Credit System (FCS or System) associations to address amortization through their credit underwriting standards and internal controls.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
Lori Markowitz, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, (703) 883-4487, TTY (703) 883-4056,
The objectives of the final rule are to:
• Repeal regulatory provisions that impose amortization limits on PCA loans; and
• Require associations to address loan amortization in their credit underwriting standards and internal controls.
As FCS institutions restructured and merged over the years, and the agricultural economy evolved, FCA periodically issued or revised regulations in part 614 that implement the statutory authorities of System banks and associations to make, participate in, and buy and sell other interests in, loans to eligible borrowers. Pursuant to statute, these regulations also establish how the powers and obligations of the constituent banks or associations are consolidated, and to the extent necessary, reconciled in the successor institutions created by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.
In 1997, FCA amended its regulations governing lending authorities, credit underwriting, and loan terms and conditions and provided freestanding PCAs greater flexibility to meet their borrowers' credit needs to purchase expensive equipment and other chattels. Since 1997, § 614.4040(a)(2) has allowed PCAs, under policies approved by their funding banks, to make loans with maturities of 10 years or less, but amortize them over a period not to exceed 15 years, subject to the following conditions: (1) Each such loan may be refinanced only if the PCA determines at the time of refinancing that the loan meets its loan policies and underwriting criteria, (2) refinancing may not extend repayment beyond 15 years from the date of the original loan, and (3) acquiring unimproved real estate is not the sole purpose of the loan.
In 1997, FCA also made a substantive revision to the agricultural credit association (ACA) lending authority regulation, § 614.4050, to recognize the statutory authority of ACAs to make long-term real estate loans that mature in not less than 5 years nor more than 40 years either under their PCA or their Federal land credit association (FLCA) long-term mortgage lending authority. Also, ACAs are subject to less stringent regulatory requirements than PCAs regarding aquatic loans, and loans that mature between 7 and 10 years.
Over the years in regulatory burden initiatives, we have received comments that there is a discrepancy between PCA and ACA lending authorities. A common criticism is that the regulations permit ACA parents to make 10-year operating loans to borrowers, without any restriction on amortization, while PCA subsidiaries cannot amortize the same loans for a period longer than 15 years.
In response to the restructuring of the System, changes in the agricultural economy, and input we received from the FCS, we published a proposed rule on January 23, 2020,
The proposed rule would amend § 614.4200 to require direct lenders
We received six comment letters, two from System banks, two from System associations, and two from trade associations—one representing FCS institutions and the other representing commercial banks. Most of the comments supported the rule as proposed and the repeal of the PCA amortization limit. One System commenter requested that we reaffirm prior guidance on unrestricted amortization of ACA loans. The commercial bank trade association opposed the repeal of the amortization limits for PCA loans. According to this commenter, repeal of § 614.4040(a)(2) would allow FCS institutions wide latitude to agree to longer amortization periods which could cause FCS borrowers stress when the loans need to be refinanced or repriced and interest rates have risen. In addition, this commenter urged FCA to conduct an analysis of possible negative impacts from relaxing the rules pertaining to loan amortization.
After considering all the comments that we received, we are finalizing the proposed rule without change. The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, establishes the terms to maturity on loans made by direct lenders operating under titles I or II. However, the statute does not prohibit System direct lenders, such as PCAs, FLCAs, or ACAs from amortizing a loan over a period that is longer than its term to maturity. Instead, as discussed in greater detail below, prudent credit underwriting standards and practices at System direct lenders are necessary and appropriate to control the risks inherent in all loans, particularly balloon loans.
An amortization schedule that exceeds the term of the loan is often
Under the final rule, all FCS direct lenders that amortize loans over timeframes that are longer than their terms to maturity must address loan amortization in their credit underwriting standards. As noted earlier, final § 614.4200(c) requires associations that offer balloon loans to set amortization schedules that are consistent with loan underwriting standards required by § 614.4150 and appropriate to the type and purpose of the borrower's loan, the expected useful life of the asset being financed, and the repayment capacity of the borrower.
The FCA expects FCS direct lenders to address these factors not only when extending a loan, but also when deciding whether to renew and refinance the borrower's loan. This regulatory approach strikes a balance between allowing FCS associations to offer loan products that meet the specific credit needs of each borrower, while ensuring that every loan exhibit sound credit underwriting practices. More specifically, final § 614.4200(c) provides System institutions latitude to develop credit underwriting parameters that meet the diverse credit needs of their borrowers within a regulatory framework that precludes loans from being continually refinanced at maturity by tying loan amortization to each borrower's repayment capacity and the useful life of the underlying asset.
The final rule that the FCA adopts reduces unnecessary regulatory burden on FCS direct lender associations. Offering balloon loans to customers is a business decision. Managing credit risks in loans that amortize over a longer timeframe than their term to maturity is the responsibility of the lender. The most effective and efficient way to control the risks in such loans is through strong credit underwriting standards and practices developed by the lender, rather than prescriptive regulations that substitute an agency's opinion for the financial institution's business judgement. We note that the statutory, regulatory, and supervisory framework for loans that amortize on a different schedule than their terms to maturity is virtually the same for FCS institutions, commercial banks, and other non-System lenders.
As noted above, a commercial bank trade association opposed repeal of amortization requirements in § 614.4040(a)(2) on PCA loans because the commenter believes that this regulatory provision is necessary to promote safety and soundness. We respond that from 1997 until now, our regulations only addressed the amortization of PCA loans, but not balloon loans originated by FLCAs or ACAs. As a result, long-term real estate mortgage loans made by FLCAs and ACAs, and short- and intermediate-term ACA loans have never been subject to regulatory restrictions on amortization. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the FCA added these amortization requirements to § 614.4040 in 1997 so PCAs would have greater flexibility in the terms they could offer farmers and ranchers to purchase expensive equipment and chattels through loans that matured within 10 years in accordance with the statute. As a result of corporate restructuring of System associations over the past 23 years, there are no longer any stand-alone PCAs. All PCAs have become subsidiaries of ACAs, which have authority to make short-, intermediate, and long-term loans.
In this context, it becomes clear that the amortization limits for PCA loans in § 614.4040(a)(2) were not designed for safety and soundness. Corporate restructuring rendered the requirements in § 614.4040(a)(2) obsolete. As we stated in the proposed rule, FCA views loan amortization as a credit underwriting issue, not a legal authority issue. For these reasons, we are adopting the final rule, as proposed.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Flood insurance, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 614 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128; 12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2097, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 2206a, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a-2, 2279b, 2279c-1, 2279f, 2279f-1, 2279aa, 2279aa-5; sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639 (12 U.S.C. 2121 note).
(a)
(1) Not more than 7 years;
(2) More than 7 years, but not more than 10 years, as set forth in policies approved by the funding bank; or
(3) Not more than 15 years to producers and harvesters of aquatic products for major capital expenditures, including but not limited to the purchase of vessels, construction or purchase of shore facilities, and similar purposes directly related to the operations of producers or harvesters of aquatic products.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(1) Long-term real estate mortgage loans with maturities of not less than 5 nor more than 40 years, and continuing commitments to make such loans; and
(2) Short- and intermediate-term loans and provide other similar financial assistance for a term of not more than:
(i) 10 years; or
(ii) 15 years to aquatic producers and harvesters for their aquatic operations.
(c)
(1) Consistent with its loan underwriting standards adopted pursuant to § 614.4150; and
(2) Appropriate to the type and purpose of the loan, expected useful life of the asset being financed, and the repayment capacity of the borrower.
Department of Commerce.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
The Department of Commerce (Department) issues regulations to implement the requirements of an Executive order entitled “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” signed October 9, 2019. Consistent with the Executive order, these regulations require that the Department clearly state that guidance documents issued by the Department do not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract; establish procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of guidance documents; and provide, with certain exceptions, that for significant guidance documents, the Department will submit those documents for review by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and provide for a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days.
The interim final rule is effective October 28, 2020. Comments on the interim final rule must be received by October 28, 2020.
You may submit comments by the following method:
Xenia Kler, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation, 202-482-5354, or via email
On October 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), the President issued Executive Order 13891, entitled “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” which seeks to ensure that when Federal agencies issue guidance documents, the agencies: Do not treat those guidance documents alone as imposing binding obligations both in law and in practice, except as incorporated into a contract; take public input into account in formulating significant guidance documents; and make guidance documents readily available to the public.
The Executive order, consistent with previous OMB memoranda, defines “guidance document” as “an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation.” It further distinguishes guidance documents from, among other things, rules promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), which, as authorized by statute, may bind the public, and agency adjudications conducted under the APA (5 U.S.C. 554), which may bind parties on a case-by-case basis. Guidance documents may help clarify existing obligations, but unlike statutes, regulations, and adjudications, cannot themselves impose obligations on the public.
The Department, through its component bureaus, issues a variety of guidance documents in an effort to assist businesses and the public in understanding their obligations, as well as agency procedures, under existing statutes and regulations. For example, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration modified its regulations pertaining to fishing quotas for widow rockfish in the Pacific Groundfish fishery, it issued a small entity compliance guide intended to provide to fishermen in the region a plain-language summary of the new regulations and how they would work. The guide includes information about why the new rules were issued, how fishermen could expect their existing allocations to be affected, relevant deadlines, and the opportunity to appeal.
In order to further assist the public, going forward, the Department, as explained in an earlier notice (85 FR
In addition, the Department has reviewed, and will continue to review, documents determined to qualify as guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, will rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect. The Department will not cite, use, or rely on any rescinded guidance document except to establish historical facts.
In issuing this interim final rule, the Department seeks both to codify its existing practices with respect to guidance documents and to implement the further requirements set forth in section 4 of Executive Order 13891. The interim final rule sets out procedures the Department will follow with respect to its guidance documents. These include: For all guidance documents, clearly stating that such documents do not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract; for significant guidance documents, providing, with certain exceptions, that the Department will submit such documents for OIRA review and provide a 30-day period for public notice and comment; and establishing procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of guidance documents.
First, this rule provides that the Department will clearly indicate that guidance documents do not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. Guidance documents are intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or with respect to agency policies or practices.
Second, this rule provides that the Department will submit for review by OIRA all significant guidance documents. When appropriate, the Department plans to seek from OIRA significance determinations for guidance documents in a similar manner as it does for rulemakings. In the event that OIRA determines that a guidance document is significant or economically significant as defined in section 2 of Executive Order 13891, the Department will provide OIRA sufficient time to review the document prior to publishing the guidance document, unless the Department and the OIRA Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrant otherwise. Once OIRA's review is complete, the Department will, absent good cause, provide the public with a notice and comment period of at least 30 days before issuing a final guidance document, and provide a public response addressing major concerns that were raised. In the future, if the Department determines that a category of guidance documents is generally of limited importance to the public or routine, it may, consistent with section 4(b) of Executive Order 13891, request a categorical exemption from OIRA review or a presumptive determination that such guidance documents are not significant.
Finally, this rule provides procedures for the public to petition the Department for withdrawal or modification of guidance documents, and each of the Department's bureaus will designate one or more individuals whom members of the public can contact concerning such petitions.
This interim final rule is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, codifying in the CFR the Department's existing procedures and Executive Order 13891's requirements regarding the development, review, and clearance of guidance documents. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), notice and public comment are not required. Nonetheless, while no proposed rule is being issued, comments are solicited from the public on all aspects of this interim final rule, and the Department will consider all public comments received in the development of a subsequent final rule.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is purely an agency procedural rule for the use and management of guidance documents by the Department and does not burden the public. Therefore, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not have any collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Categorical exemptions, Guidance documents, Procedures, Significance determinations.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR part 29 is added to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1512.
As used in this part:
(1) Rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553, or similar statutory provisions;
(2) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a);
(3) Rules of Department organization, procedure, or practice;
(4) Decisions of Department adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554, or similar statutory provisions;
(5) Internal guidance directed to the Department that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or
(6) Internal executive legal advice or legal 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 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, 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) The Department will indicate prominently that each guidance document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.
(b) The Department will comply with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771 and 13777 in issuing guidance documents.
(c)(1) For a significant guidance document, as determined by the Administrator unless the Department and the Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exception from some or all requirements, the Department will:
(i) Provide a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the Department to major concerns raised in comments, except when the Department for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;
(ii) Seek approval on a non-delegable basis by the Secretary or by a Department component head appointed by the President, before issuance; and
(iii) Submit the significant guidance document for review by OIRA under Executive Order 12866 before issuance.
(2) This section does not apply to pre-enforcement rulings.
(3) This section does not apply to any document that falls within a class which the Administrator or the Administrator's designee has determined is exempt from consideration as significant guidance documents.
(a) The public may petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document by submitting such petition through the designated website: Department of Commerce:
(b) The Department or the relevant individual bureau will provide a response to such petition within 90 days of receipt of the petition.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, nothing in this part shall apply:
(a) To any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than guidance documents involving procurement or the import or export of articles and services subject to the Department's jurisdiction);
(b) To any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;
(c) To any investigation of misconduct by a Department employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against a Department employee;
(d) To any document or information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b); or
(e) In any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this section, or any part of this part, would, in the judgment of the Secretary, undermine the national security.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Order addressing clarification and arguments raised on rehearing.
In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) acknowledges a request for clarification of Order No. 862 or, in the alternative, rehearing of that Order. Order No. 862 amended the Commission's regulations to require that the filings and submissions to be
The order addressing clarification is effective September 28, 2020.
Christopher Cook, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8102,
1. In Order No. 862, the Commission amended its regulations to require that any filings and submissions to be delivered to the Commission, other than by the United States Postal Service (USPS), should be sent to the Commission's off-site security screening facility.
2. Pursuant to
3. The Commission's prior regulations provided that filers should send hard-copy submissions directly to the Commission's principal office, which is located at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. In Order No. 862, the Commission determined that sending hard-copy (including hand-delivered) submissions, other than by USPS, to an off-site facility for security screening and processing, prior to being delivered to the Commission's principal office, would better protect the safety of the Commission, its employees, and the public. The revised regulations still permitted USPS mail to be sent directly to the Commission's headquarters.
4. Moreover, the Commission determined that Order No. 862 would not affect the public's ability to make timely filings. The Commission reiterated that the public is strongly encouraged to submit filings and submissions electronically, through the Commission's eFiling application, at
5. Spiegel seeks clarification as to whether the Commission will establish “a legally valid back-up to electronic filing . . . in the event the eFiling system experiences an unexpected malfunction on the day a filing is due.”
6. As an alternative to the Commission providing clarification, Spiegel requests rehearing, asserting that the Commission erred, in Order No. 862, in three aspects. First, Spiegel argues that the Commission erred in determining that the final rule would not “affect the public's ability to make timely filings.” Second, Spiegel states that the Commission did not adequately consider the implication of changing the filing deadline for hand-deliveries from 5:00 p.m. ET to 3:30 p.m. ET. Finally, Spiegel notes that the Commission erred in concluding that the final rule was the best option for balancing physical security against the ability of parties to make timely filings.
7. In response to Spiegel's request for clarification, we clarify the practice that the Commission currently uses (and will continue to use) if a filer experiences a Commission eFiling system malfunction
8. Specifically, should an entity attempt to make a filing during a Commission eFiling system malfunction, the filer shall email OSEC at
9. Importantly, however, a filer's email informing OSEC of an eFiling malfunction does not itself constitute a formal submission of the filing and will not be processed as such. If the eFiling system error is not corrected in a manner that permits filing by 5:00 p.m. on the date the filing was attempted, the filer must also comply with the following steps. In addition to notifying OSEC by email, the filer must, at the earliest possible time on the next business day, either: (1) Formally submit the filing electronically through the eFiling system;
10. In sum, we note that, should an entity attempt to make a filing during a Commission eFiling system malfunction, in order for a filing to be deemed timely made, the filer must: (i) Notify OSEC by email containing the evidence of a timely attempt to file as outlined in paragraph 8 above;
11. Given that the process outlined above addresses Spiegel's principal concern, we do not address Spiegel's proposed approaches to ensuring the timely submission of filings in the event of an eFiling system malfunction. For the same reason, we do not address Spiegel's alternative request for rehearing.
12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
15.
In response to Spiegel's request for clarification or, in the alternative, request for rehearing, Order No. 862 is hereby modified and the result sustained, as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
Department of State.
Temporary final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to update defense trade policy toward the Republic of Cyprus (Cyprus) by temporarily removing prohibitions on exports, reexports, retransfers, and temporary imports of non-lethal defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Cyprus. On June 2, 2020 the Secretary of State, exercising authority under section 1250A(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and section 205(d) of the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Act as delegated from the President, determined that it was essential to the national security interest of the United States to waive the limitations on non-lethal defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Cyprus. The waiver is effective for one fiscal year. This amendment reflects that waiver.
This temporary rule is effective on October 1, 2020, and expires on September 30, 2021, unless subsequently extended.
Sarah Heidema, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2809, or email
Section 1250A(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92) and section 205(d) of the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Act (Div. J., Pub. L. 116-94) provide that the policy of denial for exports, reexports, or transfers of defense articles on the United States Munitions List (USML) to Cyprus shall remain in place unless the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees not less than annually that: (A) Cyprus is continuing to cooperate with the U.S. Government in anti-money laundering reforms; and (B) Cyprus has taken the
The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a military or foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Since this temporary rule is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of section 553(d) do not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, this temporary rule is effective upon publication.
Since this temporary rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will 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 year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking 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 Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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, distributed impacts, and equity). These executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Because the scope of this temporary rule implements a governmental policy increasing defense trade with a country, and does not impose additional regulatory requirements or obligations on the public, the Department believes costs associated with this temporary rule will be minimal. The Department also finds that any costs of this rulemaking are outweighed by the national security benefits, as described in the preamble.
The Department of State reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This temporary rule is exempt from the provisions of E.O. 13771, since it relates to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.
This temporary rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, title 22, chapter I, subchapter M, part 126 is amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
(r)
(1) The request is made by or on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus;
(2) The end-user of such defense articles or defense services is the Government of the Republic of Cyprus; and
(3) There are no credible human rights concerns.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
This final rule implements civil money penalties authority provided to all Federal health care programs, including the TRICARE program, under the Social Security Act. This authority allows the Secretary of Defense as the administrator of a Federal health care program to impose civil money penalties (CMPs or penalties) as described in section 1128A of the Social Security Act against providers and suppliers who commit fraud and abuse in the TRICARE program. This final rule establishes a program within the DoD to impose CMPs for certain unlawful conduct in the TRICARE program. To the extent applicable, this final rule adopts the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS's) well-established CMP rules and procedures. The program to impose CMPs within TRICARE is called the Military Health Care Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program. The Defense Health Agency (DHA) shall be the agency within the DoD responsible for administering the Military Health Care Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program.
This rule is effective on October 28, 2020.
Michael J. Zleit, at 703-681-6012 or
The DHA, the agency of the DoD responsible for administration of the TRICARE Program, has as its primary mission the support and delivery of an integrated, affordable, and high quality health service to all DoD beneficiaries and in doing so, is a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. In recent years, fraud and abuse has inhibited DHA's mission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for the prosecution of all fraud and abuse in all Federal healthcare programs, including Medicare, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but does not have unlimited resources. DOJ must prioritize cases and is unable to prosecute a large portion of those entities who commit fraud and abuse in the TRICARE Program. Congress has provided Federal departments responsible for a Federal health care program with the authority under section 1128A(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(m)) to initiate administrative proceedings to impose CMPs against those who commit fraud and abuse in their respective Federal health care program. The HHS implemented this authority many years ago and has a well-developed process for imposition of CMPs penalties against those who commit fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program.
This final rule implements the same authority used by HHS under section 1128A(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(m)) to establish a program to initiate administrative proceedings to impose CMPs against those who commit fraud and abuse in the TRICARE Program.
The purpose of this final rule implementing CMP authority under section 1128A of the Social Security Act is to ensure the integrity of TRICARE and make the Government whole for funds lost to fraud and abuse, which is necessary to the delivery of an integrated, affordable, and high quality health service for all DoD beneficiaries.
For the most part, this final rule incorporates the provisions of the May 1, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 18437). A brief description of the provisions of this final rule follow.
This final rule establishes CMP regulations at 32 CFR part 200 to implement authority provided to the DoD under section 1128A of the Social Security Act, as amended. The CMP regulations follow HHS's process and procedure for imposing CMPs, as well as HHS's methodology for calculating the amount of penalties and assessments. Accordingly, the numerical provisions of 32 CFR part 200 directly correspond to HHS's numerical provisions at 42 CFR part 1003. Following this organizational construct, the rule addresses such matters as: Liability for penalties and assessments, determinations regarding the amount of penalties and assessments, CMPs and assessments for false and fraudulent claims and other similar misconduct, penalties and assessments for unlawful kickbacks, procedures for the imposition of CMPs and assessments, judicial review, time limitations for CMPs and assessments, statistical sampling, and appeals.
The specific legal authority authorizing the DoD to establish a program to impose CMPs in the TRICARE Program is provided in section 1128A(m) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(m)]. This provision of law authorizes Federal departments with jurisdiction over a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f)) of the Social Security Act), to impose CMPs as enumerated in section 1128A of the Social Security Act. Some of the CMPs enumerated in section 1128A of the Social Security Act limit applicability to conduct only involving Medicare and Medicaid; therefore, this rule implements all CMP authorities under section 1128A that are not specifically limited to Medicare, Medicaid, or other HHS-exclusive authority.
For over 25 years, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has exercised the authority to impose CMPs, assessments, and exclusions in furtherance of its mission to protect the Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from fraud and abuse. As those programs have changed over the last two decades, HHS-OIG has received new fraud-fighting CMP authorities in response. Section 231 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) expanded the reach of CMPs to include Federal health programs other than those funded by HHS. In 1977, Congress first mandated the exclusion of physicians and other practitioners convicted of program-related crimes from participation in Medicare and Medicaid through the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments, Public Law 95-142 (now codified at section 1128 of the Social Security Act (the SSA)). This was followed in 1981 with Congress enacting the Civil Money Penalties Law (CMPL), Public Law 97-35, section 1128A of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a, to further address health care fraud and abuse. The CMPL authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services
In 1996, Congress expanded the CMPL and the scope of exclusion to apply to all Federal health care programs. Section 231 of HIPAA expanded the reach of certain CMPs to include Federal health programs other than HHS, including specific CMPs that may be implemented to prevent fraud and abuse in the TRICARE Program. The CMPL authorizes the Department or agency head to impose CMPs, assessments, and program exclusions against individuals and entities who submit false or fraudulent or otherwise improper claims for payment under Federal healthcare programs administered by that Department or agency.
Subsequent to HIPAA, Congress expanded CMP authorities to reach additional conduct, such as: (1) Failure to grant an OIG timely access to records, upon reasonable request; (2) ordering or prescribing while excluded when the excluded person knows or should know that the item or service may be paid for by a Federal health care program; (3) making false statements, omissions, or misrepresentations in an enrollment or similar bid or application to participate in a Federal health care program; (4) failure to report and return an overpayment that is known to the person; and (5) making or using a false record or statement that is material to a false or fraudulent claim.
Most recently, in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Congress doubled the maximum amount of penalties and assessments under section 1128A.
The proposed rule titled “Civil Money Penalties and Assessments under the Military Health Care Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program” published in the
TRICARE does not lack experience regarding fraud and abuse. TRICARE has an established, centralized, and well-connected fraud and abuse program within the TRICARE Program.
The DHA and the TRICARE Program validate overpayments independently from the VA. As stated above, the CMP program will not establish the amount to be refunded to the TRICARE Program under the TRICARE Retail Refund Program, but rather will rely on current processes and procedures to establish a final, validated amount. The DHA will provide Demand Letters to Manufacturers notifying them of amounts due.
We are deleting subpart D of the proposed rule, §§ 200.400, 200.410, and 200.420, involving contract organization misconduct from the Military Health Care Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program. TRICARE contracting organizations are structured differently than Medicare, and therefore, subpart D of the proposed rule is largely inapplicable to TRICARE and will not be incorporated into the final rule.
E.O.s 13563 and 12866 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, distribute impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The rule does not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section 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 set forth in these Executive Orders.
This is not an economically significant rule because it does not reach the economic threshold of $100 million or more. This final rule is designed to implement statutory provisions, authorizing the DoD to impose CMPs. The vast majority of providers and Federal health care programs would be minimally impacted, if at all, by this final rule. Accordingly, the aggregate economic effect of these regulations would be significantly less than $100 million.
E.O. 13771 seeks to control costs associated with the government imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and to reduce regulations that impose such costs. Consistent with the analysis in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs guidance on implementing E.O. 13771, this final rule does not involve regulatory costs subject to E.O. 13771.
Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; 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. This final rule is not a major rule, because it does not reach the economic threshold or have other impacts as required under the Congressional Review Act.
The RFA and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, require agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most providers are considered small entities by having revenues of $5 million to $25 million or less in any one year. For purposes of the RFA, most physicians and suppliers are considered small entities. The aggregate effect of implementing a CMP Program within the TRICARE Program would be minimal. In summary, we have concluded that this final rule should not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small providers and that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rulemaking. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of the RFA.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, also requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditures in any one year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $140 million. As indicated above, these final rules implement statutory authority to impose CMPs on claims submitted to the TRICARE Program is a similar manner as implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services in the Medicare Program. It has been determined there are no significant costs associated with the implementation of a CMP Program to impose CMPs on claims submitted to the TRICARE Program that would
This rulemaking does not contain a “collection of information” requirement, and will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
This final rule has been examined for its impact under E.O. 13132, and it does not contain policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Mental health, Mental health parity, Military personnel.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Health care, Health insurance, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Defense amends 32 CFR subchapter M as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55; 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a.
(a)
(b)
(1) Provides for the imposition of civil money penalties and, as applicable, assessments against persons who have committed an act or omission that violates one or more provisions of this part; and
(2) Sets forth the appeal rights of persons subject to a penalty and assessment.
For purposes of this part, with respect to terms not defined in this section but defined in 32 CFR 199.2, the definition in such § 199.2 shall apply. For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) Is a prenatal service or a post-natal well-baby visit or is a specific clinical service covered by TRICARE; and
(2) Is reimbursable in whole or in part by TRICARE as a preventive care service.
(1) The waiver of coinsurance and deductible amounts by a person, if the waiver is not offered as part of any advertisement or solicitation; the person does not routinely waive coinsurance or deductible amounts; and the person waives coinsurance and deductible amounts after determining in good faith that the individual is in financial need or failure by the person to collect coinsurance or deductible amounts after making reasonable collection efforts.
(2) Any permissible practice as specified in section 1128B(b)(3) of the Act or in regulations issued by the Secretary.
(3) Differentials in coinsurance and deductible amounts as part of a benefit plan design (as long as the differentials have been disclosed in writing to all beneficiaries, third party payers and providers), to whom claims are presented.
(4) Incentives given to individuals to promote the delivery of preventive care services where the delivery of such services is not tied (directly or indirectly) to the provision of other services reimbursed in whole or in part by TRICARE, Medicare or an applicable State health care program. Such incentives may include the provision of preventive care, but may not include—
(i) Cash or instruments convertible to cash; or
(ii) An incentive the value of which is disproportionally large in relationship to the value of the preventive care service (
(5) Items or services that improve a beneficiary's ability to obtain items and services payable by TRICARE, and pose a low risk of harm to TRICARE beneficiaries and the TRICARE program by—
(i) Being unlikely to interfere with, or skew, clinical decision making;
(ii) Being unlikely to increase costs to Federal health care programs or beneficiaries through overutilization or inappropriate utilization; and
(iii) Not raising patient safety or quality-of-care concerns.
(6) The offer or transfer of items or services for free or less than fair market value by a person if—
(i) The items or services consist of coupons, rebates, or other rewards from a retailer;
(ii) The items or services are offered or transferred on equal terms available to the general public, regardless of health insurance status; and
(iii) The offer or transfer of the items or services is not tied to the provision of other items or services reimbursed in whole or in part by the program under chapter 55 of title 10, U.S. Code.
(7) The offer or transfer of items or services for free or less than fair market value by a person, if—
(i) The items or services are not offered as part of any advertisement or solicitation;
(ii) The offer or transfer of the items or services is not tied to the provision of other items or services reimbursed in whole or in part by the program under chapter 55 of title 10, U.S. Code;
(iii) There is a reasonable connection between the items or services and the medical care of the individual; and
(iv) The person provides the items or services after determining in good faith that the individual is in financial need.
(a) In any case in which it is determined that more than one person was responsible for a violation described in this part, each such person may be held separately liable for the entire penalty prescribed by this part.
(b) In any case in which it is determined that more than one person was responsible for a violation described in this part, an assessment may be imposed, when authorized, against any one such person or jointly and severally against two or more such persons, but the aggregate amount of the assessments collected may not exceed the amount that could be assessed if only one person was responsible.
(c) Under this part, a principal is liable for penalties and assessments for
The assessment in this part is in lieu of damages sustained by the Department because of the violation.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, in determining the amount of any penalty or assessment in accordance with this part, the DHA will consider the following factors—
(1) The nature and circumstances of the violation;
(2) The degree of culpability of the person against whom a civil money penalty and assessment is proposed. It should be considered an aggravating circumstance if the respondent had actual knowledge where a lower level of knowledge was required to establish liability (
(3) The history of prior offenses. Aggravating circumstances include, if at any time prior to the violation, the individual—or in the case of an entity, the entity itself; any individual who had a direct or indirect ownership or control interest (as defined in section 1124(a)(3) of the Act) in a sanctioned entity at the time the violation occurred and who knew, or should have known, of the violation; or any individual who was an officer or a managing employee (as defined in section 1126(b) of the Act) of such an entity at the time the violation occurred—was held liable for criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions in connection with a program covered by this part or in connection with the delivery of a health care item or service;
(4) Other wrongful conduct. Aggravating circumstances include proof that the individual—or in the case of an entity, the entity itself; any individual who had a direct or indirect ownership or control interest (as defined in section 1124(a)(3) of the Act) in a sanctioned entity at the time the violation occurred and who knew, or should have known, of the violation; or any individual who was an officer or a managing employee (as defined in section 1126(b) of the Act) of such an entity at the time the violation occurred—engaged in wrongful conduct, other than the specific conduct upon which liability is based, relating to a government program or in connection with the delivery of a health care item or service. The statute of limitations governing civil money penalty proceedings does not apply to proof of other wrongful conduct as an aggravating circumstance; and
(5) Such other matters as justice may require. Other circumstances of an aggravating or mitigating nature should be considered if, in the interests of justice, they require either a reduction or an increase in the penalty or assessment to achieve the purposes of this part.
(b)(1) After determining the amount of any penalty and assessment in accordance with this part, the DHA considers the ability of the person to pay the proposed civil money penalty or assessment. The person shall provide, in a time and manner requested by the DHA, sufficient financial documentation, including, but not limited to, audited financial statements, tax returns, and financial disclosure statements, deemed necessary by the DHA to determine the person's ability to pay the penalty or assessment.
(2) If the person requests a hearing in accordance with § 200.2002, the only financial documentation subject to review is that which the person provided to the DHA during the administrative process, unless the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the person from providing the financial documentation to the DHA in the time and manner requested by the DHA prior to the hearing request.
(c) In determining the amount of any penalty and assessment to be imposed under this part the following circumstances are also to be considered—
(1) If there are substantial or several mitigating circumstances, the aggregate amount of the penalty and assessment should be set at an amount sufficiently below the maximum permitted by this part to reflect that fact.
(2) If there are substantial or several aggravating circumstances, the aggregate amount of the penalty and assessment should be set at an amount sufficiently close to or at the maximum permitted by this part to reflect that fact.
(3) Unless there are extraordinary mitigating circumstances, the aggregate amount of the penalty and assessment should not be less than double the approximate amount of damages and costs (as defined by paragraph (e)(2) of this section) sustained by the United States, or any State, as a result of the violation.
(4) The presence of any single aggravating circumstance may justify imposing a penalty and assessment at or close to the maximum even when one or more mitigating factors is present.
(d)(1) The standards set forth in this section are binding, except to the extent that their application would result in imposition of an amount that would exceed limits imposed by the United States Constitution.
(2) The amount imposed will not be less than the approximate amount required to fully compensate the United States, for its damages and costs, tangible and intangible, including, but not limited to, the costs attributable to the investigation, prosecution, and administrative review of the case.
(3) Nothing in this part limits the authority of the Department or the DHA to settle any issue or case as provided by § 200.1530 or to compromise any penalty and assessment as provided by § 200.1550.
(4) Penalties and assessments imposed under this part are in addition to any other penalties, assessments, or other sanctions prescribed by law.
The DHA is delegated authority from the Secretary to impose civil money penalties and, as applicable, assessments against any person who has violated one or more provisions of this part. The delegation of authority includes all powers to impose and compromise civil money penalties, assessments under section 1128A of the Act.
(a) The DHA may impose a penalty, assessment against any person who it determines has knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, a claim that was for—
(1) An item or service that the person knew, or should have known, was not provided as claimed, including a claim that was part of a pattern or practice of claims based on codes that the person knew, or should have known, would
(2) An item or service for which the person knew, or should have known, that the claim was false or fraudulent;
(3) An item or service furnished during a period in which the person was excluded from participation under 32 CFR 199.9(f) or by another Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Act) to which the claim was presented;
(4) A physician's services (or an item or service) for which the person knew, or should have known, that the individual who furnished (or supervised the furnishing of) the service—
(i) Was not licensed as a physician;
(ii) Was licensed as a physician, but such license had been obtained through a misrepresentation of material fact (including cheating on an examination required for licensing); or
(iii) Represented to the patient at the time the service was furnished that the physician was certified by a medical specialty board when he or she was not so certified; or
(5) An item or service that a person knew, or should have known was not medically necessary, and which is part of a pattern of such claims.
(b) The DHA may impose a penalty and, where authorized, an assessment against any person who it determines—
(1) Arranges or contracts (by employment or otherwise) with an individual or entity that the person knows, or should know, is excluded from participation in Federal health care programs for the provision of items or services for which payment may be made under such a program;
(2) Orders or prescribes a medical or other item or service during a period in which the person was excluded from a Federal health care program, in the case when the person knows, or should know, that a claim for such medical or other item or service will be made under such a program;
(3) Knowingly makes, or causes to be made, any false statement, omission, or misrepresentation of a material fact in any application, bid, or contract to participate or enroll as a provider of services or a supplier under a Federal health care program;
(4) Knows of an overpayment and does not report and return the overpayment in accordance with section 1128J(d) of the Act;
(5) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim for payment for items and services furnished under a Federal health care program; or
(6) Fails to grant timely access to records, documents, and other material or data in any medium (including electronically stored information and any tangible thing), upon reasonable request, to the OIG, for the purpose of audits, investigations, evaluations, or other OIG statutory functions. Such failure to grant timely access means:
(i) Except when the OIG reasonably believes that the requested material is about to be altered or destroyed, the failure to produce or make available for inspection and copying the requested material upon reasonable request or to provide a compelling reason why they cannot be produced, by the deadline specified in the OIG's written request; and
(ii) When the OIG has reason to believe that the requested material is about to be altered or destroyed, the failure to provide access to the requested material at the time the request is made.
(a)
(2) For each individual violation of § 200.200(b)(1), the DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $20,504 for each separately billable or non-separately-billable item or service provided, furnished, ordered, or prescribed by an excluded individual or entity.
(3) The DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $100,522 for each false statement, omission, or misrepresentation of a material fact in violation of § 200.200(b)(3).
(4) The DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $100,522 for each false record or statement in violation of § 200.200(b)(5).
(5) The DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $20,504 for each item or service related to an overpayment that is not reported and returned in accordance with section 1128J(d) of the Act in violation of § 200.200(b)(4).
(6) The DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $30,757 for each day of failure to grant timely access in violation of § 200.200(b)(6).
(b)
(2) For violations of § 200.200(b)(1), the DHA may impose an assessment of not more than 3 times—
(i) The amount claimed for each separately billable item or service provided, furnished, ordered, or prescribed by an excluded individual or entity; or
(ii) The total costs (including salary, benefits, taxes, and other money or items of value) related to the excluded individual or entity incurred by the person that employs, contracts with, or otherwise arranges for an excluded individual or entity to provide, furnish, order, or prescribe a non-separately-billable item or service.
(3) For violations of § 200.200(b)(3), the DHA may impose an assessment of not more than 3 times the total amount claimed for each item or service for which payment was made based upon the application containing the false statement, omission, or misrepresentation of material fact.
In considering the factors listed in § 200.140—
(a) It should be considered a mitigating circumstance if all the items or services or violations included in the action brought under this part were of the same type and occurred within a short period of time, there were few such items or services or violations, and the total amount claimed or requested for such items or services was less than $5,000.
(b) Aggravating circumstances include—
(1) The violations were of several types or occurred over a lengthy period of time;
(2) There were many such items or services or violations (or the nature and circumstances indicate a pattern of claims or requests for payment for such items or services or a pattern of violations);
(3) The amount claimed or requested for such items or services, or the amount
(4) The violation resulted, or could have resulted, in patient harm, premature discharge, or a need for additional services or subsequent hospital admission; or
(5) The amount or type of financial, ownership, or control interest or the degree of responsibility a person has in an entity was substantial with respect to an action brought under § 200.200(b)(3).
The DHA may impose a penalty and an assessment against any person who it determines in accordance with this part has violated section 1128B(b) of the Act by unlawfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for the referral of business paid for, in whole or in part, by TRICARE/CHAMPUS.
(a)
(b)
In considering the factors listed in § 200.140:
(a) It should be considered a mitigating circumstance if all the items, services, or violations included in the action brought under this part were of the same type and occurred within a short period of time; there were few such items, services, or violations; and the total amount claimed or requested for such items or services was less than $5,000.
(b) Aggravating circumstances include—
(1) The violations were of several types or occurred over a lengthy period of time;
(2) There were many such items, services, or violations (or the nature and circumstances indicate a pattern of claims or requests for payment for such items or services or a pattern of violations);
(3) The amount claimed or requested for such items or services or the amount of the remuneration was $50,000 or more; or
(4) The violation resulted, or could have resulted, in harm to the patient, a premature discharge, or a need for additional services or subsequent hospital admission.
(a) If the DHA proposes a penalty and, when applicable, an assessment, as applicable, in accordance with this part, the DHA must serve on the respondent, in any manner authorized by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written notice of the DHA's intent to impose a penalty and if applicable an assessment. The notice will include—
(1) Reference to the statutory basis for the penalty and the assessment;
(2) A description of the violation for which the penalty, and assessment are proposed (except in cases in which the DHA is relying upon statistical sampling in accordance with § 200.1580, in which case the notice shall describe those claims and requests for payment constituting the sample upon which the DHA is relying and will briefly describe the statistical sampling technique used by the DHA);
(3) The reason why such violation subjects the respondent to a penalty, and an assessment;
(4) The amount of the proposed penalty and assessment (where applicable);
(5) Any factors and circumstances described in this part that were considered when determining the amount of the proposed penalty and assessment; and
(6) Instructions for responding to the notice, including—
(i) A specific statement of the respondent's right to a hearing; and
(ii) A statement that failure to request a hearing within 60 days permits the imposition of the proposed penalty, assessment, without right of appeal.
(b) Any person upon whom the DHA has proposed the imposition of a penalty, and/or an assessment, may appeal such proposed penalty, and/or assessment to the Departmental Appeals Board in accordance with § 200.2002. The provisions of subpart P of this part govern such appeals.
(c) If the respondent fails, within the time period permitted, to exercise his or her right to a hearing under this section, any penalty, and/or assessment becomes final.
If the respondent does not request a hearing within 60 days after the notice prescribed by § 200.1500(a) is received, as determined by § 200.2002(c), by the respondent, the DHA may impose the proposed penalty and assessment, or any less severe penalty and assessment. The DHA shall notify the respondent in any manner authorized by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of any penalty and assessment that have been imposed and of the means by which the respondent may satisfy the judgment. The respondent has no right to appeal a penalty, an assessment with respect to which he or she has not made a timely request for a hearing under § 200.2002.
(a) Where a final determination pertaining to the respondent's liability for acts that violate this part has been rendered in any proceeding in which the respondent was a party and had an opportunity to be heard, the respondent shall be bound by such determination in any proceeding under this part.
(b) In a proceeding under this part, a person is estopped from denying the essential elements of the criminal offense if the proceeding—
(1) Is against a person who has been convicted (whether upon a verdict after trial or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere) of a Federal crime charging fraud or false statements; and
(2) Involves the same transactions as in the criminal action.
The DHA has exclusive authority to settle any issues or case without consent of the ALJ.
(a) Section 1128A(e) of the Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of a penalty and an assessment that has
(b) A respondent must exhaust all administrative appeal procedures established by the Secretary or required by law before a respondent may bring an action in Federal court, as provided in section 1128A(e) of the Social Security Act, concerning any penalty and assessment imposed pursuant to this part.
(c) Administrative remedies are exhausted when a decision becomes final in accordance with § 200.2021(j).
(a) Once a determination by the Secretary has become final, collection of any penalty and assessment will be the responsibility of the Defense Health Agency.
(b) A penalty or an assessment imposed under this part may be compromised by the DHA and may be recovered in a civil action brought in the United States district court for the district where the claim was presented or where the respondent resides.
(c) The amount of penalty or assessment, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any sum then or later owing by the United States Government or a State agency to the person against whom the penalty or assessment has been assessed.
(d) Matters that were raised, or that could have been raised, in a hearing before an ALJ or in an appeal under section 1128A(e) of the Social Security Act may not be raised as a defense in a civil action by the United States to collect a penalty or assessment under this part.
Whenever a penalty and/or an assessment becomes final, the following organizations and entities will be notified about such action and the reasons for it: Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Office of Inspector General, the appropriate State or local medical or professional association; the appropriate quality improvement organization; as appropriate, the State agency that administers each State health care program; the appropriate TRICARE Contractor; the appropriate State or local licensing agency or organization (including the Medicare and Medicaid State survey agencies); and the long-term-care ombudsman.
No action under this part will be entertained unless commenced, in accordance with § 200.1500(a), within 6 years from the date on which the violation occurred.
(a) In meeting the burden of proof in § 200.2015, the DHA may introduce the results of a statistical sampling study as evidence of the number and amount of claims and/or requests for payment, as described in this part, that were presented, or caused to be presented, by the respondent. Such a statistical sampling study, if based upon an appropriate sampling and computed by valid statistical methods, shall constitute prima facie evidence of the number and amount of claims or requests for payment, as described in this part.
(b) Once the DHA has made a prima facie case, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the burden of production shall shift to the respondent to produce evidence reasonably calculated to rebut the findings of the statistical sampling study. The DHA will then be given the opportunity to rebut this evidence.
(c) Where the DHA establishes a number and amount of claims subject to penalties using a statistical sampling study, the DHA may use the results of the study to extrapolate a total amount of overpaid funds to be collected pursuant to 32 CFR 199.11.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(a) A party sanctioned under any criteria specified in this part may request a hearing before an ALJ.
(b) In civil money penalty cases, the parties to the proceeding will consist of the respondent and the DHA.
(c) The request for a hearing will be made in writing to the DAB; signed by the petitioner or respondent, or by his or her attorney; and sent by certified mail. The request must be filed within 60 days after the notice, provided in accordance with § 200.1500, is received by the petitioner or respondent. For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the notice letter will be presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary.
(d) The request for a hearing will contain a statement as to the specific issues or findings of fact and conclusions of law in the notice letter with which the petitioner or respondent disagrees, and the basis for his or her contention that the specific issues or findings and conclusions were incorrect.
(e) The ALJ will dismiss a hearing request where—
(1) The petitioner's or the respondent's hearing request is not filed in a timely manner;
(2) The petitioner or respondent withdraws his or her request for a hearing;
(3) The petitioner or respondent abandons his or her request for a hearing; or
(4) The petitioner's or respondent's hearing request fails to raise any issue which may properly be addressed in a hearing.
(a) Except as otherwise limited by this part, all parties may—
(1) Be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney;
(2) Participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
(3) Conduct discovery of documents as permitted by this part;
(4) Agree to stipulations of fact or law which will be made part of the record;
(5) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
(6) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
(7) Present oral arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
(8) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing.
(b) Fees for any services performed on behalf of a party by an attorney are not subject to the provisions of section 206 of title II of the Act, which authorizes the Secretary to specify or limit these fees.
(a) The ALJ will conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, maintain order, and assure that a record of the proceeding is made.
(b) The ALJ has the authority to—
(1) Set and change the date, time, and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
(2) Continue or recess the hearing in whole or in part for a reasonable period of time;
(3) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
(4) Administer oaths and affirmations;
(5) Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses at hearings and the production of documents at or in relation to hearings;
(6) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
(7) Regulate the scope and timing of documentary discovery as permitted by this part;
(8) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives, parties, and witnesses;
(9) Examine witnesses;
(10) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence;
(11) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
(12) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact; and
(13) Conduct any conference, argument or hearing in person or, upon agreement of the parties, by telephone.
(c) The ALJ does not have the authority to—
(1) Find invalid or refuse to follow Federal statutes or regulations or secretarial delegations of authority;
(2) Enter an order in the nature of a directed verdict;
(3) Compel settlement negotiations;
(4) Enjoin any act of the Secretary; or
(5) Review the exercise of discretion by the DHA to impose a CMP or assessment under this part.
No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) will communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This section does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
(a) The ALJ will schedule at least one prehearing conference, and may schedule additional prehearing conferences as appropriate, upon reasonable notice to the parties.
(b) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following—
(1) Simplification of the issues;
(2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement;
(3) Stipulations and admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents;
(4) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record;
(5) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of other parties) and written argument;
(6) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
(7) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
(8) Discovery of documents as permitted by this part;
(9) The time and place for the hearing;
(10) Such other matters as may tend to encourage the fair, just and expeditious disposition of the proceedings; and
(11) Potential settlement of the case.
(c) The ALJ will issue an order containing the matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
(a) A party may make a request to another party for production of documents for inspection and copying which are relevant and material to the issues before the ALJ.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term documents includes information, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained in this section will be interpreted to require the creation of a document, except that requested data stored in an electronic data storage system will be produced in a form accessible to the requesting party.
(c) Requests for documents, requests for admissions, written interrogatories, depositions, and any forms of discovery, other than those permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, are not authorized.
(d) This section will not be construed to require the disclosure of interview reports or statements obtained by any party, or on behalf of any party, of persons who will not be called as witnesses by that party, or analyses and summaries prepared in conjunction with the investigation or litigation of the case, or any otherwise privileged documents.
(e)(1) When a request for production of documents has been received, within 30 days, the party receiving that request will either fully respond to the request, or state that the request is being objected to and the reasons for that objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part will be specified. Upon receiving any objections, the party seeking production may then, within 30 days or any other time frame set by the ALJ, file a motion for an order compelling discovery. (The party receiving a request for production may also file a motion for protective order any time prior to the date the production is due.)
(2) The ALJ may grant a motion for protective order or deny a motion for an order compelling discovery if the ALJ finds that the discovery sought—
(i) Is irrelevant;
(ii) Is unduly costly or burdensome;
(iii) Will unduly delay the proceeding; or
(iv) Seeks privileged information.
(3) The ALJ may extend any of the time frames set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(4) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
(a) At least 15 days before the hearing, the ALJ will order the parties to exchange witness lists, copies of prior written statements of proposed witnesses, and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony in accordance with § 200.2016.
(b)(1) If at any time a party objects to the proposed admission of evidence not exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ will determine whether the failure to comply with paragraph (a) of this section should result in the exclusion of such evidence.
(2) Unless the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances justified the failure to timely exchange the information listed under paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ must exclude from the party's case-in-chief:
(i) The testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list; and
(ii) Any exhibit not provided to the opposing party as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) If the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances existed, the ALJ must then determine whether the admission of such evidence would cause substantial prejudice to the objecting party. If the ALJ finds that there is no substantial prejudice, the evidence may be admitted. If the ALJ finds that there is substantial prejudice, the ALJ may
(c) Unless another party objects within a reasonable period of time prior to the hearing, documents exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section will be deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
(a) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may make a motion requesting the ALJ to issue a subpoena if the appearance and testimony are reasonably necessary for the presentation of a party's case.
(b) A subpoena requiring the attendance of an individual in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may also require the individual (whether or not the individual is a party) to produce evidence authorized under § 200.2007 at or prior to the hearing.
(c) When a subpoena is served by a respondent or petitioner on a particular individual or particular office of the DHA, the DHA may comply by designating any of its representatives to appear and testify.
(d) A party seeking a subpoena will file a written motion not less than 30 days before the date fixed for the hearing, unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown. Such request will:
(1) Specify any evidence to be produced;
(2) Designate the witnesses; and
(3) Describe the address and location with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
(e) The subpoena will specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any evidence the witness is to produce.
(f) Within 15 days after the written motion requesting issuance of a subpoena is served, any party may file an opposition or other response.
(g) If the motion requesting issuance of a subpoena is granted, the party seeking the subpoena will serve it by delivery to the individual named, or by certified mail addressed to such individual at his or her last dwelling place or principal place of business.
(h) The individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within 10 days after service.
(i) The exclusive remedy for contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena duly served upon, any person is specified in section 205(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(e)).
The party requesting a subpoena will pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage will accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the DHA, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
(a)
(2) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding will contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the case number, and a designation of the paper, such as motion to quash subpoena.
(3) Every pleading and paper will be signed by, and will contain the address and telephone number of the party or the person on whose behalf the paper was filed, or his or her representative.
(4) Papers are considered filed when they are mailed.
(b)
(c)
(a) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued under this part, the time begins with the day following the act, event or default, and includes the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government, in which event it includes the next business day.
(b) When the period of time allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays observed by the Federal Government will be excluded from the computation.
(c) Where a document has been served or issued by placing it in the mail, an additional 5 days will be added to the time permitted for any response. This paragraph (c) does not apply to requests for hearing under § 200.2002.
(a) An application to the ALJ for an order or ruling will be by motion. Motions will state the relief sought, the authority relied upon and the facts alleged, and will be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
(b) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions will be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
(c) Within 10 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
(d) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
(e) The ALJ will make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
(a) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or attorney, for failing to comply with an order or procedure, for failing to defend an action or for other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing. Such sanctions will reasonably relate to the severity and nature of the failure or misconduct. Such sanction may include—
(1) In the case of refusal to provide or permit discovery under the terms of this part, drawing negative factual inferences or treating such refusal as an admission by deeming the matter, or certain facts, to be established;
(2) Prohibiting a party from introducing certain evidence or otherwise supporting a particular claim or defense;
(3) Striking pleadings, in whole or in part;
(4) Staying the proceedings;
(5) Dismissal of the action;
(6) Entering a decision by default; and
(7) Refusing to consider any motion or other action that is not filed in a timely manner.
(b) In civil money penalty cases commenced under section 1128A of the
(a) The ALJ will conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the petitioner or respondent should be found liable under this part.
(b) With regard to the burden of proof in civil money penalty cases under this part—
(1) The respondent or petitioner, as applicable, bears the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses and any mitigating circumstances; and
(2) The DHA bears the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to all other issues.
(c) The burden of persuasion will be judged by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) The hearing will be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
(e)(1) A hearing under this part is not limited to specific items and information set forth in the notice letter to the petitioner or respondent. Subject to the 15-day requirement under § 200.2008, additional items and information, including aggravating or mitigating circumstances that arose or became known subsequent to the issuance of the notice letter, may be introduced by either party during its case-in-chief unless such information or items are—
(i) Privileged; or
(ii) Deemed otherwise inadmissible under § 200.2017.
(2) After both parties have presented their cases, evidence may be admitted on rebuttal even if not previously exchanged in accordance with § 200.2008.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing will be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
(b) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony (other than expert testimony) may be admitted in the form of a written statement. The ALJ may, at his or her discretion, admit prior sworn testimony of experts which has been subject to adverse examination, such as a deposition or trial testimony. Any such written statement must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of such witnesses, in a manner that allows sufficient time for other parties to subpoena such witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing will be exchanged as provided in § 200.2008.
(c) The ALJ will exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:
(1) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth;
(2) Avoid repetition or needless consumption of time; and
(3) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(d) The ALJ will permit the parties to conduct such cross-examination of witnesses as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
(e) The ALJ may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This does not authorize exclusion of—
(1) A party who is an individual;
(2) In the case of a party that is not an individual, an officer or employee of the party appearing for the entity pro se or designated as the party's representative; or
(3) An individual whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including an individual engaged in assisting the attorney for the Inspector General (IG).
(a) The ALJ will determine the admissibility of evidence.
(b) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ will not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, for example, to exclude unreliable evidence.
(c) The ALJ must exclude irrelevant or immaterial evidence.
(d) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
(e) Although relevant, evidence must be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
(f) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement made in this action will be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(g) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts other than those at issue in the instant case is admissible in order to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, preparation, identity, lack of mistake, or existence of a scheme. Such evidence is admissible regardless of whether the crimes, wrongs, or acts occurred during the statute of limitations period applicable to the acts which constitute the basis for liability in the case, and regardless of whether they were referenced in the DHA's notice sent in accordance with § 200.1500.
(h) The ALJ will permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
(i) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record will be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
(j) The ALJ may not consider evidence regarding the issue of willingness and ability to enter into and successfully complete a corrective action plan when such evidence pertains to matters occurring after the submittal of the case to the Secretary. The determination regarding the appropriateness of any corrective action plan is not reviewable.
(a) The hearing will be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts may be obtained following the hearing from the ALJ.
(b) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the ALJ and the Secretary.
(c) The record may be inspected and copied (upon payment of a reasonable fee) by any person, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
(d) For good cause, the ALJ may order appropriate redactions made to the record.
The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ will fix the time for filing such briefs which are not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. Such briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
(a) The ALJ will issue an initial decision, based only on the record, which will contain findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(b) The ALJ may affirm, increase or reduce the penalties, assessment proposed or imposed by the DHA.
(c) The ALJ will issue the initial decision to all parties within 120 days after the time for submission of post-hearing briefs and reply briefs, if permitted, has expired. The decision will be accompanied by a statement describing the right of any party to file a notice of appeal with the DAB and instructions for how to file such appeal. If the ALJ fails to meet the deadline contained in this paragraph (c), he or she will notify the parties of the reason for the delay and will set a new deadline.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, unless the initial decision is appealed to the DAB, it will be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ serves the parties with a copy of the decision. If service is by mail, the date of service will be deemed to be 5 days from the date of mailing.
(e) If an extension of time within which to appeal the initial decision is granted under § 200.2021(a), except as provided in § 200.2022(a), the initial decision will become final and binding on the day following the end of the extension period.
(a) Any party may appeal the initial decision of the ALJ to the DAB by filing a notice of appeal with the DAB within 30 days of the date of service of the initial decision. The DAB may extend the initial 30 day period for a period of time not to exceed 30 days if a party files with the DAB a request for an extension within the initial 30 day period and shows good cause.
(b) If a party files a timely notice of appeal with the DAB, the ALJ will forward the record of the proceeding to the DAB.
(c) A notice of appeal will be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions. Any party may file a brief in opposition to exceptions, which may raise any relevant issue not addressed in the exceptions, within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief. The DAB may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
(d) There is no right to appear personally before the DAB or to appeal to the DAB any interlocutory ruling by the ALJ, except on the timeliness of a filing of the hearing request.
(e) The DAB will not consider any issue not raised in the parties' briefs, nor any issue in the briefs that could have been raised before the ALJ but was not.
(f) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DAB that additional evidence not presented at such hearing is relevant and material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence at such hearing, the DAB may remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence.
(g) The DAB may decline to review the case, or may affirm, increase, reduce, reverse, or remand any penalty or assessment determined by the ALJ.
(h) The standard of review on a disputed issue of fact is whether the initial decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. The standard of review on a disputed issue of law is whether the initial decision is erroneous.
(i) Within 120 days after the time for submission of briefs and reply briefs, if permitted, has expired, the DAB will issue to each party to the appeal a copy of the DAB's decision and a statement describing the right of any petitioner or respondent who is found liable to seek judicial review.
(j) Except with respect to any penalty or assessment remanded by the ALJ, the DAB's decision, including a decision to decline review of the initial decision, becomes final and binding 60 days after the date on which the DAB serves the parties with a copy of the decision. If service is by mail, the date of service will be deemed to be 5 days from the date of mailing.
(k)(1) Any petition for judicial review must be filed within 60 days after the DAB serves the parties with a copy of the decision. If service is by mail, the date of service will be deemed to be 5 days from the date of mailing.
(2) In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), a copy of any petition for judicial review filed in any U.S. Court of Appeals challenging a final action of the DAB will be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the General Counsel of the DHA. The petition copy will be time-stamped by the clerk of the court when the original is filed with the court.
(3) If the General Counsel of the DHA receives two or more petitions within 10 days after the DAB issues its decision, the General Counsel of the DHA will notify the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of any petitions that were received within the 10-day period.
(a) In a CMP case under section 1128A of the Act, the filing of a respondent's request for review by the DAB will automatically stay the effective date of the ALJ's decision.
(b)(1) After the DAB renders a decision in a CMP case, pending judicial review, the respondent may file a request for stay of the effective date of any penalty or assessment with the ALJ. The request must be accompanied by a copy of the notice of appeal filed with the Federal court. The filing of such a request will automatically act to stay the effective date of the penalty or assessment until such time as the ALJ rules upon the request.
(2) The ALJ may not grant a respondent's request for stay of any penalty or assessment unless the respondent posts a bond or provides other adequate security.
(3) The ALJ will rule upon a respondent's request for stay within 10 days of receipt.
No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in any act done or omitted by the ALJ or by any of the parties, including Federal representatives or TRICARE contractors is ground for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing an otherwise appropriate ruling or order or act, unless refusal to take such action appears to the ALJ or the DAB inconsistent with substantial justice. The ALJ and the DAB at every stage of the proceeding will disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for comments.
The Office of the Secretary proposes to exempt records maintained in CIG-26, “Case Control System—Investigative.” The System of Records Notice was published in the
The rule will be effective on December 7, 2020 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods.
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Anna Rivera, 703-699-5680.
The Office of the Secretary proposes to exempt records maintained in CIG-26, “Case Control System-Investigative,” from subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), and (e)(8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2).
This direct final rule adds to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) exemptions found in 32 CFR 310.28. This exemption rule will allow the DoD OIG to efficiently and effectively implement the DoD Inspector General program by exempting certain records from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
The DoD OIG maintains this system of records in order to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The DoD OIG is statutorily directed to conduct and supervise investigations relating to the programs and operations of the DoD; to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of such programs and operations; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in such programs and operations. Accordingly, the records in this system are used in the course of investigating individuals suspected of administrative or criminal misconduct.
It has been previously determined that all Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not: (1) 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; (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 set forth in these Executive Orders.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.
It has been determined that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
It has been certified that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
It has been determined that the Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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.
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552a.
(c) * * *
(9)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(B) From subsection (d), because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of certain records contained in this system. Granting access to information that is properly classified pursuant to executive order may cause damage to national security. Additionally, compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an investigation of the fact and nature of the investigation and/or the investigative interest of law enforcement agencies. It can also compromise sensitive information related to national security; interfere with the overall law enforcement process by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of the subject; could identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigation or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses. Amendment of open or active investigations would interfere with ongoing law enforcement investigations and analysis activities, and impose an excessive administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to determine what information is relevant and necessary at an early stage in a given investigation, and because DoD OIG and other agencies may not always know what information about a known or suspected offender may be relevant to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an operational response. The nature of the criminal and/or administrative law enforcement investigative functions creates unique problems in prescribing a specific parameter and a particular case with respect to what information is relevant or necessary. Also, due to the DoD OIG's close liaison and working relationships with other Federal, State, local and foreign country criminal and administrative law enforcement agencies, information may be received which may relate to a case under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. The maintenance of this information may be necessary to provide leads for appropriate criminal and administrative law enforcement purposes and to establish patterns of activity which may relate to the jurisdiction of other cooperating agencies.
(D) From subsection (e)(2) because it is not always in the best interest of law enforcement to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from an investigative subject. Requiring the collection of information to the greatest extent practicable directly from an investigative subject would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(E) From subsection (e)(3) because supplying an individual with a form containing a Privacy Act Statement would tend to inhibit cooperation by many individuals involved in a criminal investigation. The effect would be somewhat adverse to established investigative methods and techniques.
(F) From subsections (e)(4)(G) through (I) because this system of records is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(G) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the nature of criminal law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light.
(H) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this provision could present a serious impediment to criminal law enforcement investigations by revealing investigative techniques, procedures, and existence of sensitive information and/or confidential sources.
(I) To the extent that exemptions have been established from other provisions of the Privacy Act, the civil remedies provisions of subsection (g) are inapplicable. The nature of criminal law enforcement investigations and the utilization of authorized exemptions should not increase the Department's exposure to civil litigation under the Privacy Act.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
This regulation is effective September 28, 2020. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 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-2017-0335, 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
Anne Overstreet, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2017-0335 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 November 27, 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-2017-0335, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
An analytical method is not required because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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, 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 tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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.
Residues of
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and
The rule amendments contained in 47 CFR 1.949, 1.950, 1.953, 22.317, 22.947, 27.14(e), 27.14(q)(7), 27.14(r)(6), 27.14(s)(6), 27.14(t)(6), 27.17, 30.106, and 74.632(g) published at 82 FR 41530, September 1, 2017, and 47 CFR 90.175(b)(4) published at 81 FR 2106, January 15, 2016, are effective on September 28, 2020.
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on June 4, 2020, and June 15, 2020, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Second Report and Order, FCC 17-105, published at 82 FR 41530, September 1, 2017, and the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 15-103, published at 81 FR 2106, January 15, 2016. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0798 and 3060-0800. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection requirements.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on June 4, 2020, and June 15, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid 3060-0798 and 3060-0800. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
In addition, on August 10, 2015, the Commission released a Report and Order in Amendment of Sections 90.20(d) and 90.265 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Vehicular Repeater Units, FCC 15-103, in which it decided to adopt certain changes to the rules governing six remote control and telemetry channels in the VHF band. The Commission decided to allow the licensing and operation of vehicular repeater systems (VRS) and other mobile repeaters on these channels. Of significance for this collection, the Commission decided that the only way to accommodate both telemetry and VRS on these frequencies is through frequency coordination to both ensure geographic separation as well as minimizing the risk of commingling voice and data operations. In particular, the Commission adopted new section 90.175(b)(4), which prescribes the obligations of frequency coordinators and the ability of applicants to submit written concurrences from potentially affected incumbent licensees as part of the Form 601 filing.
In addition, § 1.950(d) requires applicants for geographic partitioning, spectrum disaggregation, or a combination of both, to include, if applicable, a certification with their partial assignment of authorization application stating which party will meet any incumbent relocation requirements, except as otherwise stated in service-specific rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this
Effective September 28, 2020.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact John Cobb,
This is a summary of the Commission's
In this
In October 2019, the Commission issued a
We conclude that eliminating these rules is appropriate for four reasons. First, the apparent rationale for these rules—promoting a fledgling broadcast industry and preserving scarce industrial resources—no longer applies in today's marketplace. FM and TV broadcasting are firmly established industries, and there is no evidence in the record of any shortage of materials and equipment for the construction of new infrastructure. Additionally, the current trend toward co-location of communications towers on antenna farms and the widespread availability of tower capacity for lease from numerous tower companies make it less likely that
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database on January 8, 2018, about 11,372 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated that there are 6,706 licensed FM commercial stations. We note the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,197. However, the Commission does not compile or have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, to be
The Commission has estimated the number of licensed full power commercial television stations to be 1,368. Of this total, 1,257 stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on January 8, 2018, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 390. These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.
There are also 386 Class A stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
The
Accordingly,
Communications equipment, Radio, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) proposes to amend the test procedures for walk-in freezers to address an issue affecting hot gas defrost-equipped unit coolers (“hot gas defrost unit coolers”). DOE is proposing to amend the current test procedure regarding hot gas unit coolers consistent with an update to the industry standard that is incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure for walk-in freezer refrigeration systems. Given the upcoming energy conservation standards compliance date of July 10, 2020, DOE is limiting the scope of this proposed rulemaking to expediently address how to test a hot gas defrost unit cooler.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposal no later than December 14, 2020. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Friday, October 2, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of
The docket web page can be found at
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (“WICFs” or “walk-ins”) are included in the list of “covered equipment” for
The following sections discuss DOE's authority generally to establish test procedures for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for WICF refrigeration systems.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA provides specific requirements for determining the R value for certain walk-in components. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)(i)-(iv)) In addition, EPCA required that DOE establish test procedures to measure walk-in energy-use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including walk-ins, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) If the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the
On April 15, 2011, DOE published a final rule to establish test procedures for the principal components that make up a walk-in: Panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. 76 FR 21580 (April 15, 2011). The test procedure for refrigeration systems at Appendix C measures energy using the annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”) metric. Appendix C, Sec. 1. AWEF represents the ratio of the total heat removed from a walk-in, in British thermal units (“Btu”), during a one-year period of usage (not including the heat generated by the operation of a refrigeration system), to the total energy input of the refrigeration system, in watt-hours (“Wh”), during the same period.
On May 13, 2014, DOE revised the existing regulations for walk-ins to allow WICF refrigeration system manufacturers, once certain qualifications are met, to use an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to determine the energy consumption of their products through simulation or modeling. Manufacturers can use that simulation information to certify compliance and report ratings. 79 FR 27388 (“May 2014 Final Rule”).
The May 2014 Final Rule also introduced different approaches for testing refrigeration systems, accommodating testing not just of complete systems, but also accommodating the individual components of split systems to be tested separately. 79 FR 27388, 27398. A split-system refrigeration system consists of two separate components: A unit cooler
Additionally, the May 2014 Final Rule established a method for determination of AWEF for refrigeration systems with “hot gas” defrost, using nominal values to represent the energy use and heat load of this method. 79 FR 27388, 27401. Rather than using electric resistance coils embedded in the evaporator for defrosting, hot gas defrost uses refrigerant to transfer heat from ambient air outside the walk-in, the compressor, and/or a thermal storage component that stores heat generated during the compressor on-cycle. DOE notes that, in contrast with the default values for electric defrost, which are required for use only when testing condensing units, the hot gas defrost nominal values were to be used for any system using hot gas defrost (see § 431.303(c)(10)(xii) as finalized in the May 2014 Final Rule for unit coolers and complete refrigeration systems (
DOE most recently amended the test procedures for the performance requirements for walk-in refrigeration system components (
Up until the December 2016 Final Rule, the walk-in test procedure had included a method for calculating defrost energy and defrost heat load of hot gas defrost refrigeration systems. See 79 FR 27388, 27413 (incorporating as part of the May 2014 Final Rule a method for calculating defrost energy and heat load for hot gas defrost systems). The method DOE established relied on certain default values for calculating hot gas defrost energy and heat load, and separate default values for calculating electric defrost energy use and heat load, for testing refrigeration systems. 79 FR 27388, 27401. As discussed above, the electric defrost energy use and heat load values were required for testing of condensing units only, whereas the hot gas defrost values were required for testing of any refrigeration system configuration. The default values for calculating hot gas defrost energy and heat load established in the May 2014 Final Rule were much lower than the default values established for calculating energy use and heat load for electric defrost; thus, use of these values represented a “hot gas defrost credit.”
As discussed in the December 2016 Final Rule, simply eliminating the hot gas defrost energy and heat load values by reducing these values to zero would not eliminate the hot gas defrost credit, but rather would magnify the relative benefit given to hot gas defrost units by removing from the calculation any energy use associated with defrost for
The approach that DOE adopted in the December 2016 Final Rule was to assign to hot gas defrost unit coolers the same default values for electric defrost heat and energy use calculations that the test procedure assigns to dedicated condensing units that are not matched with a unit cooler for testing (
In general, the current DOE test procedure requires testing of WICF refrigeration systems to be conducted pursuant to the industry standard, Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1250-2009 (“AHRI 1250-2009”). Section 3.0 of Appendix C. For testing unit coolers, the DOE test procedure also provides a number of clarifications and modifications to AHRI 1250-2009 as specified in 3.1.5 (which modifies Tables 15 and 16 of the test standard to add requirements for liquid inlet saturation temperature), 3.3.1 (which clarifies the suction test conditions listed in AHRI 1250-2009 that apply to the DOE test procedure and also clarifies which instructions contained in AHRI 1250-2009 are to be used for calculating AWEF), 3.3.3 (which modifies the minimum evaporator fan duty cycle or speed to be used in the calculations for compressor off-cycle periods), and 3.3.7 (which specifies operating variable-speed evaporator fans at full speed during compressor on-cycle periods in calculations to demonstrate compliance with DOE standards) of Appendix C.
As discussed, the DOE test procedure delineates between WICF refrigeration systems that are condensing units and those that are unit coolers.
Relatedly, DOE also published a final rule on July 10, 2017, that adopted energy conservation standards for WICFs recommended by the Working Group. 82 FR 31808 (“July 2017 Final Rule”).
The compliance date for the standards established in the July 2017 Final Rule is July 10, 2020. 82 FR 31808.
As noted elsewhere in this document, the issues addressed in this proposal were addressed as part of DOE's prior negotiated rulemaking efforts to amend the test procedure for this equipment and are narrowly focused on a specific range of equipment. Because efforts to address this issue through rulemaking were already in progress at the time DOE's revised Process Rule provisions were published, see 85 FR 8626 (February 14, 2020), DOE will apply those provisions moving forward (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update 10 CFR 431.304, “Uniform test method for the measurement of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers” as follows:
Amend section 3.5.2 of Appendix C of the current test procedure for evaluating defrost energy and heat contribution for hot gas defrost unit cooler tests by incorporating equations consistent with Section C10.2.2 of Appendix C of AHRI 1250-2020 (including equations C46 through C49, which address electric defrost energy use for dedicated condensing units tested alone).
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 and compared to the current test procedure. Table II.1 also includes the reason for the proposed change.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments described in section III of this NOPR would better evaluate the measured efficiency of the walk-in refrigeration system equipment using hot gas defrost identified in this proposal, and that the proposed test procedures would not add any burden to conduct. Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.
The following subsections describe the scope and details of the proposed rulemaking changes discussed in this NOPR.
This rulemaking applies specifically to low temperature hot gas defrost walk-in unit coolers tested alone.
DOE defines a “walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer” as an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet (excluding products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes). 10 CFR 431.302.
DOE defines a “
This NOPR addresses the test procedure only for hot gas defrost unit coolers. DOE has initially determined that for hot gas defrost unit coolers, the current DOE test procedure provides results that are not essentially the same as the test procedure for units with electric defrost as intended in the December 2016 Final Rule. As a result, it would not be possible for certain hot gas defrost unit coolers to comply with the energy conservation standards set to take effect on July 10, 2020.
DOE was informed by manufacturers and AHRI in 2019 that the test method for addressing hot gas defrost unit coolers does not provide results appropriately comparable with the results obtained under the method prescribed for electric defrost unit coolers, and likely are not appropriately comparable for determining compliance with the energy conservation standards. As a result, hot gas defrost unit coolers above a certain capacity will likely not be able to comply with the energy conservation standards for which compliance is required beginning July 10, 2020.
As discussed in section I.B, hot gas defrost provides efficiency benefits compared with electric defrost by using refrigerant to transfer heat from the walk-in exterior, the compressor, and/or a thermal storage component that stores heat generated during the compressor on-cycle as opposed to using electric resistance coils for defrosting.
Table 1 below compares hypothetical best-case AWEF values (assuming the unit cooler fans draw zero power, an impossible situation) and AWEF values assuming representative fan wattages calculated for unit coolers of different gross capacity levels
The hypothetical AWEF values were calculated as follows. Energy contributions included in the AWEF calculation for this case include the compressor energy and the defrost energy. The compressor energy is calculated as the unit cooler gross capacity, divided by a compressor system EER prescribed in Table 17 of AHRI 1250-2009 for low-temperature unit coolers (
As mentioned, the DOE test procedure determines the AWEF of hot gas defrost unit coolers by using the default electric defrost energy use and heat load values from the test procedure provisions applicable to condensing units tested alone. Appendix C Sections 3.5.2, 3.4.2.4, and 3.4.2.5. In April 2020, AHRI published an updated version of its AHRI 1250 test standard (“AHRI 1250-2020”) that revised the values for electric defrost energy use and heat contributions to apply when testing condensing units that are tested alone (see section C10.2.2 in Appendix C of AHRI 1250-2020). In part, AHRI based the update on testing a sample of unit coolers having electric defrost. Although the updated values specified in AHRI 1250-2020 are expressed as average per-hour contributions rather than daily contributions, they can be converted to daily contributions (by multiplying by 24) for comparison with the current DOE test procedure values. As expressed in daily values, the values based on AHRI 1250-2020 are significantly lower than the values in the current DOE test procedure, as indicated in Table 2.
DOE notes that the AHRI 1250-2020 revisions also include correlations for the energy use and heat load associated with hot gas defrost. These values were based on testing of units with hot gas defrost. However, DOE is proposing to use the correlations developed for electric defrost rather than hot gas defrost, to achieve consistency between ratings of hot gas and electric defrost unit coolers, as intended by the December 2016 Final Rule.
DOE has initially determined that the equations in AHRI 1250-2020 section C10.2.2 provide better representation of electric defrost energy use and heat load than those in the current DOE test procedure in Appendix C, sections 3.4.2.4 and 3.4.2.5 and hence would provide better equivalence of a hot gas unit cooler's performance rating with that of an otherwise similar electric defrost unit cooler, regardless of gross capacity. The default electric defrost energy and heat values in the DOE test procedure were validated based on testing with unit coolers of a more limited range of capacity than the sample tested by AHRI. DOE testing to evaluate the electric defrost correlations is summarized in the Sept. 30/Oct. 1, 2015 Working Group presentation (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0007 at p. 31), which reports testing of refrigeration systems with measured gross capacity up to 18,100 Btu/h. The default electric defrost energy and heat values provided in AHRI 1250-2020 were based on a test program measuring performance of a range of capacities of unit coolers that included unit coolers of higher capacity than tested by DOE in development of the DOE test procedure (
The proposed revisions would be made to the test procedure for walk-in freezer refrigeration systems prescribed by DOE in Appendix C. If made final, the proposal would add section 3.5.3 specifically for hot gas defrost unit coolers, which relies on the defrost energy and heat equations from AHRI 1250-2020.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to revise the test procedure for hot gas defrost unit coolers by revising the equations used to calculate energy and heat contributions for defrost consistent with those specified in AHRI 1250-2020 in Section C10.2.2 of Appendix C for electric defrost.
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly burdensome to conduct. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for walk-in freezers by revising the calculations used to determine representations for hot gas defrost unit coolers when tested alone. If finalized, this test procedure would impact only WICF refrigeration systems that are hot gas defrost unit coolers. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendment would not add any burden to manufacturers to conduct the test procedure for this equipment since the proposal would require only a mathematical change to the measured results and would not require any additional testing or re-testing on the part of manufacturers.
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a representative average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 8(c). In cases where the industry standard does not meet the relevant statutory criteria, DOE will make needed modifications to these standards through rulemaking to ensure that the test procedure being adopted satisfies these criteria.
DOE is proposing to adopt the method for determining the energy use attributable to hot gas defrost in unit coolers as detailed in AHRI 1250-2020, which is the updated version of the industry test procedure generally incorporated by reference in Appendix C. To address the determination of AWEF for hot gas defrost unit coolers as discussed in this NOPR, DOE is focusing this proposal on updating the Federal test procedure consistent with AHRI 1250-2020 only in this context. DOE may undertake a separate evaluation of whether amendments to the WICF test procedure are necessary more generally, and would as part of that evaluation consider whether the existing reference to AHRI 1250 should be updated to the 2020 version.
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure, EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this test procedure rulemakings does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB.
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (“RRO”). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. This proposed rule is estimated to have no cost impact. Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed change to the test procedure would have no cost impact. As discussed, the proposed rule, if finalized, would require use of a different calculation to determine the AWEF for hot gas defrost unit coolers. The proposed amendment would not require additional testing or retesting.
Therefore, DOE initially concludes that the impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of WICFs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including walk-in coolers and freezers. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The amendment proposed in this NOPR, if made final would not impact the reporting burden for manufacturers of WICFs.
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of walk-in coolers and freezers is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; “FEAA”) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The time and date for the webinar are listed in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to revise the test procedure for hot gas defrost unit coolers by revising the equations used to calculate energy and heat contributions for defrost consistent with those specified for electric defrost in in Section C10.2.2 of Appendix C of AHRI 1250-2020. If such revision is not appropriate, DOE requests information and data that would inform development of a more suitable set of equations to represent defrost to allow equivalent ratings for hot gas and electric defrost unit coolers.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 31, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 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
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
3.5.2 Hot Gas Defrost Matched Systems and Single-package Dedicated Systems: Test these units as described in section 3.3 of this appendix for electric defrost matched systems and single-package dedicated systems, but do not conduct defrost tests as described in sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of this appendix. Calculate daily defrost energy use as described in section 3.4.2.4 of this appendix. Calculate daily defrost heat contribution as described in section 3.4.2.5 of this appendix.
3.5.3 Hot Gas Defrost Unit Coolers Tested Alone: Test these units as described in section 3.3 of this appendix for electric defrost unit coolers tested alone, but do not
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is undertaking an early assessment review to determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking to amend the test procedure for commercial and industrial pumps. This request for information (“RFI”), DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether to amend its current test procedure as well as comment on the availability of consensus-based test procedures for measuring the energy use of commercial and industrial pumps that could be adopted with or without modification. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information concerning this early assessment review.
Written comments and information will be accepted on or before December 14, 2020.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document (Submission of Comments).
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-8145. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE established an early assessment review process to conduct a more focused analysis of a specific set of facts or circumstances that would allow DOE to determine that, based on statutory criteria, an amended test procedure is not warranted. The purpose of this review is to limit the resources, from both DOE and stakeholders, committed to rulemakings that will not satisfy the requirements in EPCA that an amended test procedure more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test procedure produces results that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for equipment, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
As part of the early assessment, DOE publishes an RFI in the
If DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that an amended test procedure would not meet the applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking before issuing a final determination that an amended test procedure is not warranted. If DOE reaches such a determination, the rulemaking would be concluded, which would satisfy the Department's 7-year-lookback test procedure review requirement under the statute (as discussed in section I.A of this document).
Conversely, if DOE makes an initial determination that an amended test procedure would satisfy the applicable statutory criteria, including that adoption of a consensus-based test procedure as the DOE test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with statutory requirements, or DOE's analysis is inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an amended test procedure. Beginning such a rulemaking, however, would not preclude DOE from later making a determination that an amended test procedure would not satisfy the requirements in EPCA, based upon the full suite of DOE's analyses.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including pumps, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision, in
DOE's test procedure for measuring pump energy efficiency was established in a final rule published on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086 (“January 2016 Final Rule”).
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed with a test procedure rulemaking. Accordingly, in the following sections, DOE has identified specific issues on which it seeks input to aid its analysis of whether an amended test procedure for pumps would more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test procedure produce results that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for the equipment, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. In particular, DOE is interested in: (1) Any information indicating that there has not been sufficient technological or other changes since DOE last conducted a test procedure rulemaking analysis for pumps to suggest an amended test procedure could satisfy these criteria; or (2) whether adopting a consensus-based test procedure, without modification, as the DOE test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the statutory requirement. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to its early assessment that may not specifically be identified in this document.
DOE's current test procedure for pumps can be found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y, appendix A, “
The test procedure contains methods to determine the appropriate index for all equipment to which this test procedure applies either by (a) measuring the bare pump shaft input power and calculating efficiency, or losses, of the motor and any continuous control (
The current DOE test procedure for pumps measures energy use during a representative average use cycle. Pumps are used in a variety of situations where there is a need to move liquids from one location to another. As currently defined, a pump is a type of equipment designed to move liquids (including entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action. It includes both the bare pump itself and the mechanical equipment, driver, and controls that a manufacturer includes with the bare pump at the time of sale. See 10 CFR 431.462. DOE seeks comment on what constitutes a representative average use cycle for pumps.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE estimated a cost of $2.9 million to the industry to test pump basic models in accordance with the test procedure adopted in the Final Rule. 81 FR 4368 (January 26, 2016).
The current DOE test procedure for pumps generally incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2014, with minor modifications to ensure repeatable and reproducible test results and additional provisions related to measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and
As stated, DOE's test procedure for pumps generally incorporates HI 40.6-2014. Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the Hydraulics Institute updated HI 40.6-2014 with the publication of HI Standard 40.6-2016, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing” (“HI 40.6-2016”). This update aligned the definitions and procedures specified in HI Standard 40.6 with the DOE test procedure for pumps.
DOE requests comments on the updated standard HI 40.6-2016 and on whether DOE should incorporate HI 40.6-2016 by reference as the DOE test procedure for pumps. Specifically, DOE requests information on whether the updates in HI 40.6-2016 impact the measured values, and if so, to what extent. DOE also requests information on the impact of the updates in HI 40.6-2016 to the test burden and the representativeness of the test results.
While DOE's test procedure for pumps incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2014, as noted previously, DOE also includes additional provisions related to measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous controls—these provisions are not included in HI 40.6-2014, and at the time of finalization of DOE's test procedure, similar provisions were not available in any other industry test standard. Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) published standard IEC 61800-9-2:2017 “Adjustable speed electrical power drive systems—Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics and their driven applications—Energy efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters” (“IEC 61800-9-2:2017”), which addresses test methods and reference losses for motor and controls combinations (
DOE requests comments on the approach presented in Annex A of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 to represent reference losses for complete drive modules (
DOE requests comment on whether another consensus-based test procedure could be adopted, with or without modification, and meet the criteria in EPCA related to representativeness and test burden. If so, DOE requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any such industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, with or without modification.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by December 14, 2020, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's early assessment of whether amendments to the test procedure for pumps would more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test procedure produces results that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for the equipment, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 22, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In order to streamline FDIC regulations, the FDIC proposes to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations rules entitled “Prompt Corrective Action” that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), and amend certain sections of existing FDIC regulations governing the issuance and review of orders pursuant to the prompt corrective action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to make it clear that such rules apply to all insured depository institutions for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency.
Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF38, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Please include your name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number(s) in your comment. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
Robert Watkins, Review Examiner, Division of Risk Management Supervision, (202) 898-3865; Andrea Winkler, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3727; or Kristine Schmidt, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-6686,
The policy objective of the rule is to remove unnecessary and duplicative regulations in order to simplify them and improve the public's understanding of them. Part 390, subpart Y outlines administrative procedures related to prompt corrective action that are equivalent to procedures outlined in part 308, subpart Q of the FDIC's existing regulations. Thus, the FDIC is
Part 390, subpart Y, was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
As of July 21, 2011, the transfer date established by section 311 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Pursuant to section 316(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Although section 312(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Dodd-Frank Act
As noted above, on June 14, 2011, operating pursuant to this authority, the Board issued a list of regulations of the former OTS that the FDIC would enforce with respect to State savings associations. On that same date, the Board reissued and redesignated certain regulations transferred from the former OTS. These transferred OTS regulations were published as new FDIC regulations in the
A subset of the regulations transferred to the FDIC from the OTS concern prompt corrective action provisions applicable to State savings associations. The OTS regulations, formerly found at 12 CFR part 565, §§ 565.7, 565.8, 565.9 and 565.10, were transferred to the FDIC with only nomenclature changes and now comprise part 390, subpart Y. Each provision of part 390, subpart Y is discussed in Part III of this
The FDIC proposes to further clarify the administrative procedures relevant to State savings associations by amending certain parts of part 308 of the FDIC's regulations to clarify that part 308, subpart Q applies to all insured depository institutions, including State savings associations, for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency. As discussed in Part III of this
After careful review, the FDIC has concluded that the retention of part 390, subpart Y is unnecessary and that rescission of subpart Y in its entirety would streamline the FDIC rules and regulations. The regulations related to State savings associations will be incorporated into the part 308, subpart Q as described below. Part 390, subpart Y also references savings and loan holding companies. When the regulation was transferred from the OTS, the references to “any company that controls the State savings association” were not deleted with the other technical amendments. The FDIC is not the appropriate successor agency for supervision of savings and loan holding companies. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, supervision of savings and loan holding companies was transferred to the Federal Reserve Board.
Consistent with its legal authority to issue and modify regulations as the appropriate Federal banking agency under section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the FDIC also proposes to amend and revise provisions of part 308, subpart Q to clarify and state explicitly the regulations apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions.
Section 390.456 describes the administrative procedures for the FDIC to issue a directive to take prompt corrective action against a State savings association. These administrative procedures were initially found at 12 CFR 565.7 and are equivalent to the administrative procedures relating to FDIC-supervised banks found at 12 CFR 308.201.
The FDIC proposes that § 390.456 be rescinded in its entirety. The proposed amendments to subpart Q will clarify in a single location that the regulations apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a regulation specifically applicable to State savings associations.
Section 390.457 describes the administrative procedures to reclassify a State savings association based on criteria other than capital. This section describes how the FDIC may consider other unsafe or unsound practices to lower a State saving association capital category under part 324. The section also details the procedures for notifying the State saving association and contesting the determination. These administrative procedures were initially found at 12 CFR 565.8 and were recently modified to account for changes made to part 324.
The FDIC proposes that § 390.457 be rescinded in its entirety. The proposed amendments to subpart Q will clarify in a single location that the regulations apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a regulation specifically applicable to State savings associations.
Section 390.458 describes the additional administrative procedures related to prompt corrective action directives that require the State savings association to terminate the employment of a director or officer. This section also includes provisions to challenge this type of prompt corrective order directive. These administrative procedures were initially found at 12 CFR 565.9. Section 390.458 is equivalent to the administrative procedures relating to FDIC-supervised banks found at 12 CFR 308.203.
The FDIC proposes that § 390.458 be rescinded in its entirety. The proposed amendments to subpart Q will clarify in a single location that the regulations apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a regulation specifically applicable to State savings associations.
Section 390.459 describes the additional remedies the FDIC may take to seek compliance with prompt corrective action directives. These procedures were initially found at 12 CFR 565.10. Section 390.459 is equivalent to the administrative procedures relating to FDIC-supervised banks found at 12 CFR 308.204.
The FDIC proposes that § 390.459 be rescinded in its entirety. The proposed amendments to subpart Q will clarify in a single location that the regulations apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a regulation specifically applicable to State savings associations.
As discussed in part III of this
Additionally, the FDIC proposes one additional change to conform the FDIC's regulations relating to prompt corrective action directives that apply to banks and the former OTS regulations relating to State savings associations. Sections 308.202 and 390.457 describe the procedures relating to classifying an institution due to something other than capital. These two regulations differ in one respect. The FDIC regulation at 308.202(a)(6) provides that when a hearing is ordered, it will begin no later than 30 days from the date of the request unless the bank requests a later date. The former OTS version of this regulation, incorporated by the FDIC at § 390.457, provides that the hearing should be ordered within 30 days of request unless the FDIC allows further time at the request of the State savings association. While both of these provisions demonstrate that a hearing is likely to be delayed at the request of the institution, the former OTS version of the regulation is written with greater clarity that the FDIC will evaluate and may then provide consent to the request. The OTS version of the regulation makes it clear that there is no automatic extension granted to the institution. The greater clarity in this language makes it the preferred choice when reconciling the two regulations into one regulation that applies to all FDIC-supervised institutions. The changes to this aspect of the regulation will provide greater clarity to those institutions going forward.
If the proposal is finalized, 12 CFR part 390, subpart Y would be removed because it is largely unnecessary, redundant, or duplicative of existing FDIC regulations, and the requirements of part 308, subpart Q expressly would apply to all FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions. These initiatives will serve to streamline the FDIC's regulations.
As explained in detail in Section III of this
As explained previously, the proposed rule would rescind 12 CFR part 390, subpart Y, which includes the following: § 390.456, which outlines administrative procedures for issuing a directive to take prompt corrective action against a State savings association; § 390.457, which outlines administrative procedures for reclassifying a State savings association based on criteria other than capital; § 390.458, which outlines administrative procedures related to prompt corrective action that require a State savings association to terminate the employment of a director or officer; and § 390.459, which outlines administrative procedures the FDIC may take to seek compliance with prompt corrective action directives. The FDIC has determined that these sections of 12 CFR part 390 are equivalent to regulations related to prompt corrective action in the FDIC's existing regulations. Therefore, the FDIC does not expect the removal of the regulations in subpart Y to significantly affect FDIC-supervised State savings associations.
The proposal would also amend the FDIC's regulations that establish administrative procedures for prompt corrective action in 12 CFR 308.200 through 308.204 to make them applicable to all FDIC-supervised institutions, including State savings associations. As discussed previously, these changes would not change the required procedures related to prompt corrective action that are applicable to State savings associations since the requirements in subpart Y are equivalent to requirements in the FDIC's existing regulations, therefore this aspect of the proposed rule is unlikely to substantively affect FDIC-supervised State savings associations.
Finally, the proposal would revise 12 CFR 308.202 to clarify the procedures for delaying a hearing if an institution is reclassified based on criteria other than capital. The FDIC's regulation currently states that if a hearing is scheduled, it will be held within 30 days of the request unless the institution requests a later date. The regulations in § 390.457 state that a hearing will be held within 30 days of the request unless the FDIC allows further time at the request of the institution. The FDIC is proposing to adopt the language from § 390.457 in its own regulations since § 390.457 clarifies that requests for an extension will not be automatically granted. This aspect of the proposed rule will pose no change for the 35 FDIC-supervised State savings associations. The FDIC believes that adopting the language from § 390.457 should further clarify for State nonmember institutions that requests for an extension will not automatically be granted, however, this change is unlikely to pose any substantive effects on State nonmember institutions.
Since the prompt corrective action directive provisions in § 390 subpart Y are substantively similar to existing regulations for state nonmember banks found in § 308, subpart Q, the FDIC does not believe that rescission of §§ 390.456 through 390.459 would have any substantive effects on FDIC-supervised State savings associations.
The FDIC believes that the proposed amendments represent the most appropriate option for covered institutions and, at this time, has not identified significant alternatives to proposing the rule in its current form. As discussed previously, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred certain powers, duties, and functions formerly performed by the OTS to the FDIC. The FDIC's Board reissued and redesignated certain transferred regulations from the OTS but noted that it would evaluate them and might later incorporate them into other FDIC regulations, amend them, or rescind them, as appropriate. The FDIC has evaluated the existing regulations relating to prompt corrective actions, including part 308, subpart Q and part 390, subpart Y. The FDIC has available the status quo alternative of retaining the current regulations but is proposing not to do so because it would be needlessly duplicative for substantively similar regulations regarding prompt corrective action directives for banks and State savings associations to be located in different locations within the Code of Federal Regulations. The FDIC believes it would be redundant and potentially confusing for FDIC-supervised institutions to continue to refer to these separate sets of regulations. Therefore, the FDIC is proposing to amend and streamline the FDIC's regulations.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. In particular, the FDIC requests comments on the following questions:
1. Are the provisions of 12 CFR parts 308, subpart Q sufficient to provide consistent and effective requirements related to the issuance and review of orders pursuant to the prompt corrective action for all insured depository institutions for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency? Please provide examples, data, or otherwise substantiate your answer.
2. What negative impacts, if any, can you foresee in the FDIC's proposal to rescind part 390, subpart Y and remove it from the Code of Federal Regulations? Please provide any other comments you have on the proposal.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
The proposed rule would rescind and remove from FDIC regulations part 390, subpart Y. With regard to part 308, subpart Q, the proposed rule would amend §§ 308.200 through 308.204 to clarify that State savings associations, as well as State nonmember banks and foreign banks having insured branches are all subject to part 308, subpart Q. The proposed rule will not create any new or revise any existing collections of information under the PRA. Therefore, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory
As of March 31, 2020, the FDIC supervised 3,309 depository institutions,
The proposal would also amend the FDIC's regulations that establish administrative procedures for prompt corrective action in 12 CFR 308.200 through 308.204 to make them applicable to all FDIC-supervised institutions, including State savings associations. As discussed previously, these changes would not change the required procedures related to prompt corrective action that are applicable to small State savings associations since the requirements in subpart Y are equivalent to requirements in the FDIC's existing regulations.
Finally, the proposal would revise 12 CFR 308.202 to clarify the procedures for delaying a hearing if an institution is reclassified based on criteria other than capital. The FDIC's regulation currently states that if a hearing is scheduled, it will be held within 30 days of the request unless the institution requests a later date. The regulations in § 390.457 state that a hearing will be held within 30 days of the request unless the FDIC allows further time at the request of the institution. The FDIC is proposing to adopt the language from § 390.457 in its own regulations since § 390.457 clarifies that requests for an extension will not be automatically granted. This aspect of the proposed rule will pose no change for the 33 small FDIC-supervised State savings associations. The FDIC believes that adopting the language from § 390.457 should further clarify for small State nonmember institutions that requests for an extension will not automatically be granted; however, this change is unlikely to pose any substantive effects on small State nonmember institutions.
Since the prompt corrective action directive provisions in § 390 subpart Y are substantively similar to existing regulations for state nonmember banks found in § 308, subpart Q, the FDIC believes it is unlikely that that rescission of §§ 390.456 through 390.459 would have any substantive effects on small FDIC-supervised State savings associations.
Based on the information above, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this section, and in particular, whether the proposed rule would have any significant effects on small entities that the FDIC has not identified.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Under section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA), the FDIC is required to review all of its regulations, at least once every 10 years, in order to identify any outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured institutions.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Fraud, Investigations, Lawyers, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Aged, Civil rights, Conflict of interests, Credit, Crime, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend parts 308 and 390 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 164, 505, 1464, 1467(d), 1467a, 1468, 1815(e), 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1828, 1829, 1829(b), 1831i, 1831m(g)(4), 1831
The rules and procedures set forth in this subpart apply to FDIC-supervised institutions and senior executive officers and directors of the same that are subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (section 38) (12 U.S.C. 1831o) and subpart H of part 324 of this chapter. For purposes of this subpart, the term “FDIC-supervised institution” means any insured depository institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is the appropriate Federal banking agency pursuant to section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(q).
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) A statement of the FDIC-supervised institution's capital measures and capital levels;
(2) A description of the restrictions, prohibitions or affirmative actions that the FDIC proposes to impose or require;
(3) The proposed date when such restrictions or prohibitions would be effective or the proposed date for completion of such affirmative actions; and
(4) The date by which the FDIC-supervised institution subject to the directive may file with the FDIC a written response to the notice.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) An explanation why the action proposed by the FDIC is not an appropriate exercise of discretion under section 38;
(ii) Any recommended modification of the proposed directive; and
(iii) Any other relevant information, mitigating circumstances, documentation, or other evidence in support of the position of the FDIC-supervised institution regarding the proposed directive.
(d)
(1) Issue the directive as proposed or in modified form;
(2) Determine not to issue the directive and so notify the FDIC-supervised institution; or
(3) Seek additional information or clarification of the response from the FDIC-supervised institution or any other relevant source.
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1)
(i)
(B) Any action pursuant to this paragraph (a)(1)(i) shall hereinafter be referred to as
(ii)
(2)
(i) A statement of the FDIC-supervised institution's capital measures and capital levels and the category to which the FDIC-supervised institution would be reclassified;
(ii) The reasons for reclassification of the FDIC-supervised institution;
(iii) The date by which the FDIC-supervised institution subject to the notice of reclassification may file with the FDIC a written appeal of the proposed reclassification and a request for a hearing, which shall be at least 14 calendar days from the date of service of the notice unless the FDIC determines that a shorter period is appropriate in light of the financial condition of the FDIC-supervised institution or other relevant circumstances.
(3)
(i) An explanation of why the FDIC-supervised institution is not in an unsafe or unsound condition or otherwise should not be reclassified; and
(ii) Any other relevant information, mitigating circumstances, documentation, or other evidence in support of the position of the FDIC-supervised institution regarding the reclassification.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) The FDIC-supervised institution shall have the right to introduce relevant written materials and to present oral argument at the hearing. The FDIC-supervised institution may introduce oral testimony and present witnesses only if expressly authorized by the FDIC or the presiding officer(s). Neither the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554-557) governing adjudications required by statute to be determined on the record nor the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure in this part apply to an informal hearing under this section unless the FDIC orders that such procedures shall apply.
(ii) The informal hearing shall be recorded, and a transcript shall be furnished to the FDIC-supervised institution upon request and payment of the cost thereof. Witnesses need not be sworn, unless specifically requested by a party or the presiding officer(s). The presiding officer(s) may ask questions of any witness.
(iii) The presiding officer(s) may order that the hearing be continued for a reasonable period (normally five business days) following completion of oral testimony or argument to allow additional written submissions to the hearing record.
(8)
(9)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(1) A Respondent may appear at the hearing personally or through counsel. A Respondent shall have the right to introduce relevant written materials and to present oral argument. A Respondent may introduce oral testimony and present witnesses only if expressly authorized by the FDIC or the presiding officer(s). Neither the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act governing adjudications required by statute to be determined on the record nor the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure in this part apply to an informal hearing under this section unless the FDIC orders that such procedures shall apply.
(2) The informal hearing shall be recorded, and a transcript shall be furnished to the Respondent upon request and payment of the cost thereof. Witnesses need not be sworn, unless specifically requested by a party or the presiding officer(s). The presiding officer(s) may ask questions of any witness.
(3) The presiding officer(s) may order that the hearing be continued for a reasonable period (normally five business days) following completion of oral testimony or argument to allow additional written submissions to the hearing record.
(e)
(1) To become adequately capitalized, to the extent that the directive was issued as a result of the FDIC-supervised institution's capital level or failure to submit or implement a capital restoration plan; and
(2) To correct the unsafe or unsound condition or unsafe or unsound practice, to the extent that the directive was issued as a result of classification of the FDIC-supervised institution based on supervisory criteria other than capital, pursuant to section 38(g) of the FDI Act.
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
12 U.S.C. 1819.
Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552; 559; 12 U.S.C. 2901
Subpart G also issued under 12 U.S.C. 2810
Subpart O also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1828.
Subpart Q also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462; 1462a; 1463; 1464.
Subpart W also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462a; 1463; 1464; 15 U.S.C. 78c; 78l; 78m; 78n; 78p; 78w.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing the proposal published on January 15, 2020, and pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the EPA is notifying the public that we have received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for existing incinerators subject to the Other Solid Waste Incineration units (OSWI) emission guidelines (EG). The information provided in the negative declaration letter previously submitted by New Mexico on October 11, 2007, and addressed in our January 15, 2020 proposal, was clarified and reaffirmed in a June 15, 2020, negative declaration letter from New Mexico. The negative declarations from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, certify that incinerators subject to the OSWI EG and the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist within the jurisdictions of New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. The EPA is supplementing our previous proposal and proposing to accept the negative declarations and amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513, at
Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and Radiation Division—State Planning and Implementation Branch, (214) 665-7346,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On January 15, 2020, we published a direct final rule and accompanying proposed rule notifying the public that we had received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for existing OSWI (85 FR 2316). These negative declarations certify that existing OSWI subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist within the specified jurisdictions in New Mexico. The direct final rule was published without prior proposal because we anticipated no adverse comments. We stated in the direct final rule that if we received relevant adverse comments by February 14, 2020, we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) supplements the proposal published on January 15, 2020, where we proposed to notify the public that we received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for existing OSWI; these negative declarations certify that existing OSWI subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist within the specified jurisdictions in New Mexico. In order to reaffirm and clarify the prior negative declaration, New Mexico submitted a revised negative declaration for incinerators subject to the OSWI EG by letter dated June 15, 2020; this letter clarifies that incinerators (including OSWI and air curtain incinerators (ACI)) subject to the OSWI EG do not exist within its air quality jurisdiction. In this SNPRM, we are appropriately expanding the inclusion of the facilities addressed in the negative declarations from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from “existing OSWI” to “incinerators subject to the OSWI EG”. The term “incinerators subject to the OSWI EG” is more technically and legally accurate as all facilities affected by the OSWI EG are required to be addressed in state plans and negative declarations. The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County negative declaration letter that was submitted on December 13, 2006, appropriately addressed the subject facilities. Details on CAA sections 111(d) and 129, the OSWI EG, and the negative declarations submitted by New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, can be found in the following subsections.
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. CAA section 129 directs the EPA to establish standards of
The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from designated facilities. Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant(s). However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 40 CFR 62.06 provide that if there are no designated facilities of the designated pollutant(s) in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect (
EPA promulgated OSWI NSPS and EG on December 16, 2005, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF, respectively (70 FR 74870). Thus, states were required to submit plans for incinerators subject to the OSWI EG pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The designated facilities to which the current OSWI EG apply are OSWI and certain ACI
In order to fulfill obligations under CAA sections 111(d) and 129, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (AEHD) submitted negative declarations for incinerators subject to the OSWI EG for their individual air pollution control jurisdictions.
NMED and AEHD each determined that there are no existing incinerators subject to the OSWI EG in accordance with the CAA sections 111(d) and 129 requirements in their individual air pollution control jurisdictions. In order to fulfill obligations under CAA sections 111(d) and 129, NMED and AEHD submitted negative declaration letters to the EPA on June 15, 2020, and December 13, 2006, respectively. As stated earlier in this notice, the information provided in the negative declaration letter previously submitted by NMED on October 11, 2007, was clarified and reaffirmed in NMED's June 15, 2020, negative declaration letter. A copy of each negative declaration letter is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513).
In this SNPRM, the EPA is supplementing our previous proposal and proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of the negative declaration letters from NMED and AEHD, received on June 15, 2020, and December 13, 2006, respectively, certifying that there are no existing incinerators subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, in their respective jurisdictions in accordance with 40 CFR 60.23(b), 40 CFR 62.06, 40 CFR 60.2982, and sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and FFFF; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by the EPA from states, the EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. For the reasons stated above, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to implement the Executive Order 13937 (Executive Order) of July 24, 2020. The Executive Order requires that entities funded under section 330(e) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act or the Act), whether by receiving a federal award or a subaward, and who also participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program, must establish practices to provide access to insulin and injectable epinephrine to low-income patients at the price the health center purchased these two drugs through the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The Executive Order supports the improved access to these life-saving medications by low-income individuals who do not have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine due to either lack of insurance or high cost sharing requirements. HHS is seeking public comment on this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Written comments and related material to this proposed rule must be received to the online docket via
Comments must be identified by HHS Docket No. HRSA-2020-0004 and submitted electronically to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jennifer Joseph, Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; email:
On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the ongoing Coronavirus Disease COVID-19 pandemic of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all states, territories, and the District of Columbia. With the COVID-19 emergency, many low-income individuals are experiencing significant economic hardship. These low-income individuals who are dependent upon the life-saving medications of insulin and/or injectable epinephrine are now less able to access these drugs at an affordable price. On July 24, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13937 (Executive Order), “Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications,” was issued to direct health centers that receive grants under section 330(e) of the PHS Act to support the improved access to certain life-saving medications by low income individuals. As provided in the Executive Order, it is the policy of the United States to enable Americans without access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to purchase these pharmaceuticals from a health center at the same price at which the health center acquired the medication through the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
Through the Executive Order, the President directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to take action, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure all future grants available under section 330(e) of the PHS Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b(e), are conditioned upon health centers having established practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at the discounted price paid by the health center grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to individuals with low incomes, as determined by the Secretary, who:
(a) Have a high cost sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine;
(b) have a high unmet deductible; or
(c) have no health care insurance.
Under section 330(k)(3) of the Act, the Secretary may not approve an application for a grant under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (e)(1) unless the Secretary determines that the entity for which the application is submitted meets the requirements enumerated in section 330(k)(3)(A)-(N). Section 330(k)(3)(N) requires that “the center has written policies and procedures in place to ensure the appropriate use of Federal funds in compliance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” Consistent with the Act, the HRSA would include in the Terms section of applicable Notices of Award (NOAs) issued under section 330(e) grant awards, the requirement that health center awardees comply with the discounted price provisions described herein.
This proposed regulation would apply to new grants and new project periods for service area, new access point, supplemental, and expanded services awards issued under section 330(e) of the PHS Act.
The statement of authority for 42 CFR part 51c continues to read section 330 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) and section 215 of the PHS Act, (42 U.S.C. 216).
The Executive Order was issued to support the improved access to certain life-saving medications for low-income individuals. HRSA is proposing to
The proposed requirement for all awards under section 330(e) is as follows:
Under Executive Order 13937, issued July 24, 2020, if your health center, or a subrecipient, receives section 330(e) funding, is enrolled in the 340B Drug Pricing Program and purchases, is reimbursed, or provides reimbursement to other entities for insulin and injectable epinephrine, whether obtained using federal or non-federal funds, your health center must have established practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available to low-income health center patients (defined herein as those individuals or families with annual incomes at or below 350% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines)—who either have insurance with a high cost sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine, as applicable, a high unmet deductible, or who have no health insurance—at or below the price the health center paid through the 340B Drug Pricing Program, plus a minimal administration fee. You are not required to charge third party payors this discounted price.
Consistent with the Executive Order, this Term would only apply to health centers receiving section 330(e) grant funds that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program (42 U.S.C. 254b). This requirement is limited to increasing affordable access to insulin and injectable epinephrine. The requirement to make these two drug categories available at or below the same price paid through the 340B Drug Pricing Program does not apply to other 340B drugs. Health centers subject to this requirement would be expected to provide drugs in these two categories at or below the price paid through the 340B Drug Pricing Program to health center patients only, and further only to those health center patients identified as low income, as described below. An individual would not be considered a “patient” of the health center for this purpose if the only health care service received by the individual from the health center is the dispensing of a drug or drugs for subsequent self-administration or administration in the home setting. Notice Regarding Section 602 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 Patient and Entity Eligibility, 61 FR 55,156 (Oct. 24, 1996). Nothing in this Program Term or the actions described in this NPRM prohibits or otherwise restricts a health center from setting the price for insulin or injectable epinephrine lower than the price the health center paid through the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
This Program Term would be included on all Notices of Award issued to health centers receiving grants under section 330(e) of the Act.
The Executive Order states that future grants under section 330(e) should be conditioned upon health centers or subrecipients participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program, including through contract pharmacy arrangements, having established practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine accessible at an affordable price to low income health center patients. To implement this requirement, all future awards made available under section 330(e) would include the requirement that health centers participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program comply with the proposed regulation as described in the Program Term in order to receive a grant award. Specifically, these competitions would require health centers that receive section 330(e) funding and that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program to have established practices that implement the Executive Order by offering insulin and injectable epinephrine to patients at no more than the same price the health center paid through the 340B Program plus a minimal administration fee. Health centers that have one or more subgrantees that participate in the 340B Program must demonstrate such subgrantees have established practices to offer patients these 340B discounted drugs as described in this proposed rule. In particular, these practices would provide information to patients in an easily understandable format regarding their administration fees, and the low-income, high cost sharing, and high unmet deductibles standard as described in this proposed regulation.
How will the HRSA define the terms and phrases, such as “minimal administration fee,” in the Executive Order?
HRSA proposes to define the following terms and to assist health centers in complying with, and implementing the Executive Order.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. “Health insurance Health insurance refers to private insurance, State and exchange plans, employer-funded plans, and coverage under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act.
HHS has examined the effects of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 8, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999). HHS has also considered E.O. 13771 and has determined that the associated designation will be informed by public comments received.
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 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and a “significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
HHS does not believe that this rule, if finalized, will have an economic impact of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Because this proposed rule is limited in scope to two classes of drugs that are of particular need and it aligns with the mission and related Health Center Program requirements of health centers to provide access to care for vulnerable individuals and families, HHS believes it will have minimal economic impacts on health centers. The economic impact is also expected to be minimal given the proposed rule is limited to only two drug products which are available under the 340B Program at significantly reduced prices. Therefore, OMB has not designated this proposed rule as “economically significant” under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 12866. HHS welcomes comments concerning the economic impact of this proposed rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of the RFA, HHS considers all health care providers to be small entities either by meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for a small business, or for being a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its market. The current SBA size standard for health care providers ranges from annual receipts of $8 million to $41.5 million. As of August 8, 2020, the Health Center Program provides grant funding under section 330(e) of the PHS Act to 1,310 organizations to provide health care to medically underserved communities. HHS has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small health centers; therefore, we are not preparing an analysis of impact for this RFA. HHS estimates that the economic impact on small entities would be minimal; therefore, we are not preparing an analysis of impact for the purposes of the RFA. HHS welcomes comments concerning the impact of this proposed rule on health centers.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
HHS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This proposed rule would not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule would not adversely affect the following family elements: Family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. This proposed rule is projected to have no impact on current reporting and recordkeeping burden for health centers. This proposed rule would result in no new reporting burdens. Comments are welcome on the accuracy of this statement.
Grant programs—Health, Health care, Health facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 42 CFR part 51c is proposed to be amended as follows:
Sec. 330, Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 254b); sec. 215, Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 216).
(w)(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 28, 2020 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 28, 2020 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 28, 2020. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Using the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) and the Vegetable Chemical Use Survey, NASS collects environmental data, which
The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the modes of data collection. In previous years, NASS has relied primarily on data collection by personal interviews for the ARMS and Chemical Use Surveys. With social distancing, NASS will incorporate a computer assisted web interview (CAWI) along with a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI). Operators will also be able to complete the questionnaire by mail if they choose to. With these changes to data collection modes NASS will postpone the ARMS II and III rice versions until 2021. The remaining versions will be conducted in 2020.
The overall annual, average sample size for the ARMS and Chemical Use program will remain at 131,610. The burden minutes for the ARMS III questionnaires were increased to account for the additional questions added to each version in the previous submission. No additional burden is being added for the changes included in this submission.
A detailed listing of the questions that have been updated are attached to this submission. The delaying of the ARMS II and ARMS III rice surveys until 2021 results in a decrease in respondent burden for 2020 but an increase in 2021 resulting in no changes to the annual average burden under this three year approval.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 28, 2020 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a preliminary plant pest risk assessment, draft environmental assessment, and preliminary finding of no significant impact regarding a request from Westhoff Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH seeking a determination of nonregulated status of petunias containing the A1 gene from maize (A1-DFR Petunias), which have been genetically engineered to add a new color (orange) and brilliance to the flowers. We are making these documents available for public review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 28, 2020.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The preliminary plant pest risk assessment, draft environmental assessment, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition is also available on the APHIS website at:
Ms. Cynthia Eck, Team Lead, Communications Group, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3892;
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
Pursuant to the terms set forth in a final rule published in the
According to our process
Nine comments were received. Seven were supportive of the petition, while two were opposed but did not discuss the petition itself. APHIS evaluated the issues raised during the initial comment period and, where appropriate, provided a discussion of these issues in our draft environmental assessment (EA).
After public comments are received on a completed petition, APHIS evaluates those comments and then provides a second opportunity for public involvement in our decision-making process.
According to our public review process (see footnote 2), the second opportunity for public involvement follows one of two approaches, as described below.
If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises no substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 1 for public involvement. Under Approach 1, APHIS announces in the
Under Approach 2, if APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues, APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft EA and preliminary PPRA for a 30-day comment period
For this petition, we will be following Approach 1.
As part of our decision-making process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a PPRA to assess the plant pest risk of the article. APHIS also prepares the appropriate environmental documentation—either an EA or an environmental impact statement—in accordance with NEPA. This will provide the Agency and the public with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts that may result if the petition request is approved.
APHIS concludes in its preliminary PPRA that A1-DFR Petunias, which as stated above have been genetically engineered for the new color orange and brilliance are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.
APHIS has also prepared a draft EA in which we present two alternatives based on our analysis of data Westhoff submitted, a review of other scientific data, field tests conducted under APHIS' oversight, and comments received on the petition (see footnote 3). APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action,
The draft EA was prepared in accordance with (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by Westhoff, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the draft EA, the preliminary PPRA, comments provided by the public on the petition, and discussion of issues in the draft EA, APHIS has determined that petunias designated as event A1-DFR are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.
We are making available for a 30-day review period our preliminary determination, draft EA, preliminary FONSI, and our PPRA. The preliminary determination, draft EA, preliminary FONSI, and PPRA are available as indicated under
After the 30-day review period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the 30-day review period.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is announcing a delay in the full implementation of the APHIS Core Message Set in the Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS) for the electronic submission of data required by APHIS Animal Care, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Plant Protection and Quarantine, and Veterinary Services. APHIS intended to begin applying Harmonized Tariff Schedule flags, which would alert filers who opted to submit electronically using ACE whether APHIS import data is or may be required, on August 3, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APHIS is delaying implementation until January 25, 2021. Full implementation of the message set will bring APHIS into compliance with the mandates of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 and Executive Order 13659. The information collected will enhance APHIS' ability to make data-driven policy decisions, improve risk analysis/assessments, and enhance ability to respond to changing pest/disease conditions.
APHIS will begin full implementation of the APHIS Core Message Set on January 25, 2021.
Mr. Richard Leshin, APHIS Liaison for Automated Commercial Environment, International Trade Data System, Management and Program Analyst, Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2085;
The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established in Subtitle B of Title VI-Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993;
The International Trade Data System (ITDS) is authorized by section 405 of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act, Pub. L. 109-347). The purpose of ITDS, as defined by section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, is to eliminate redundant information filing requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade, by establishing a single portal system, operated by CBP, for the
From March 1, 2016, through August 15, 2016, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted pilots of ACE/ITDS using the message set data for Animal Care, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Plant Protection and Quarantine, and Veterinary Services (known collectively as APHIS Core).
On February 3, 2020, APHIS published in the
Two commenters were generally supportive of the planned implementation date of August 3, 2020, but stated that implementation would be challenging for importers, shippers, and brokers. Both commenters suggested that APHIS consider a soft enforcement period upon implementation, during which the automated system would allow filers to revert to a paper option if they are unable to submit all the information electronically on a particular shipment. The commenters stated that if APHIS does not implement a soft enforcement period, the agency should set up a “war room” staffed by technical experts who could provide technical assistance in the event of difficulties.
APHIS recognizes that full implementation may present challenges for some stakeholders. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APHIS has decided to delay implementation until January 25, 2021. We believe that this delay will provide stakeholders with sufficient time to prepare for full implementation. APHIS notes that since 2017, those stakeholders ready to begin filing electronically have had the option to do so. APHIS is committed to helping trade with questions and technical assistance through our help desk support at
Two commenters expressed concern that APHIS Core implementation would impose additional requirements on trade. One of these commenters asked why APHIS was adding additional regulations and tariffs if the intent of the action was to eliminate redundant information filing requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade.
APHIS believes the commenter misunderstood the original notice. No additional tariffs are required as a result of this action, and this action does not amend the regulations that govern importation of any products within APHIS' statutory authority. As we explained in our initial notice, applying Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) flags in ACE will alert filers who opt to submit data electronically whether APHIS import data is or may be required. This action will not change what import data is required, just the format in which it is submitted.
The other commenter expressed concern that additional electronic documents would be required to be submitted by the shipper, including additional permits for certain items. The commenter also expressed concern that health care providers submitting samples for testing would be required to have computer access, knowledge of the correct forms to complete, and to submit those forms in advance. The commenter stated that imposing such additional requirements could cause in delays in shipping, and those delays could result in lost time in client-patient care support and in damage to samples sent for diagnostic testing.
As we explained above, implementation of the APHIS Core message set does not change either admissibility or documentation requirements. The only change is to the format in which the information is presented by those filers who submit that information through ACE.
As we also explained above, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APHIS has decided to delay implementation until January 25, 2021. On that date, APHIS intends to begin applying HTS flags, which will alert filers, who opt to submit data electronically, whether APHIS import data is or may be required. Importers or brokers using ACE must enter APHIS-required import data when they receive an APHIS-specific HTS flag in order to complete their entry in the system.
Importers and brokers are required to submit APHIS-required information at the first U.S. port of arrival and are responsible for knowing what to file, regardless of whether a tariff code is flagged in ACE. The APHIS Core Message Set does not allow for
Additional information and guidance regarding the APHIS Core Message Set are located at the following website:
For questions about the APHIS Core Message Set, please email
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Renewal and Revision of the Currently Approved Information Collection.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's (FCIC) intention to request an extension to a currently approved information collection for the submission of policies,
Written comments on this notice will be accepted until close of business November 27, 2020.
We invite you to submit comments on this information collection request. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change and publicly available on
Francie Tolle; telephone (816) 926- 7829, email
FCIC is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend the approval of this information collection for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning this information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 354 hours per response.
Respondents/Affected Entities: Parties affected by the information collection requirements included in this Notice is a person (including an approved insurance provider, a college or university, a cooperative or trade association, or any other person) who prepares a submission, proposes to the Board other crop insurance policies, provisions of policies, or rates of premium, or submits to RMA a non-reinsured supplemental policy.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will conduct a virtual meeting. The committee is established consistent with and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor on a broad range of forest issues. Board information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 21, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., Mountain Standard Time.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via Adobe Connect along with two conference call lines: One line will be for participants, and one line will be for the public to listen only. Detailed instructions on how to attend the meeting virtually will be sent out via email along with a news release approximately one week prior to the meeting.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Jacobson, Board Coordinator, by phone at 605-440-1409 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss:
(1) Off-Highway Vehicle Summit Proposal;
(2) Timber Sustainability Working Group Update;
(3) Forest Plan Revision;
(4) Fiscal Year 2021 Timber Program; and
(5) 2020 Fire Season re-cap on the Forest and fall burn plans.
The meeting is open to the public. Individuals wishing to provide comments with regards to this meeting's agenda and for comments to be included with the meeting minutes/records, comments must be submitted in writing by October 22, 2020. Anyone who would like to bring related letters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions.
Committee meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individual who is deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. The Committee will discuss civil rights concerns in the state.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. Committee meetings are available to the public through the above call in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the meeting of the Utah Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Mountain Time) on Friday, October 23, 2020. The purpose of the meeting will be to plan for a post report activity.
The meeting will be held on Friday, October 23, 2020 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. MT.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-367-2403, conference ID number: 3768295. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Washington Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a series of meetings via teleconference on Monday, November 2 and Monday, November 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time. The purpose of these meetings are for the Committee to review their project proposal on excessive use of force in the state of Washington.
These meetings will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs is giving notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building (ACDEB). The Committee will review, analyze, and make recommendations on how to promote the use of Federal data for evidence building. The Committee will submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and make public an annual report available on the activities and findings of the Committee. Email Gianna Marrone by October 15, 2020, to attend. An agenda and meeting link will be accessible prior to the meeting at
Members of the public who wish to submit written input for the Committee's consideration are welcomed to do so via email to
October 23, 2020. The meeting begins at approximately 9:45 a.m. and adjourns at approximately 12:30 p.m.
The safety and well-being of the public, committee members, and our staff is our top priority. In light of the travel restrictions and social-distancing requirements resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, this meeting will be held virtually.
Gianna Marrone, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Road (BE-64), Suitland, MD 20746; phone (301) 278-9282; email
According to the Evidence Act, the Chief Statistician of the United States shall serve as the Chair of the Committee and other members shall be appointed by the Director of the OMB as follows: One agency Chief Information Officer; one agency Chief Privacy Officer; one agency Chief Performance Officer; three members who are agency Chief Data Officers; three members who are agency Evaluation Officers; and three members who are agency Statistical Officials who are members of the Interagency Council for Statistical Policy established under section 3504(e)(8) of title 44. Additionally, at least 10 members will be appointed who are representatives of state and local governments and nongovernmental stakeholders with expertise in government data policy, privacy, technology, transparency policy, evaluation and research methodologies, and other relevant subjects. Committee members serve for a term of two (2) years. Members have been appointed per this statutory balance plan and information on the membership can be found at
This meeting is open to the public. Anyone planning to attend the meeting are asked to RSVP to Gianna Marrone at (301) 278-9282 or
Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing by October 16, 2020, to Gianna Marrone,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 1, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the first sunset review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). Commerce determined that it was appropriate to conduct a full review. Commerce preliminarily finds that revocation of this AD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable September 28, 2020.
Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4798.
On June 1, 2020, Commerce initiated the first sunset review of the AD order on steel nails from Oman pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by this order is nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches.
All issues raised for the preliminary results of this full sunset review are addressed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 752(c) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the AD order on steel nails from Oman would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted average margins up to 9.10 percent.
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this full sunset review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice.
This five-year sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anti-circumvention determinations made during the period April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Applicable September 28, 2020.
Marcia E. Short, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1560.
Commerce regulations provide that it will publish in the
Self-initiated by Commerce. Based on our analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), line pipe, stenciled only as line pipe, is not covered by the scope of the order, products which are dual-stenciled (
Unpatented R-421A produced in China was found to be circumventing and is now subject to the antidumping duty order on HFC blends from China; June 4, 2020.
Imports of otherwise straight rebar bent on one or both ends (hooked rebar) from Mexico that is produced and/or exported by Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero) are circumventing the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and are now covered by the order; May 29, 2020.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and anti-circumvention determinations made during the period April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
This notice lists the membership of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB) and supersedes the list published on October 2, 2019.
The changes to the NIST PRB membership list announced in this notice are effective September 28, 2020.
Didi Hanlein at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (301) 975-3020 or by email at
The National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB or Board) reviews performance appraisals, agreements, and recommended actions pertaining to employees in the Senior Executive Service and ST-3104 employees. The Board makes recommendations to the appropriate appointing authority concerning such matters so as to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of these individuals.
This notice lists the membership of the NIST PRB and supersedes the list published in the
5 U.S.C. 4301
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is announcing the convening of its fall meeting.
An operator-assisted conference call and webinar session that is open to the public will be held on October 2, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EDT. Following the open session, the Committee will convene in a closed executive session at 1 p.m. that will end by 5 p.m. EDT.
Written comments should be sent via email to
Terra Lederhouse, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, 301-427-8360 or at
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet Friday, October 2, 2020, first in a session open to the public to consider management- and research-related information on the status of Atlantic highly migratory species stocks and then in a closed executive session to discuss sensitive matters. The open session will be from 10 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. EDT, including an opportunity for public comment beginning at approximately 12 p.m. Comments may also be submitted in writing for the Advisory Committee's consideration. Interested members of the public can submit comments by email (see
NMFS expects members of the public to conduct themselves appropriately at the open session of the Advisory Committee meeting. At the beginning of the public comment session, an explanation of the ground rules will be provided (
After the open session, the Advisory Committee will meet in a closed executive session to discuss sensitive information relating to upcoming ICCAT negotiations regarding Atlantic highly migratory species conservation and management.
The virtual meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Terra Lederhouse at (301) 427-8360 or
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council is convening a public meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) 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 Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee will meet to review recent stock assessment information from the 2020 Groundfish Management Track Assessments, information provided by the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing limits and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder, Gulf of Maine (GOM) winter flounder, Acadian redfish, ocean pout, Atlantic halibut, wolffish, northern windowpane flounder, and southern windowpane flounder for fishing years 2022-23. Other business will 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
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under section 101(a)(5)(A) or 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires three sets of information collection: (1) A complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in our implementing regulations at
On June 22, 2018, NMFS published a
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of stay—closure of administrative appeal decision record.
This announcement provides notice that the Department of Commerce has stayed, for a period of 60 days, closure of the decision record in an administrative appeal filed by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (collectively, “Appellants”) under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Appellants appealed to the Secretary of Commerce to override an objection by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to a consistency certification for a proposed project to construct and operate a liquified natural gas export terminal and a 229-mile natural gas pipeline and compressor station off the Pacific Coast.
The decision record for Appellants' federal consistency appeal of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's objection will now close on November 27, 2020.
NOAA has provided access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following website:
For questions about this Notice, contact Rachel Morris, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, Oceans and Coasts Section, and Patrick Carroll, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, Oceans and Coasts Section, at
On March 20, 2020, the NOAA Administrator, pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to decide Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) federal consistency appeals, received a “Notice of Appeal” filed by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (collectively, “Appellants”) under the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451
Under the CZMA, the NOAA Administrator may override Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA, or is necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Department of Commerce must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the national interest furthered by the proposed activity outweighs the activity's adverse coastal effects, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the proposed activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Department of Commerce must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the proposed activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.
The NOAA Administrator must close the decision record in a federal
After reviewing the decision record developed to date, the NOAA Administrator has decided to solicit supplemental and clarifying information. In order to allow time for the receipt of this information, the NOAA Administrator hereby stays closure of the decision record, currently scheduled to occur on September 28, 2020, until November 27, 2020.
NOAA has provided access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following website:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Plimsoll Productions Limited, 51-55 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2LY, United Kingdom (Responsible Party: Anuschka Schofield), has applied for an amendment to Permit No. 23807.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 28, 2020
These documents are available upon written request via email to
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 23807 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 23807, issued on June 11, 2020 (85 FR 35637), authorizes the permit holder to film bottlenose dolphins (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to SeaWorld, LLC. (Responsible Party: Christopher Dold, DVM), 9205 Southpark Center Loop, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32819, to import one stranded, non-releasable (captive) adult female Pacific white-sided dolphin (
The permit and related documents are available online at
Courtney Smith or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
On March 12, 2020, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes the importation of one stranded, non-releasable (captive) adult female Pacific white-sided dolphin from Vancouver Aquarium (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) to SeaWorld of Texas (San Antonio, Texas) for public display purposes. The permit will expire on September 15, 2023, or upon the importation of the dolphin, whichever occurs first. The permit authorizes the importation only, which may occur over the 3-year duration of the permit. Once the dolphin is transported to SeaWorld of Texas, a permit is not required for its holding under public display.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
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 its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) via webinar. See
The SSC meeting will take place from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. daily, from Tuesday, October 13, 2020 through Thursday, October 15, 2020.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The meeting is open to the public via webinar as it occurs. Webinar registration is required. Information regarding webinar registration will be posted to the Council's website at:
The following agenda items will be addressed by the SSC during the meeting:
1. Approval of Terms of Reference for the Red Grouper, Vermilion Snapper and Blueline Tilefish assessments;
2. Review and discuss aspects of the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule;
3. Review the South Atlantic Ecopath with Ecosim model;
4. Review the methodology for measuring lengths of King Mackerel in the FISHstory Citizen Science project;
5. Discuss and prioritize new data in the Red Snapper stock assessment;
6. Use of a Decision Tree approach to sector allocations; and
7. Updates on the Council Workplan and discussion of other business as needed. The SSC will provide guidance to staff and recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate. Multiple opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during SSC meetings. Open comment periods will be provided at the start of the meeting and near the conclusion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize individuals to provide comment.
Additional opportunities for comment on specific agenda items will be provided, as each item is discussed, between initial presentations and SSC discussion. Those interested in providing comment should indicate such in the manner requested by the Chair, who will then recognize individuals to provide comment. All comments are part of the record of the meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
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 Fishery Management Council will hold a one-day meeting of its Outreach & Education (O&E) Technical Committee.
The meeting will convene on Thursday, October 15, 2020, 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m., EDT. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Please visit the Gulf Council website
Emily Muehlstein, Public Information Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)
Introductions of members and staff, adoption of agenda, and approval of minutes from the October 9, 2019 meeting summary. Staff will give a presentation on Something's Fishy and discuss Committee recommendations for promotion and branding. The Committee will receive an update and presentation on For-Hire Electronic Reporting Outreach and discuss Committee feedback and recommendations. The Committee will receive an update on Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Fish
Staff will give a presentation on the Gulf Council's Communications Analytics, and request Committee feedback and recommendations; and receive a presentation on stakeholder feedback on the next Technical Committee Project.
The committee will discuss any Other Business items.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar only. 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 group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions 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 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 a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of the Outreach and Communications Advisory Panel via webinar to address upcoming outreach and communications topics.
The Outreach and Communications Advisory Panel (AP) meeting will be held via webinar on Thursday, October 8, 2020, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Information, including a link to webinar registration and meeting materials will be posted on the Council's website at:
Cameron Rhodes, Outreach Program Coordinator, SAFMC; phone: (843) 725-7577 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Outreach and Communications AP will meet to discuss the following agenda items:
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
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 28, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
The Department is requesting emergency processing and OMB approval for this information collection by October 5, 2020; and therefore, the Department is requesting public comments by that date. A regular clearance process is also hereby being initiated to provide the public with the opportunity to comment under the full comment period. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 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 Jack Cox, 202-453-6134.
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.
Section 18004(a)(3) of the CARES Act, Pub. authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds for part B of Title VII of the HEA, for IHEs that the Secretary determines have the greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus. This information collection request includes the quarterly budget and expenditure reporting form that will be used by grantees under these sections.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 28, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Gaby Watts, 202-453-7195.
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.
This collection includes application materials for those institutions not included in the original formula-based allocation table under 18004(a)(1) because the requisite Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) enrollment data and Federal Student Aid (FSA) Pell data were not available.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver; request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver and interim waiver from Senneca Holdings, which seeks a waiver for specified basic models of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of walk-in doors. This document also provides notice of an Interim Waiver Order requiring Senneca Holdings to test and rate the specified walk-in door basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning the petition and its suggested alternate test procedure so as to inform DOE's final decision on the waiver request.
The Interim Waiver Order is effective on September 28, 2020. Written comments and information will be accepted on or before October 28, 2020.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is publishing a petition for waiver from Senneca Holdings (“Senneca”) in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv).
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 22, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 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
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors (“walk-in doors”) is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, “Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers” (“Appendix A”).
Under 10 CFR 431.401, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver.
When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance.
By letter dated March 13, 2020, Senneca Holdings (“Senneca”) filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for walk-in doors set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A (“Appendix A”). (Senneca, No. 1)
Section 4.5.2 of Appendix A, “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors,” establishes percent time off (“PTO”) values that account for the percent of time that an electrical device is assumed to be off for lighting, anti-sweat heaters, and any other electricity-consuming devices. The PTO value discounts the daily energy consumption of electrical components as calculated in section 4.5.2(b) of Appendix A. Senneca stated that the basic models identified in its petition use electric door motors for vertical and horizontal openings of the walk-in doors. The motors described in Senneca's waiver petition are “other electricity consuming devices . . . controlled by a preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system” under Appendix A. 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, section 4.5.2(a)(3). The DOE test procedure specifies using a PTO value of 25 percent for such devices, thereby reflecting an “on” time of 75 percent. Senneca stated that assuming the door motor operates for 75 percent of the day significantly overstates normal motor usage on their ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold powered door models, causing the prescribed test procedure to inaccurately evaluate the true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. (Senneca, No. 3 at p. 1)
In its petition, Senneca provided performance data for two examples: the first for the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold horizontally sliding door models and the second for the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold vertical lift door models. (Senneca, No. 3 at pp. 2-3) The first example estimated that 120 cycles is considered to be a normal daily use cycle. The 120-cycle estimate is consistent with the value relied on by DOE in its evaluation of potential test procedure provisions to address door opening infiltration in the test procedure supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published September 9, 2010. 75 FR 55068, 55085.
In the second example, Senneca estimated that 20 cycles are considered to be a normal daily use cycle for the vertical lift electric door motors identified in the petition for waiver. (Senneca, No. 3 at pp. 2-3) This value is also consistent with the standard duty noted in the corresponding product literature. (Senneca, No. 3 at p. 61) For this example, one cycle is defined as one opening and closing of a door with a door opening of 120 inches operating at a minimum speed of 8 IPS in both directions. (Senneca, No. 3 at p. 2) For the basic model Senneca presented in this example, the normal daily use cycle estimate and cycle time estimate result in a total run time of 10 minutes (0.17 hours) per day, leaving the door motor out of operation for 23.83 hours per day, or 99.3 PTO. Based on these two calculations, Senneca petitioned DOE to apply a PTO value of 97 percent for basic models of their ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold walk-in doors that use electric door motors. (Senneca, No. 3 at p. 3)
Senneca also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
Absent an interim waiver, Senneca asserts that the walk-in doors with electric door motors identified in its petition for a waiver cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their actual energy consumption characteristics.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistency is important when making representations about the energy efficiency of equipment, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations at 10 CFR 430.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an alternate test procedure for the basic models addressed by the Interim Waiver Order.
Senneca seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific walk-in door basic models. Instead of using the PTO value of 25 percent established in section 4.5.2(a)(3) of Appendix A for electricity-consuming devices other than lighting and anti-sweat heaters, Senneca requests using the minimum calculated PTO value in their petition, 97 percent, for all of their specified ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold models.
DOE has reviewed Senneca's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by Senneca, and the data provided by Senneca in its July 21, 2020, waiver request, along with material on its website. As part of DOE's review, DOE considered the potential range of parameters affecting door motor operating time, including door opening width or height, speed of door closing/opening, and cycles per day.
In evaluating the most energy consumptive scenarios, DOE selected the maximum door opening width for horizontally sliding doors (144 inches) and height for vertical-lift doors (192 inches) identified by Senneca in its
For Senneca's vertical-lift doors,
Based on this review, Senneca's suggested alternate test procedure that applies a PTO value of 97 percent appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the of energy consumption of the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing issues associated with Senneca's implementation of walk-in door testing for these basic models. This required use of 97 percent is consistent with waivers previously granted in response to petitions that presented the same issue as in Senneca's petition.
For the reasons stated, it is
(1) Senneca must test and rate the basic models listed in Appendix I of its July 21, 2020, petition as provided in Docket Number EERE-2020-BT-WAV-0009-0003
(2) The alternate test procedure for the Senneca basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for walk-in doors prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, except that the percent time off (“PTO”) value specified in section 4.5.2 “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors” shall be 97 percent for door motors. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
(3)
(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401.
(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the door performance characteristics, statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by Senneca are valid. If Senneca makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model subject to this Interim Waiver Order, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and Senneca will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for the Interim Waiver Order is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, Senneca may request that DOE rescind or modify the Interim Waiver Order if Senneca discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).
(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release Senneca from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Senneca may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of walk-in doors. Alternatively, if appropriate, Senneca may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 22, 2020
Senneca Holdings (“Senneca”) is petitioning for a Waiver and submitting an Application for Interim Waiver from the current Department of Energy (“DOE”) code for walk-in freezer doors per Title 10 Chapter II Subpart R, General Provisions, Section 431.401.
Senneca operates in the specialty door industry and is the parent company to a diversified group of commercial and industrial door brands. Chase Doors, a Senneca Company—began operating in 1932 as an insulated walk-in cooler and specialty refrigeration equipment manufacturer. Today, Chase Doors manufactures made-to-order specialty door systems, offering a broad spectrum of specialty doors systems including a complete line of cold storage doors and double-acting swing doors (impact traffic doors).
Certain doors produced under two of Chase Doors' brands, ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold, are the subject of this petition. From walk-in coolers to industrial warehouse applications, ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold offer cooler and freezer doors to meet the demanding requirements of the cold storage industry.
Senneca requests a waiver and interim waiver for the ColdGuard® and Eco Cold basic models set forth in Appendix I.
Please note that Appendix I provides a range of potential height and width measurements for individual models
Currently, per the standard in section 4.5.2—titled “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors”—of Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431, the rating of the door for insulating values and motor power use a percent time off (“PTO”) of 25 percent. This would require the door motor to operate for 75 percent of the day which significantly overstates normal motor usage on our basic brands of powered door models, causing the prescribed test procedures' evaluation of the models to be “so unrepresentative of [their] true energy . . . consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.” 10 CFR §431.401(a)(1).
The first example, listed below, is for the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold horizontally sliding door models that normally operate at a total speed of 12 inches per second (“IPS”) or greater. The second example is for the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold vertical lift door models that normally operate at a total speed of 8 IPS or greater. Documentation and support for the numbers used below are included in Appendix II. While the supporting materials in Appendix II refer to and cover a broader group of doors than the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold basic models listed in Appendix I, the materials are accurate in their description of the components of the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold basic models listed in Appendix I. That is, the supporting materials provided cover all ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold basic models listed in Appendix I.
Listed Model Groups:
The DOE has stated that door operation of 120 cycles (operations) per day is normal. We use this cycle number as our norm when estimating customer usage of the sliding model doors listed above and will use this as the base for our first PTO example. One cycle is defined as one opening and closing cycle of a door with a door opening of 120 inches operating at a constant speed of 12 IPS in both directions.
The time during which the door is in an open or stopped position adds nothing to the calculation as the motor is not powered during this time.
Listed Model Group:
In our second PTO example, the ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold Vertical Lift door models are operated at a maximum of 20 cycles (operations) per day as specified by Chase Doors. One cycle is defined as one opening and closing cycle of a door with a door opening of 120 inches operating at a constant speed of 8 IPS in both directions.
The time during which the door is in an open or stopped position adds nothing to the calculation as the motor is not powered during this time.
Based on the PTO examples above, Senneca requests a waiver to use a PTO value of 97 percent as the minimum value
Senneca is also requesting an interim waiver for the identified ColdGuard® and Eco-Cold basic models and individual models in Appendix I. Without the interim waiver, Senneca would be forced to withhold shipment of listed models subject to the current energy conservation standards even though other manufacturers have been granted a waiver that allows them to continue shipment of similar products. Obtaining a waiver is a critical step in eliminating any further economic hardship, and it is imperative that the interim waiver be granted to avoid placing Senneca at a competitive disadvantage.
Manufacturers known to us of other basic models that are distributed in the United States and that incorporate designs with similar characteristics that are subject to this petition include: JAMISON DOORS, HH TECHNOLOGIES, and FRANK DOORS.
Sincerely,
P: 513-603-2965, C: 513-378-2120,
For a list of the specific basic models for which the test procedure applies see docket at
For product literature used to calculate percent time off see docket at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-WAV-0009-0003.
Take notice that on September 21, 2020, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825c, 825h, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., (Respondent) requesting that the Commission find that Respondent's formula rate is unjust and unreasonable because it provides an annual revenue requirement that exceeds the net book value of certain transmission assets as contemplated in a prior Commission order approving disposition of those assets, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 21, 2020, pursuant to sections 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825e, and 825h, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Arkansas Public Service Commission, Council of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mississippi Public Service Commission (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI) and Entergy Services, LLC (Respondents), alleging that SERI violated its filed rate and the Commission's ratemaking and accounting requirements in billing the costs of the Grand Gulf nuclear unit to its four affiliated customers, Entergy Arkansas, LLC., Entergy Louisiana LLC., Entergy Mississippi, LLC. and Entergy New Orleans, LLC, pursuant to a Unit Power Sales Agreement, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainants certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 21, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2020), Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship Pipeline or Petitioner) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking a Commission order holding that if Gulfport Energy Corporation (Gulfport) files for bankruptcy, the Commission will have concurrent jurisdiction, under sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c and 717d (2018), with U.S. Bankruptcy Courts with respect to a firm transportation service agreement, negotiated rate agreement, and associated surviving terms in a precedent agreement between Midship Pipeline and Gulfport. In addition, Midship Pipeline requests that the Commission establish a process in this proceeding in which to evaluate the public interest implications of a potential rejection of the agreement, should Gulfport initiate bankruptcy proceedings and propose to reject the agreement.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of rate order extending Central Arizona Project transmission service formula rates.
The extension of existing Central Arizona Project (CAP) transmission service formula rates has been confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis. The existing formula rates under Rate Schedules CAP-FT3, CAP-NFT3, and CAP-NITS3 were set to expire on December 31, 2020. This rate extension, which makes no change to the existing formula rates, extends them through December 31, 2025.
The extended formula rates under Rate Schedules CAP-FT3, CAP-NFT3, and CAP-NITS3 will be placed into effect on an interim basis on January 1, 2021.
Tracey A. LeBeau, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone (602) 605-2525, or email:
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve on a final basis, remand, or disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In Delegation Order No. 00-002.00S, effective January 15, 2020, the Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary of Energy. By Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10E, effective February 14, 2020, the Under Secretary of Energy further delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity. By Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10-05, effective July 8, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Electricity further delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator. This extension is issued under Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10-05 and the Department of Energy's (DOE) rate extension
Following DOE's review of WAPA's proposal, I hereby confirm, approve, and place Rate Order No. WAPA-193 into effect on an interim basis. This extends, without adjustment, existing Rate Schedules CAP-FT3, CAP-NFT3, and CAP-NITS3 through December 31, 2025. WAPA will submit Rate Order No. WAPA-193 and the extended rate schedules to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 22, 2020, by Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator, Western Area 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 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
The transmission service formula rates in Rate Order No. WAPA-193 are established following section 302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152).
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect such rates on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve on a final basis, remand, or disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). By Delegation Order No. 00-002.00S, effective January 15, 2020, the Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary of Energy. By Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10E, effective February 14, 2020, the Under Secretary of Energy further delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity. By Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10-05, effective July 8, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Electricity further delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator. This extension is issued under Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10-05 and DOE's rate extension procedures set forth at 10 CFR 903.23(a).
On January 27, 2020, FERC approved and confirmed Rate Schedules CAP-FT3, CAP-NFT3, and CAP-NITS3 under Rate Order No. WAPA-172 on a final basis for a 5-year period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2020.
In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a), WAPA filed a notice in the
The provisional transmission service formula rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and final approval.
In view of the above and under the authority delegated to me, I hereby confirm, approve, and place into effect on an interim basis, Rate Order No. WAPA-193, which extends the existing transmission service formula rates for the Central Arizona Project under Rate Schedules CAP-FT3, CAP-NFT3, and CAP-NITS3 through December 31, 2025. The rates will remain in effect on an interim basis until: (1) FERC confirms and approves this extension on a final basis; (2) subsequent rates are confirmed and approved; or (3) such rates are superseded.
Signed in Lakewood, CO, on September 22, 2020.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of the State of Texas's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as of September 28, 2020.
Shirley M. Miller, Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Program Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2824T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-2908,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On August 18, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted an application titled EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT) for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed TCEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Texas's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 123 and 501 is being published in the
TCEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a final decision on a no migration petition reissuance.
Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to the land disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has been granted to INEOS for three Class I hazardous waste injection wells located at their Green Lake Complex located in Port Lavaca, Texas. The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by INEOS, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption reissuance, into Class I hazardous waste injection Wells WDW-163, WDW-164, and WDW-165 until December 31, 2028, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public notice was issued June 24, 2020, and the public comment period closed on August 10, 2020. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
This action is effective as of September 17, 2020.
Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Division, Safe Drinking Water Branch (6WQ-S), 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270-2102.
Ken Johnson, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-8473.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before October 28, 2020.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Pursuant to the
The Commission reduced the accounting requirements for telephone companies with a continuing obligation to comply with Part 32 in a number of areas. Telephone companies may: (1) Carry an asset at its purchase price when it was acquired, even if its value has increased or declined when it goes into regulated service; (2) reprice an asset at market value after a merger or acquisition consistent with GAAP; (3) use GAAP principles to determine
Pursuant to the October 24, 2018
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 27, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The December 2019 radiofrequency (RF) exposure Second Report and Order, ET Docket Nos. 03-137 and 13-184, FCC 19-126, included amendments to rule sections 1.1307, 2.1091, and 2.1093 requiring approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Revision to information collection effected by amendments to rule sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 is reported herein. Revision to information collection effected by amendments to rule section 1.1307 is reported separately under OMB 3060-0004.
In amendments to rule sections 2.1091 and 2.1093, the Commission revised its implementing rules to reflect modern technology and today's uses. We replaced a requirement which relied on consideration of the rule part under which the equipment would operate, the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where the equipment is designed to operate, and technical characteristics of the equipment to determine if the equipment would be subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization. The rule modifications adopted a formula for evaluation of compliance with RF exposure limits and determination whether an environmental assessment would need to be prepared if the limits are exceeded. The amended rules provide more efficient, practical, and consistent RF exposure evaluation procedures and mitigation measures to help ensure compliance with the existing RF exposure limits.
RF equipment manufacturers must comply with the requirements of rule sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 when submitting an application for certification under rule section 2.1033. The changes to rule sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 will not affect the number of respondents or number of responses associated with this information
The latest RF exposure Second Report and Order, ET Docket Nos. 03-137 and 13-184, FCC 19-126, amended rule sections 2.1091 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2) and 2.1093 by revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to read as follows:
(b) For purposes of this Section, the definitions in Section 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter shall apply. A mobile device is defined as a transmitting device designed to be used in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between the RF source's radiating structure(s) and the body of the user or nearby persons. In this context, the term “fixed location” means that the device is physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved to another location while transmitting. Transmitting devices designed to be used by consumers or workers that can be easily re-located, such as wireless devices associated with a personal desktop computer, are considered to be mobile devices if they meet the 20-centimeter separation requirement.
(c)(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for mobile devices with single RF sources having either more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or more than the ERP listed in Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), whichever is greater. For mobile devices not exempt by Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C) at distances from 20 centimeters to 40 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 GHz to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary if the ERP of the device is greater than ERP
(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging period, routine environmental evaluation is required if the formula in Section 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(B) of this chapter is applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than 1.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single mobile or multiple mobile and portable RF source(s) associated with a device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile RF sources subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.
(2)(i) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in conjunction with the maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
(2)(ii) Such time averaging provisions based on maximum duty factor may not be used in determining exposure levels for devices intended for use by consumers in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined in Section 1.1310 of this chapter. However, “source-based” time averaging based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes. An example of this is the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for transmission of a signal.
Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
(b) For purposes of this section, the definitions in Section 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter shall apply. A portable device is defined as a transmitting device designed to be used in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that the RF source's radiating structure(s) is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of the user.
(c)(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for portable devices having single RF sources with more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW, more than the ERP listed in Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), or more than the
(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging period, evaluation is required if the formula in Section 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(B) of this chapter is applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than 1.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single portable or multiple mobile and portable RF source(s) associated with a device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of portable RF sources subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. The SAR limits specified in Sections 1.1310(a) through (c) of this chapter shall be used for evaluation of portable devices transmitting in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz. Portable devices that transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz shall be evaluated in terms of the MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Section 1.1310(e)(1) of this chapter. A minimum separation distance applicable to the operating configurations and exposure conditions of the device shall be used for the evaluation. In general, maximum time-averaged power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.
(2) Evaluation of compliance with the SAR limits can be demonstrated by either laboratory measurement techniques or by computational modeling. The latter must be supported by adequate documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has been fully validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according to protocols established by FCC-accepted numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific computational method. Guidance regarding SAR measurement techniques can be found in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB). The staff guidance provided in the KDB does not necessarily represent the only acceptable methods for measuring RF exposure or RF emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any interested party.
(3) For purposes of analyzing portable RF sources under the occupational/controlled SAR criteria specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in conjunction with the maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
(4) The time averaging provisions for occupational/controlled SAR criteria, based on maximum duty factor, may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use by consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined in Section 1.1310 of this chapter. However, “source-based” time averaging based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes. An example of this would be the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for transmission of a signal.
(5) Visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) on portable devices designed only for occupational use can be used as part of an applicant's evidence of the device user's awareness of occupational/controlled exposure limits. Such visual advisories shall be legible and clearly visible to the user from the exterior of the device. Visual advisories must indicate that the device is for occupational use only, refer the user to specific information on RF exposure, such as that provided in a user manual and note that the advisory and its information is required for FCC RF exposure compliance. Such instructional material must provide users with information on how to use the device and to ensure users are
(6) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in Section 1.1310 of this chapter apply to portable devices intended for use by consumers or persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment and may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. No communication with the consumer including either visual advisories or manual instructions
10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 8, 2020.
This meeting will be conducted through a videoconference involving all Commissioners. Any person wishing to listen to the proceeding may call the number listed below.
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson, (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 7, 2020.
This argument will be conducted through a videoconference involving all Commissioners. Any person wishing to listen to the proceeding may call the number listed below.
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
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 October 13, 2020.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Senior Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to
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 October 28, 2020.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
Notice of these Web-based meetings/conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the schedule for a series of Web-based meetings for two task groups of the Committee, which are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under Supplementary Information.
The
The
Mr. Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, (Mail-code: MG), Washington, DC 20405, at
Contact Mr. Ken Sandler at
The Administrator of GSA established the Committee on June 20, 2011 (
The
The
The Web-based meetings will allow the task groups to develop consensus recommendations to the full Committee, which will, in turn, decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery.” This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received 30 days after date of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
This is a quality improvement project that aims to provide technical assistance to hospitals to help them implement evidence-based practices to improve outcomes and prevent complications among patients who undergo surgery. Enhanced recovery pathways are a constellation of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative practices that decrease complications and accelerate recovery. A number of studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated successful results. In order to facilitate broader adoption of these evidence-based practices among U.S. hospitals, this AHRQ project will adapt the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP), which has been demonstrated to be an effective approach to reducing other patient harms, to enhanced recovery of surgical patients. The approach uses a combination of clinical and cultural (
This project has the following goals:
• Improve outcomes of surgical patients by disseminating and supporting implementation of evidence-based enhanced recovery practices within the CUSP framework.
• Develop a bundle of technical and adaptive interventions and associated tools and educational materials to support implementation.
• Provide technical assistance and training to hospitals for implementing enhanced recovery practices.
• Assess the adoption and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention among the participating hospitals.
This project is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality (JHU), with subcontractors, University of California, San Francisco, American College of Surgeons (ACS) and Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
A pre-implementation assessment of patient experience will be done with patients before the project is implemented at the hospital. A post-implementation assessment of patient experience will be done after the project is implemented, surveying patients that were treated on the enhanced recovery pathway at participating hospitals.
The survey will be administered by Westat. Hospitals will provide patient contact information to the project team after execution of a data use agreement. This information will be provided to Westat to send the survey to patients on behalf of the hospital. Westat will provide a summative report to each hospital with the hospital's results to promote additional local quality improvement work.
While the primary purpose of both surveys is the hospital's quality improvement purpose, the data will also be analyzed in aggregate across all participating hospitals to evaluate the impact of the overall quality improvement effort.
A pre-implementation safety culture survey will be administered as a web-based survey to nurses, physicians and other clinical staff participating in the project. Based on the experience with response rates from the base period of the project and Cohort 1, and the approximately 200 new hospitals that will join the project in Cohort 4, we anticipate approximately 50 responses each from 20 hospitals, or 1,000 total responses from hospital staff. Based on earlier experience we expect that approximately 50 percent of responses will be from physicians and surgeons, and 50 percent will be from nurses.
During this period, a post-implementation patient experience survey will be administered by mail to patients discharged from the hospital in the surgical specialties included in the project. Assuming an average of 86 patients being surveyed per hospital, about 3,268 patients would be surveyed. With a 30% response rate, the patient experience survey will be completed by about 980 patients. This survey requires about 22 minutes to complete.
A pre-and post-assessment will be administered as a semi-structured interview with the hospital project leads (
Six site visits will be conducted during this period. Assuming an average of 3 staff being a part of each site visit, about 18 staff would take part in the site visits that will take 4 hours to complete.
Exhibit 1 shows estimated annualized burden hours, and Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this project. The total cost burden is estimated to be $96,530 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of public webinar.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hosting a public webinar to address import permit regulations for infectious biological agents, infectious substances, and vectors. Besides the CDC, presenters for this webinar may include representatives from the Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture and Department of Homeland Security.
The webinar will be held December 3, 2020 from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST). Registration instructions are found on the HHS/CDC Import Permit Program website,
The webinar will be broadcast from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Samuel S. Edwin, Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H-21-7, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: (404) 718-2000.
This webinar is an opportunity for all interested parties (
Participants must register by November 30, 2020. This is a webinar-only event and there will be no on-site participation at the CDC broadcast facility.
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 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by November 27, 2020.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the dates and time of virtual Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meetings to be held in October 2020 to discuss our preliminary coding recommendations for new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Accessories, Orthotics and Prosthetics (O&P), Supplies and for non-drug and non-biological items and services.
Kimberlee Combs, (410) 786-6707, or
Irina Akelaitis, (410) 786-4602, or
Felicia Kyeremeh, (410) 786-1898, or
Sundus Ashar, (410) 786-0750, or
William Walker, (410) 786-5023, or
Constantine Markos, (410) 786-0911,
On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that we establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001
As of 2020, we implemented changes to our HCPCS coding procedures that enable quarterly coding cycles for drugs and biological products, and bi-annual coding cycles for non-drug and non-biological items and services. To achieve the time savings necessary to implement coding for the vast majority of drugs and biological products on a quarterly cycle, as a general rule, we will not be conducting public meetings for coding decisions on drugs and biological products. For the 2020 coding cycles, for drug and biological code applicants who are dissatisfied with CMS' coding decision in a quarterly coding cycle, we provide them an opportunity to resubmit their application in the next or subsequent quarterly cycle.
Due to the “Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak”
The following information must be provided when registering on-line to attend:
• Name.
• Company name and address.
• Direct-dial telephone.
• Email address.
• Any special accommodation requests.
A CMS staff member will confirm your registration by email.
Individuals must also indicate whether they are the “primary speaker” for an agenda item. Primary speakers must be designated by the entity that submitted the HCPCS coding request. When registering, primary speakers must provide a brief written statement regarding the nature of the information they intend to provide and advise CMS' HCPCS staff listed in the
All presentation materials and additional supporting documentation should not exceed 10 pages (each side of a page counts as 1 page). An exception will be made to the 10-page limit only for relevant studies newly published between the application deadline and the virtual public meeting date, in which case, we request a copy of the complete publication be emailed as soon as possible to
Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for the presentation. In establishing the public meeting agenda, we may group multiple, related requests under the same agenda item. In that case, we will decide whether additional time will be allotted, and may opt to increase the amount of time allotted to the primary speaker.
Every primary speaker must declare at the beginning of the speaker's presentation at the meeting, as well as in the speaker's written summary, whether the speaker has any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.
On the day of the virtual meeting, before the end of the meeting, all primary speakers must email a brief written summary of their comments and conclusions to CMS' HCPCS staff listed in the
The deadline for registering to be a 5-Minute speaker is noted in the
Every 5-minute speaker must declare at the beginning of the speaker's presentation at the meeting, as well as in the speaker's written summary, whether the speaker has any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.
On the day of the virtual meeting, before the end of the meeting, all 5-minute speakers must email a brief
Prior to registering to attend a virtual public meeting, all participants are advised to review the public meeting agendas at
All participants and other interested stakeholders are also encouraged to regularly check CMS' official HCPCS website at
The HCPCS website also contains a document titled “HCPCS Decision Tree & Definitions,” which illustrates, in flow diagram format, HCPCS coding standards as described in our Coding Procedures document.
As part of CMS' response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, there is a limited presence at the CMS headquarters for receiving paper packages. Therefore, written comments from the general public and meeting registrants will only be accepted when emailed to
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy for initial recognition as a national accrediting organization for home infusion therapy suppliers that wish to participate in the Medicare program. A home infusion therapy supplier that participates must meet the Medicare conditions for coverage.
The approval announced in this final notice is effective September 26, 2020 through September 26, 2024.
Home Infusion therapy (HIT) is a treatment option for Medicare beneficiaries with a wide range of acute and chronic conditions. Section 5012 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255, enacted December 13, 2016) added sections 1861(iii) and 1834(u) to the Social Security Act (the Act), establishing a new Medicare benefit for HIT services. Section 1861(iii)(1) of the Act defines HIT as professional services, including nursing services; training and education not otherwise covered under the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) benefit; remote monitoring; and other monitoring services. Home infusion therapy must be furnished by a qualified HIT supplier and furnished in the individual's home. The individual must:
• Be under the care of an applicable provider (that is, physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant); and
• Have a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician in coordination with the furnishing of home infusion drugs under Part B, that prescribes the type, amount, and duration of infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires that a qualified HIT supplier be accredited by an accrediting organization (AO) designated by the Secretary in accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act. Section 1834(u)(5)(A) of the Act identifies factors for designating AOs and in reviewing and modifying the list of designated AOs. These statutory factors are as follows:
• The ability of the organization to conduct timely reviews of accreditation applications.
• The ability of the organization take into account the capacities of suppliers located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act).
• Whether the organization has established reasonable fees to be charged to suppliers applying for accreditation.
• Such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 1834(u)(5)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate AOs to accredit HIT suppliers furnishing HIT not later than January 1, 2021. Section 1861(iii)(3)(D) of the Act defines
In the March 1, 2019
Regulations for the approval and oversight of AOs for HIT organizations are located at 42 CFR part 488, subpart L. The requirements for HIT suppliers are located at 42 CFR part 486, subpart I.
Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act and the regulations at § 488.1010 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data.
Section 488.1020(a) requires that we publish, after receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. In accordance with § 488.1010(d), we have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to approve or deny the application.
In the April 28, 2020
• An administrative review of NABP's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its home infusion therapy surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited home infusion therapies; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• The ability for NABP to conduct timely review of accreditation applications.
• The ability of NABP to take into account the capacities of suppliers located in a rural area.
• The comparison of NABP's Medicare home infusion therapy accreditation program standards to our current Medicare home infusion therapy conditions for coverage (CfCs).
• NABP's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and NABP's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ NABP's processes, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited home infusion therapies.
++ Evaluate NABP's procedures for monitoring home infusion therapies it has found to be out of compliance with NABP's program requirements.
++ Assess NABP's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed home infusion therapy and respond to the home infusion therapy's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ Establish NABP's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ Determine the adequacy of NABP's staff and other resources.
++ Confirm NABP's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
++ Confirm NABP's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.
++ Review NABP's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ Obtain NABP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
The April 28, 2020 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether NABP's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CfCs for home infusion therapy. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared NABP's HIT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CfCs of part 486, subpart I and the survey and certification process requirements of part 488, subpart L. Our review and evaluation of NABP's HIT application, which was conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, NABP has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to meet the condition at:
• § 486.520, to include the term “qualified” to meet the requirement for home infusion suppliers.
• § 486.525(a), to include the language “qualified” to meet the requirement for home infusion suppliers.
• § 486.525(b), to revise standard language removing the word “shall” from the home infusion standards.
• § 488.1010(a)(5), to provide a detailed crosswalk identifying the exact language of the organization's comparable accreditation requirements and standards.
• § 488.1010(a)(6)(i), to revise survey procedures for information gathering and investigation.
• § 488.1010(a)(6)(v), to revise procedures and timelines for notifying a surveyed or audited home infusion therapy supplier of non-compliance with the home infusion therapy accreditation program's standards.
• § 488.1010(a)(6)(vi), to revise NABP's procedures and timelines for monitoring the home infusion therapy supplier's correction of identified non-compliance with the accreditation program's standards.
• § 488.1010(6)(ix), to revise procedures for immediate jeopardy.
• § 489.13, to reflect our policies regarding when the effective period of an accreditation begins and ends.
As authorized under § 488.1040(a), we reserve the right to conduct onsite observations of accrediting organization operations at any time as part of the
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustment in the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review under the Medicare appeals process. The adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts will be effective for requests for ALJ hearings and judicial review filed on or after January 1, 2021. The calendar year 2021 AIC threshold amounts are $180 for ALJ hearings and $1,760 for judicial review.
This annual adjustment takes effect on January 1, 2021.
Liz Hosna (
Section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by section 521 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), established the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review at $100 and $1,000, respectively, for Medicare Part A and Part B appeals. Section 940 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), amended section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act to require the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review to be adjusted annually. Beginning in January 2005, the AIC threshold amounts are to be adjusted by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to the July preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Section 940(b)(2) of the MMA provided conforming amendments to apply the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage (MA) appeals and certain health maintenance organization and competitive health plan appeals. Health care prepayment plans are also subject to MA appeals rules, including the AIC adjustment requirement. Section 101 of the MMA provides for the application of the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part D appeals.
The statutory formula for the annual adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review of Medicare Part A and Part B appeals, set forth at section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act, is included in the applicable implementing regulations, 42 CFR 405.1006(b) and (c). The regulations at § 405.1006(b)(2) require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to publish changes to the AIC threshold amounts in the
Section 940(b)(2) of the MMA applies the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C appeals by amending section 1852(g)(5) of the Act. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are found at 42 CFR 422, subpart M. Specifically, sections 422.600 and 422.612 discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 422.600 grants any party to the reconsideration (except the MA organization) who is dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing as long as the amount remaining in controversy after reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary. Section 422.612 states, in part, that any party, including the MA organization, may request judicial review if the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.
Section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that the annual adjustment to the AIC dollar amounts set forth in section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act applies to certain beneficiary appeals within the context of health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans. The applicable implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are set forth in 42 CFR 422, subpart M and apply to these appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.600(b). The Medicare Part C appeals rules also apply to health care prepayment plan appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.840.
The annually adjusted AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review that apply to Medicare Parts A, B, and C appeals also apply to Medicare Part D appeals. Section 101 of the MMA added section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act regarding Part D appeals. This statutory provision requires a prescription drug plan sponsor to meet the requirements set forth in sections 1852(g)(4) and (g)(5) of the Act, in a similar manner as MA organizations. As noted previously, the annually adjusted AIC threshold requirement was added to section 1852(g)(5) of the Act by section 940(b)(2)(A) of the MMA. The implementing regulations for Medicare
As previously noted, section 940 of the MMA requires that the AIC threshold amounts be adjusted annually, beginning in January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the CPI for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.
The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings will rise to $180 and the AIC threshold amount for judicial review will rise to $1,760 for CY 2021. These amounts are based on the 75.634 percent increase in the medical care component of the CPI, which was at 297.600 in July 2003 and rose to 522.686 in July 2020. The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings changes to $175.63 based on the 75.634 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $100 established in 2003. In accordance with section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act, the adjusted threshold amounts are rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Therefore, the CY 2021 AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings is $180.00. The AIC threshold amount for judicial review changes to $1,756.34 based on the 75.634 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $1,000. This amount was rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, resulting in the CY 2021 AIC threshold amount of $1,760.00 for judicial review.
In the following table we list the CYs 2017 through 2021 threshold amounts.
This document does not impose any new or revised “collection of information” requirements or burden. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Accreditation Commission for Healthcare (ACHC) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for home health agencies (HHAs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. The statute requires that within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 28, 2020.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3400-PN.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Tara Lemons (410) 786-3030.
Lillian Williams (410) 786-8636.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a home health agency (HHA), provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1861(m) and (o), 1891 and 1895 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish distinct criteria for an entity seeking designation as an HHA. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities and other entities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR parts 409 and 484 specify the conditions that an HHA must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for home health care.
Generally, to enter into a provider agreement with the Medicare program, an HHA must first be certified by a state survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in 42 CFR part 484 of our regulations. Thereafter, the HHA is subject to regular surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
However, there is an alternative to surveys by state agencies. Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for CMS approval of their accreditation program under 42 CFR part 488, subpart A must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of their accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS.
The Accreditation Commission for Healthcare's (ACHC's) term of approval for their HHA accreditation program expires February 24, 2021.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide us with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of ACHC's request for continued approval for its HHA accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether ACHC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation (CoPs) for HHAs.
ACHC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its HHA accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on July 29, 2020. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of ACHC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of ACHC's standards for HHAs as compared with CMS' HHA CoPs.
• ACHC's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of ACHC's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited HHAs.
++ ACHC's processes and procedures for monitoring HHAs found out of compliance with ACHC's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when ACHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c).
++ ACHC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed HHAs and respond to the HHA's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ ACHC's capacity to provide us with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of ACHC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ ACHC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ ACHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ ACHC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ ACHC's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office Management and Budget under the authority of the
Because of the large number of public comments, we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
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 October 28, 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.
• Allow beneficiaries to directly provide feedback about the services they receive under the QIO program;
• Provide quality improvement data for QIOs to improve the quality of service delivered to Medicare beneficiaries; and
• Provide evaluation metrics for CMS to use in assessing performance of QIO contractors.
To achieve the above goals, information collection will include: Experience survey, direct follow-up and general feedback web survey.
2.
PACE organizations are responsible for providing all required Medicare and Medicaid covered services, and any other service that the interdisciplinary team (IDT) determines necessary to improve and maintain a participant's overall health condition (42 CFR 460.92). POs must also comply with the quality monitoring and reporting requirements outlined in §§ 460.140, 460.200(b)(1), 460.200(c) and 460.202. POs are also required to report certain unusual incidents to other Federal and
3.
As directed by the rule
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve The Compliance Team for initial recognition as a national accrediting organization for home infusion therapy suppliers that wish to participate in the Medicare program. A home infusion therapy supplier that participates must meet the Medicare conditions for coverage.
The approval announced in this final notice takes effect October 1, 2020 through October 1, 2024.
Home Infusion therapy (HIT) is a treatment option for Medicare beneficiaries with a wide range of acute and chronic conditions. Section 5012 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255, enacted on December 13, 2016) added sections 1861(iii) and 1834(u) to the Social Security Act (the Act), establishing a new Medicare benefit for HIT services. Section 1861(iii)(1) of the Act defines HIT as professional services, including nursing services; training and education not otherwise covered under the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) benefit; remote monitoring; and other monitoring services. Home infusion therapy must be furnished by a qualified HIT supplier and furnished in the individual's home. The individual must:
• Be under the care of an applicable provider (that is, physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant); and
• Have a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician in coordination with the furnishing of home infusion drugs under Part B, that prescribes the type, amount, and duration of infusion therapy services that are to be furnished.
Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires that a qualified HIT supplier be accredited by an accrediting organization (AO) designated by the Secretary in accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act. Section 1834(u)(5)(A) of the Act identifies factors for designating AOs and in reviewing and modifying the list of designated AOs. These statutory factors are as follows:
• The ability of the organization to conduct timely reviews of accreditation applications.
• The ability of the organization take into account the capacities of suppliers located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act).
• Whether the organization has established reasonable fees to be charged to suppliers applying for accreditation.
• Such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 1834(u)(5)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate AOs to accredit HIT suppliers furnishing HIT not later than January 1, 2021. Section 1861(iii)(3)(D) of the Act defines “qualified home infusion therapy suppliers” as being accredited by a CMS-approved AO.
In the March 1, 2019
Regulations for the approval and oversight of AOs for HIT organizations are located at 42 CFR part 488, subpart L. The requirements for HIT suppliers are located at 42 CFR part 486, subpart I.
Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act and the regulations at § 488.1010 require that our findings concerning review and
Section 488.1020(a) requires that we publish, after receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. In accordance with § 488.1010(d), we have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to approve or deny the application.
In the May 4, 2020
• An administrative review of TCT's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its home infusion therapy surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited home infusion therapies; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• The ability for TCT to conduct timely review of accreditation applications.
• The ability of TCT to take into account the capacities of suppliers located in a rural area.
• The comparison of TCT's Medicare HIT accreditation program standards to our current Medicare home infusion therapy conditions for coverage (CfCs).
• A documentation review of TCT's survey process to:
++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and TCT's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ Compare TCT's processes, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited home infusion therapies.
++ Evaluate TCT's procedures for monitoring home infusion therapies it has found to be out of compliance with TCT's program requirements.
++ Assess TCT's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed home infusion therapy and respond to the home infusion therapy's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ Establish TCT's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ Determine the adequacy of TCT's staff and other resources.
++ Confirm TCT's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
++ Confirm TCT's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.
++ Review TCT's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ Obtain TCT's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
The May 4, 2020 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether TCT's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CfCs for home infusion therapy. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared TCT's HIT accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CfCs of part 486, subpart I and the survey and certification process requirements of part 488, subpart L. Our review and evaluation of TCT's HIT application, which was conducted as described in section III. of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, TCT has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to meet the condition at:
• § 486.520(b), to address the requirement of the plan of care must be established by a physician prescribing the type, amount and duration for home infusion therapy.
• § 486.525(a), to include the language “must” and “qualified” to meet the requirements for home infusion suppliers.
• § 486.525(a)(1) through (3) and (b), to restructure and revise submitted standard language to meet the requirements for professional services, patient training and education, remote monitoring, and standards of practice.
• § 488.1010(a)(6), to revise TCT's procedures for surveys.
As authorized under § 488.1040(a), we reserve the right to conduct onsite observations of accrediting organization operations at any time as part of the ongoing review and continuing oversight of an accrediting organization's performance. Based on the review and observations described in section III. of this final notice, we have determined that TCT's requirements for HIT meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve TCT as a national accreditation organization for HITs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective October 1, 2020 through October 1, 2024.
This document does not impose information collection and requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Lynette Wilson, who is the
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting to continue the data collection approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under expedited review.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
6 U.S.C. 279: Exhibit 1, part A.2 of the Flores Settlement Agreement (
Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting a 3-year extension of the form OCS-0024: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Model Plan Application (OMB #0970-0075, expiration 09/30/2020). There are no changes requested to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The LIHEAP Model Plan is an electronic form and is submitted to OCS/ACF through the On-line Data Collection (OLDC) system within GrantSolutions, which is currently being used by all LIHEAP grantees to submit other required LIHEAP reporting forms. In order to reduce the reporting burden, all data entries from each grantee's prior year's submission of the Model Plan in OLDC are saved and re-populated into the form for the following fiscal year's application.
42 U.S.C. 8621.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting to continue the data collection approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under expedited review.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
6 U.S.C. 279: Exhibit 1, part A.2 of the Flores Settlement Agreement (
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by November 27, 2020.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: Robert Groenendaal,
Robert Groenendaal, Assistive Technology Program Manager, Center for Innovation and Partnership in the Office of Interagency Innovation Administration for Community Living 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202-795-7356. Email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined as and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The PRA requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions,
(2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The information collected through this data collection instrument is necessary for ACL and states to comply with Sections 4 and 7 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended (AT Act). ACL is requesting a revision of the annual data collection instrument (OMB No. 0985-0042). Approval of 0985-0042 expires November 30, 2020.
Section 4 of the AT Act authorizes grants to public agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (states and outlying areas). With these funds, the 56 states and outlying areas operate “Statewide AT Programs” that conduct activities to increase access to and acquisition of assistive technology (AT) for individuals with disabilities and older Americans.
Divided into two comprehensive activity categories: “State-level Activities” and “State Leadership Activities.” According to Section 4 of the AT Act, as a condition of receiving a grant to support their Statewide AT Programs, the 56 states and outlying areas must provide to ACL: (1) Applications and (2) annual progress reports on their activities.
Every state and outlying area is required to include a minimum of seven prescribed measurable goals in its State Plan. These seven goals apply to all states and outlying areas in order to aggregate information on performance of the program at the national level. National aggregation of data related to these goals is necessary for the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) (Pub. L. 111-352), as well as an Annual Report to Congress (see “Section 7 Requirements Necessitating Collection” below).
Therefore, this data collection instrument provides a way for all 56 grantees—50 U.S. states, DC, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to collect and report data on their performance in a consistent manner, including a uniform survey to be given to consumers. This uniform survey is included as part of the data collection package.
(1) Complete the annual report to Congress required by the AT Act;
(2) Comply with reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) (Pub. L. 111-352); and
(3) Assess the progress of states and outlying areas regarding measurable goals in their State Plans for AT.
Data collected from the grantees will provide a national description of activities funded under the AT Act to increase the access to and acquisition of AT devices and services through statewide AT programs for individuals with disabilities. Data collected from grantees will also provide information for usage by Congress, the Department, and the public. In addition, ACL will use this data to inform program management, monitoring, and technical assistance efforts. While States will be able to use the data for internal management and program improvement.
To review the proposed data collection tools please visit the ACL website at:
ACL estimates the burden associated with this collection of information as follows:
(A) A web-based system that collects data from states.
(B) A performance measurement survey that states collect from individuals.
(C) A customer satisfaction survey that states collect from individuals.
(A) Fifty-six grantees report to ACL using the
(B) The fifty-six grantees ask consumers to complete surveys that provide information on their performance related to the state's
(C) The fifty-six grantees also ask consumers to complete
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-Day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the modification and use of the Data Performance Reports and Information Collection tools for the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) under OMB 0985-0040 that expires September 30, 2020
Submit written comments on the collection of information by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by October 28, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by:
(a)
(b)
(c) by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW, Rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.
Rebecca Kinney, Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling (OHIC), Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202-795-7397 Email:
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The purpose of this data collection is to collect performance data from grantees, grantee team members, and partners. Congress requires this data collection for program monitoring and Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) purposes. This data collection allows the Administration for Community Living (ACL) and the Center for Innovation and Partnership (CIP) to communicate with Congress and the public on the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), the Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) program, the Medicare Improvements for Patients & Providers Act (MIPPA) program, and Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRC) activities. In addition to the SHIP Data Performance Reports and Information Collection (OMB #0985-0040), this revision incorporates the expired SMP Report collection (OMB #0985-0024) and the ADRC collection (OMB #0985-0062) into one tool.
The SHIP, SMP, MIPPA, and ADRC programs are located in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In order to ensure that grantees report activity accurately and consistently it is imperative that these data collection tools remain active.
The respondents for this data collection are grantees, grantee team members, and partners who meet with Medicare beneficiaries and older adults in-group settings and in one-on-one sessions to educate them on Medicare enrollment, Medicare benefits and subsidy programs, the importance of being aware of Medicare fraud, errors and abuse, and having the knowledge to protect the Medicare system.
ACL is proposing to combine these three collection tools to reduce burden on the grantees, grantee team members, and partners as many of the individuals working on these programs, collecting information, and reporting results are the same at the local level. Combining these tools will reduce the need for duplicate or triplicate reporting of activities in separate tools further reducing the time and effort in reporting outcomes and activities. In addition, this combination will allow clarification on when, where, and how services are being delivered across these ACL programs further informing performance outcomes.
Section 4360(f) of OBRA 1990 created the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) and requires the Secretary to provide a series of reports to the U.S. Congress on the performance of the SHIP program annually. The law also requires ACL to report on the program's impact on beneficiaries and to obtain important feedback from beneficiaries.
This tool captures the information and data necessary for ACL to meet these Congressional requirements, as well as, grantee performance data providing ACL essential insight for monitoring and technical assistance purposes.
In addition, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA), initially passed in 2008, provided targeted funding for
Under Public Law 104-208, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Congress established the Senior Medicare Patrol Projects in order to further curb losses to the Medicare program. The Senate Committee noted that retired professionals, with appropriate training, could serve as educators and resources to assist Medicare beneficiaries and others to detect and report errors, fraud and abuse.
Among other requirements, it directed the ACL to work with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to assess the performance of the program. The ACL employs this tool to collect performance and outcome data on the SMP Program necessary information for monitoring and oversight. ACL has shared this data and worked with HHS/OIG to develop SMP performance measures.
The HHS/OIG has collected SMP performance data and issued SMP performance reports since 1997. The information from the current collection is reported by the OIG to Congress and the public. This information is also used by ACL as the primary method for monitoring the SMP Projects.
The Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) collects data for the No Wrong Door (NWD) System initiative. This tool seeks to connect fragmentation in the network, ease administrative reporting burden, and further support the need for early community-based interventions.
ACL uses this tool to collect performance and outcome data necessary for monitoring and oversight. Additionally, this collection supports states in better coordinating and integrating their existing long-term services and supports (LTSS) access functions to develop a new interface that would make it easier for people to learn about and quickly access options that meet their needs. These programs operate throughout the United States and represent a nationally recognized network.
ACL published both a 60-day and 30-day
The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL website for review at
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
This notice solicits comments on the Proposed Extension with minor changes and solicits comments on the information collection requirements related to Prevention and Public Health Funds Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Information Collection.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by November 27, 2020.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: Shannon Skowronski. Submit written comments on the collection of information to Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, Attention: Shannon Skowronski.
Shannon Skowronski, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, Shannon Skowronski, 202-795-7438,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. The Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Grant Program is financed through the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), most recently with FY 2020 PPHF funds. The statutory authority for these cooperative is contained in Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020 and Health Extenders Act of 2019, Public Law 116-59; the Older Americans Act (OAA) (Section 411); and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 300u-11 (Prevention and Public Health Fund).
The Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program supports a national resource center and awards competitive grants to implement and promote the sustainability of evidence-based community programs that have been proven to reduce the falls incidence and risk among for older adults. OMB approval of the existing set of Falls Prevention data collection tools (OMB Control Number, 0985-0039) expires on 03/31/2021. This data collection continues to be necessary for monitoring program operations and outcomes.
ACL/AoA proposes to use the following tools: (1) Semi-annual performance reports to monitor grantee progress; (2) a Host/Implementation Organization Information Form to record location of agencies that sponsor programs that will allow mapping of the delivery infrastructure; and (3) a set of tools used to collect information at each program completed by the program leaders (Program Information Cover Sheet and Attendance Log), a Participant Information Form to be completed by all participants, and a Post Program Survey to be completed by a random sample of participants.
ACL/AoA intends to continue using an online data entry system for the program and participant survey data.
Minor changes are being proposed to the currently approved tools. All changes proposed are based on feedback from a focus group that included a sub-set of current grantees and consultation with subject-matter experts.
The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL website for review at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; announcing period of performance extensions.
Additional grant funds were provided to two Health Center Program award recipients in Las Vegas, Nevada and Washington, District of Columbia with periods of performance ending in fiscal year (FY) 2020 to extend their periods of performance by up to 4 months to ensure the ongoing delivery of services until a new competitive award could be made.
Olivia Shockey, Expansion Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; correction.
The National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps (NACNHSC) meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 5, 2020, and Friday, November 6, 2020, has changed its format, date, and time. The meeting will now be a one-day webinar and conference call held only on Thursday, November 5, 2020, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The webinar link, conference dial-in number, meeting materials, and updates will be available on the NACNHSC website at:
Diane Fabiyi-King Designated Federal Official, Division of National Health Service Corps, HRSA. Address: 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; phone (301) 443-3609; or
In the
This meeting will be a one-day webinar and conference call held on Thursday, November 5, 2020, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the
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
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and open to the public. 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 meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meetings. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their 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 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.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) announces the draft Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan: A Roadmap to Elimination (2021-2025) (Hepatitis Plan) available for public comment. The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at
All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 8, 2020 to ensure consideration.
All comments must be submitted electronically to
Carol Jimenez, OIDP,
Viral hepatitis is a significant public health threat that puts people who are infected at increased risk for serious disease and death. In the United States, new hepatitis A and hepatitis C infections have increased dramatically in recent years, little progress has been made on preventing hepatitis B infections, and, as of 2016, an estimated 3.3 million people were chronically infected with hepatitis B and hepatitis C.
To spur action to reduce new viral hepatitis infections and their adverse public health impact, OASH through OIDP, in collaboration with federal partners throughout HHS and other departments, led and coordinated development of the Hepatitis Plan. Opportunities for public input were provided, and public comments received were reviewed and analyzed and helped inform the components of the Hepatitis Plan.
The Hepatitis Plan focuses on hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C—the hepatitis viruses that most significantly affect the health of the nation. It is an elimination plan, with the overarching goal of eliminating viral hepatitis as a public health threat in the United States by 2030. The Hepatitis Plan is intended to serve as a roadmap for all stakeholders at all levels to eliminate hepatitis in this nation. The Hepatitis Plan presents a strategic framework for integrating and leveraging synergistic policies, programs, and resources. It sets forth a vision and five goals for the nation, with objectives and strategies for each goal. The objectives and strategies offered in this plan are interrelated and may be used to make progress toward more than one goal. The Hepatitis Plan identifies disproportionately impacted populations based on national hepatitis incidence, prevalence, and mortality data, to help federal and other stakeholders focus their efforts to realize the greatest impact. The Hepatitis Plan also includes indicators to measure progress and quantitative targets for each indicator. Although it is a 5-year plan, it sets 10-year quantitative targets for each indicator—reflecting the reality that it will take more than 5 years to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat. The order in which the goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators are presented is not associated with any prioritization. The following are the Hepatitis Plan's vision and goals.
The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at:
OIDP seeks to obtain feedback from external stakeholders on the following:
1. Do the draft plan's goals, objectives, and strategies appropriately address the viral hepatitis epidemics?
2. Are there any critical gaps in the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives, and strategies? If so, please specify the gaps.
3. Do any of the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives and strategies cause concern? If so, please specify the goal, objective or strategy, and describe the concern regarding it.
Each commenter is limited to a maximum of seven pages.
77 FR 15761 (March 16, 2012).
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2. Hofmeister MG, Rosenthal EM, Barker LK, et al. Estimating prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States, 2013-2016.
3. LeFevre ML. Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in nonpregnant adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
4. Morey RJ, Collier MG, Nelson NP. The financial burden of public health responses to hepatitis A cases among food handlers, 2012-2014.
5. Wittenborn J, Brady J, Dougherty M, Rein D. Potential epidemiologic, economic, and budgetary impacts of current rates of hepatitis C treatment in Medicare and non-Medicare populations.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of January 29, 2021 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This notice governs Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds awarded under several appropriations. Specifically, this notice provides waivers and establishes alternative requirements for certain grantees that have submitted waiver requests for grants provided pursuant to Public Laws. This notice also provides further clarification on the waiver and alternative requirement for use of a FEMA-approved alternative to the CDBG-DR elevation requirement for nonresidential structures. Additionally, this notice revises action plan substantial amendment requirements for CDBG-Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) grants.
Applicability Date: October 5, 2020.
Jessie Handforth Kome, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877- 8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Ms. Kome at 202-708-0033. (Except for the“800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be sent to
The Department awarded $141,260,569 in Community Development Block Grant National Disaster Resilience (CDBG-NDR) funds made available under Public Law 113-2 to the City of New Orleans to implement activities described in the city's application, which the city collectively refers to as the “Reshaping the Urban Delta” initiative. This section of the notice specifies waivers and
Public Law 113-2 authorizes the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. The waiver and alternative requirement provided in this section is in response to a request by the City of New Orleans explaining why there is good cause for the waiver and is based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA).
The City of New Orleans will use its CDBG-NDR funds to create the city's first Resilience District in the Gentilly neighborhood, a low- and moderate-income community with a particularly high risk of flooding. The city is requesting a waiver to establish an alternative requirement to create a CDBG-eligible activity that comprises all of the activities proposed in the community adaptation component of the Resilience District initiative.
The city's initiative is comprised of four components: (1) Urban water: consisting of public improvements to improve storm water management; (2) reliable energy and smart systems: to enhance the reliability of the electrical grid and energy asset monitoring; (3) coastal restoration: A series of coastal protection and restoration projects to mitigate flooding impacts; and (4) community adaptation: to support improvements to private residential properties in the neighborhood as a means of improving storm water management.
Certain activities under the community adaptation component, as proposed by the City, are not CDBG-eligible as housing rehabilitation activities as they do not involve the rehabilitation of the housing structure itself. Accordingly, the Department is granting a waiver and establishing an alternative requirement to create a CDBG-eligible activity that comprises all of the activities proposed for improvements to residential properties under the community adaptation component of the initiative. In its approved CDBG-NDR action plan, the city describes activities that will be eligible for funding and that entail improvements to private residential properties. These improvements may include the installation of permeable driveways, rain cisterns, bioswales and other site and exterior adaptations and resilience retrofits which are on the property of homeowners, but generally do not involve physical improvements to the housing unit.
To clarify the eligibility of these activities as outlined in the city's approved CDBG-NDR application and action plan, the Department is approving a waiver and alternative requirement to expand section 105(a)(4) of the HCDA only to the extent necessary to create a new eligible activity for the city's CDBG-NDR grant. This new eligible activity shall be comprised of activities described in its CDBG-NDR application and approved action plan for residential improvements under the community adaptation portion of the initiative, through installation of improvements and implementation of stormwater management practices on residential properties for the purpose of enhancing the resilience of the residential building and preventing neighborhood flooding.
This section of the notice specifies waivers and alternative requirements and modifies requirements for CDBG-DR funds awarded to grantees that received an allocation for a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 major disaster under Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation. Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 authorize the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. As required by Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 the waivers and alternative requirements provided in this paragraph are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waivers or alternative requirements are not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA.
Grantees that received an allocation for a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 major disaster under Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 are subject to different federal requirements established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and HUD, with respect to the elevation of nonresidential structures in a floodplain. Grantees that have received an allocation of CDBG-MIT funds pursuant to Public Law 115-123 are also subject to these different federal requirements.
Specifically, CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grantees under these appropriations and corresponding
CDBG-DR funds may be used to meet the non-federal match requirements for programs funded by FEMA. CDBG-DR grantees using FEMA and CDBG-DR funds to fund the same activity, however, have encountered challenges in certain circumstances in reconciling CDBG-DR elevation requirements with those established by FEMA. CDBG-MIT grantees will encounter similar challenges in the implementation of projects when using FEMA funds
As programs funded by FEMA are pursuant to an annual appropriation, FEMA funded projects generally commence soon after a disaster and well in advance of the availability of CDBG-DR funds. When CDBG-DR funds are used as match for a FEMA project that is underway, the alignment of HUD's elevation standards with any alternative standard allowed by FEMA may not be feasible and may not be cost reasonable.
Accordingly, the Department is waiving the elevation requirements applicable under the
On June 20, 2019, the Department published a
The Department recognizes that not all grantees include this level of specificity in their action plan and is broadening the applicability of the 2019 DOB Notice to include existing programs and activities, to the extent that the grantee amends its action plan
• “The 2019 DOB Notice shall supersede the 2011 DOB notice for any new activities submitted to HUD in an action plan or action plan amendment on or after the effective date of this notice, and for existing programs and activities, to the extent that the grantee amends its action plan or its policies and procedures to change the treatment of loans in accordance with the 2019 DOB Notice. If a grantee opts to revise its policies and procedures for one or more existing programs that were included in an action plan for disaster recovery before the effective date of this notice, the grantee must amend its action plan to reflect any resulting changes in benefits to program participants or to correct any resulting inconsistencies with duplication of benefits policies described in the action plan.”
The State of Texas was awarded a total of $74,568,000 from Public Laws 114-113 and 115-31 for recovery from 2015 disasters; a total of $238,895,000 from Public Laws 114-223, 114-254, and 115-31 for recovery from 2016 disasters; a total of $5,734,190,000 from Public Laws 115-56, 115-123, and 115-31 for recovery from Hurricane Harvey disaster; a total of $72,913,000 from Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 for recovery from 2018 disasters; and a total of $212,741,000 from Public Law 116-20 for recovery from 2019 disasters. HUD has also awarded $4,297,189,000 of CDBG-MIT funds to the State under Public Law 115-123 for mitigation activities. This section of the notice specifies waivers and alternative requirements and modifies requirements for CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds awarded to the State of Texas under Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation.
The State is seeking a waiver and alternative requirement to apply exception criteria in determining that an activity qualifies as meeting the low- and moderate-income (LMI) area benefit national objective when the area contains fewer than 51 percent of LMI persons. This waiver and alternative requirement will allow the State to use the “upper quartile” or “exception criteria” for LMI area benefit activities for non-entitlement counties impacted by the 2015 and 2016 floods, as well as areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey.
Section 105(c)(2)(A) of the HCDA generally provides that assisted activities designed to serve an area generally and clearly designed to meet identified needs of LMI persons in the area, shall be considered to principally benefit persons of low- and moderate-income if the area served in a metropolitan city or urban county is within the highest quartile of all areas within the jurisdiction of such city or county in terms of the degree of concentration of persons of low- and moderate-income. In some cases, HUD permits an exception to the requirement that at least 51 percent of the residents of the area qualify as LMI, when certain requirements are met.
The exception provided by HUD under this waiver and alternative requirement is typically applied to those entitlement communities that have few, if any, areas within their jurisdiction that have 51 percent or more of LMI residents. Under the exception, communities are allowed to use a percentage that is less than 51 percent to qualify activities under the LMI area benefit national objective criteria. In these communities, activities must serve an area that contains a percentage of LMI residents that is within the upper quartile of all census-block groups within its jurisdiction in terms of the degree of concentration of LMI residents. HUD assesses each grantee's census-block groups to determine whether a grantee qualifies to use this exception and identifies the alternative percentage the grantee may use instead of 51 percent for the purpose of qualifying activities under the LMI area benefit national objective criteria. HUD determines the lowest proportion a grantee may use to qualify an area for this purpose and advises the grantee accordingly. CDBG-DR grantees are required to use the most recent data available in implementing the exception criteria. The “exception criteria” applies to disaster recovery activities funded by a State grantee pursuant to the applicable
The State of Texas is requesting this waiver and alternative requirement for only those non-entitlement counties in which fewer than one quarter of the block groups within each jurisdiction have 51 percent or more of LMI residents. When the “upper quartile” or “exception criteria” methodology is applied to block groups within those counties that do not fall within an entitlement community, fewer than one quarter of the populated-block groups in those counties contain 51 percent or more of LMI persons.
To enable the State to undertake the activities it has determined to be most critical for its recovery, and to ensure that LMI persons are sufficiently served and assisted, HUD is waiving section 105(c)(2)(A) of the HCDA and establishing an alternative requirement to authorize the State to use the “upper quartile” or “exception criteria” for LMI area benefit activities for non-entitlement counties for any current or future grants made under Public Laws 114-113, 114-223, 114-254, 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20.
The non-entitlement counties that qualify under this alternative requirement, and the calculated “exception percentages” for each, will be posted in tables on the HUD website. These tables will be updated annually by HUD. The “exception percentage” for each of the counties that qualify will represent the new threshold for qualifying block groups in those counties under the LMI area benefit national objective criteria. In granting this flexibility to the State of Texas, the Department will not consider any request to lower the State's requirements in regard to the overall percentage of funds that must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons for its CDBG-DR funds for 2015 to 2019 disasters, or its CDBG-MIT funds.
The Department has awarded $5,734,190,000 in CDBG-DR funds to the State of Texas for recovery from Hurricane Harvey from Public Laws 115-56, 115-123, and 115-31. HUD has also awarded $4,297,189,000 of CDBG-MIT funds to the State under Public Law 115-123 for mitigation activities. Additionally, the State was awarded a total of $72,913,000 from Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 for recovery from 2018 disasters, and a total of $212,741,000 from Public Law 116-20 for recovery from 2019 disasters. This section of the notice specifies waivers and alternative requirements and modifies requirements for CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds awarded to the State of Texas under Public Laws 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation.
Public Laws 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 authorize the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. The waiver and alternative requirement provided in this paragraph is in response to a request by the State of Texas explaining why there is good cause for the waiver and based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA.
The State is asking to modify requirements and coordinate recovery efforts across multiple CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT allocations under Public Laws 115-31, 115-56, 115-123, 115-254, and 116-20 through use of a standardized area median income for purposes of meeting the low- and moderate-income national objective criteria.
42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)(A) defines the terms “persons of low and moderate income” and “low- and moderate-income persons” to mean families and individuals whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the median income of the area involved, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger families.
The State has presented data indicating a large range in area median income (AMI) in the Harvey-impacted areas of the State, ranging from $40,200 to $91,100 for a family of four. This statewide variation can have unintended consequences for participation in CDBG-DR funded activities, for example, the State affirms that “while the cost of living varies between communities throughout the state, the cost to rebuild or reconstruct a new home does not vary on the order of magnitude evidenced by the disparity in AMI across Texas counties.” As the State seeks to primarily serve LMI individuals and areas in the disaster-impacted counties, the variation between county-level AMI limits the participation of families and individuals in the State's recovery programs in those counties with very low AMI, because these families and individuals have incomes that are at or above the 80 percent of AMI in the respective county even though their incomes are less than 80 percent of the statewide median income.
Based on the above circumstance, the State of Texas has requested a waiver and alternative requirement to allow the State to make LMI determinations across the most impacted and distressed (MID) areas for 2017, 2018, and 2019 disasters based on a determination that the incomes of families and individuals are below 80 percent of statewide median income. In its request, the State emphasizes the importance of providing assistance to the households most in need through a housing rehabilitation and reconstruction program, through buyouts and acquisitions that remove homes from harms' way, and through other flood drainage infrastructure activities.
In the circumstances outlined in the State's request, the broadening of 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)(A) is warranted given the variance in AMIs across the affected counties. Thus, the Department finds that good causes exists and waives 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)(A) to the extent necessary to allow the Secretary to enable the State of Texas to make LMI determinations based on statewide median income instead of otherwise applicable AMI when local AMI is below statewide median income data (as published by HUD annually with adjustments for smaller and larger families). In areas where this waiver and alternative requirement permits the State to use statewide median income for LMI determinations, the State may also use statewide median income data (as published by HUD annually with adjustments for smaller and larger families) to calculate 120 percent of statewide median income, and to use 120 percent of statewide median income as a substitute for 120 percent of AMI. This will allow the State of Texas to standardize the median income for the counties impacted by Hurricane Harvey, and 2018 and 2019 disasters that have an AMI below the statewide median income. This alternative requirement also includes the MID areas identified by the State and HUD for its CDBG-MIT funds. However, if those counties have an AMI above the statewide median income, LMI eligibility will continue to be defined by the county's higher AMI standard.
This waiver and alternative requirement is provided for the purposes of assisting the most at-risk populations who are in need of recovery assistance in each of the MID areas identified by HUD and the State for 2017, 2018, 2019 disasters, and its CDBG-MIT funds. In granting this flexibility to the State of Texas, the Department will not consider any request to lower the State's requirement in regard to the overall percentage of funds that must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons for its CDBG-DR funds for 2017, 2018, or 2019 disasters or its CDBG-MIT funds.
The Department awarded $5,024,215,000 under Public Law 115-56 and $652,175,000 under Public Law 115-123 to the State of Texas for recovery from Hurricane Harvey for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation due to a qualified disaster. This section of the notice specifies waivers and alternative requirements and modifies requirements for CDBG-DR funds awarded to the State of Texas under Public Laws 115-56 and 115-123.
Public Law 115-56 and 115-123 authorize the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. The State of Texas has submitted a request for the waiver in this section with an explanation of why the waiver is required to facilitate the use of the funds. The waiver and alternative requirement provided in this section is based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists, and that the waiver and alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA.
The State is implementing a Homeowner Reimbursement Program designed to assist homeowners in recovering up to $50,000 in out-of-pocket expenses paid by the homeowner for residential rehabilitation due to Hurricane Harvey. To be eligible for this program, the State's rules require that the home must be the owner's primary residence and the eligible repairs must have been completed prior to the program's application launch date of February 28, 2019. Because the State's Hurricane Harvey response and recovery efforts commenced on the date of the disaster and before CDBG-DR assistance was available, some homeowners participating in the State's Homeowner Reimbursement Program may have repaired their homes to meet program requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local permitting requirements, rather than the CDBG-DR program requirements.
Some homeowners seeking assistance from the State's program elevated homes to meet the requirements of their municipalities but did not elevate their homes to meet HUD's requirement that residential structures be elevated to at least 2 feet above base flood elevation as required by the
HUD's February 9, 2018 notice provides that: “All structures, defined at 44 CFR 59.1, designed principally for residential use and located in the 100-year (or 1 percent annual chance) floodplain that receive assistance for new construction, repair of substantial damage, or substantial improvement, as defined at 24 CFR 55.2(b)(10), must be elevated with the lowest floor, including the basement, at least two feet above the base flood elevation (83 FR 5861).”
HUD finds that good cause exists to waive the language in the
• The homeowner's reimbursed rehabilitation costs complied with the elevation requirement of the local jurisdiction.
• The activity is eligible under title I of the HCDA or by waiver and is consistent with CPD-15-07: Guidance for Charging Pre-Application Costs of Homeowners, Businesses, and Other Qualifying Entities to CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants.
• The activity meets a CDBG-DR national objective and otherwise complies with CDBG-DR requirements not waived by this section.
• The State uses not less than 70 percent of the aggregate CDBG-DR grant for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
The State must ensure that all costs charged to this program and to the CDBG-DR grant are necessary and reasonable expenses related to disaster recovery.
Public Law 115-123 authorizes the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of
The Department's August 30, 2019
(1) Substantial amendment. The grantee must provide a 30-day public comment period and reasonable method(s) (including electronic submission) for receiving comments on substantial amendments. In its action plan, each grantee must specify criteria for determining what changes in the grantee's plan constitute a substantial amendment to the plan. At a minimum, the following modifications will constitute a substantial amendment: The addition of a CDBG-MIT Covered Project; a change in program benefit or eligibility criteria; the addition or deletion of an activity; or the allocation or reallocation of a monetary threshold specified by the grantee in its action plan. The grantee may substantially amend the action plan if it follows the same procedures required for CDBG- MIT funds for the preparation and submission of an action plan, provided, however, that a substantial action plan amendment shall require a 30-day public comment period and is not subject to the public hearing requirements in section V.A.3.a. of this notice.
Public Laws 115-56, 115-123, and 116-20 authorize the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment).
Waivers and alternative requirements are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists, and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA. Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. For the waiver and alternative requirement described in this section of the notice, the Secretary has determined that good cause exists and that the waiver and alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA.
Grantees under Public Laws 115-56, 115-123, and 116-20 may request waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their recovery activities. Public Laws 115-56, 115-123, and 116-20 also authorize the Department to provide waivers and establish alternative requirements absent a request from a CDBG-DR grantee.
The Department awarded the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) $242,684,000 of CDBG-DR funds under Public Law 115-56, $779,221,000 of CDBG-DR funds under Public Law 115-123, and $53,588,884 of CDBG-DR funds under Public Law 116-20. The Department has also awarded the USVI $774,188,000 of CDBG-MIT funds under Public Law 115-123 for mitigation activities.
The USVI has requested that HUD provide a waiver to establish higher income limits for the purposes of determining low- and moderate-income benefit, due to the USVI's extremely high cost of living. The USVI contends that “the data used to set HUD area medium incomes (AMI) and the associated income limits for the U.S. Virgin Islands is uniquely outdated compared to other grantees due to the lack of recent American Community Survey (ACS) data from the Census Bureau. This results in compounding inaccuracies as estimates are based on data collected over eight years ago.” The USVI contends that granting this waiver and alternative requirement will allow it to more accurately reflect the number of residents that are financially burdened and who are in greatest need of CDBG-DR assistance.
In order to establish consistent LMI income limits across all three islands of the USVI and recognizing the high cost and other unique characteristics of the USVI identified above, the Department finds that good causes exists and waives 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)(A) to the extent necessary to standardize the AMI across the entire territory of the USVI by allowing the USVI to use the area median income (as published by HUD annually with adjustments for smaller and larger families) of the Island of St. John for all islands in the territory, since those LMI income limits are the highest of the three islands within the Territory. This waiver also permits the use of AMI of the Island of St. John (as published by HUD annually with adjustments for smaller and larger families) for all islands in the territory whenever grant requirements necessitate the application of AMI, including when it may be necessary to calculate 120 percent of AMI. In granting this flexibility, the Department will not consider any request to lower the USVI's requirement in regard to the overall percentage of funds that must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
This section of the notice applies to certain grantees that received an allocation of funds appropriated under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 for major disasters and events that occurred in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 authorize the Secretary to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation or use by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment).
Waivers and alternative requirements are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists, and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the HCDA. Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5. For the waivers and alternative requirements described in this section of notice, the Secretary has determined
Grantees under Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 may request waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their recovery activities. Public Laws 115-254 and 116-20 also authorize the Department to provide waivers and establish alternative requirements absent a request from a CDBG-DR grantee.
The Department has awarded $188,652,000 of CDBG-DR funds under Public Law 115-254 and $55,294,000 under Public Law 116-20, for a combined allocation of $243,946,000 to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). CNMI has requested that HUD authorize the use of up to $10,000,000 of CDBG-DR funds for tourism and business marketing as activities necessary for recovery from Super Typhoon Yutu. Tourism is the primary economic contributor to CNMI's economy. The Marianas Visitors Authority (MVA), the CNMI's tourism office, is mandated to promote Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and the Northern Islands as an ideal destination to travelers from countries in Asia, Oceania and throughout the world. CNMI's current main tourism markets are Korea, China, and Japan.
The total value of tourism within the CNMI economy amounts to $1.1 billion (or 72 percent) of overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the accommodations and amusement sector provides for an average of 21.5 percent of total employee compensation within the Commonwealth. Due to the influence of the tourism industry in the CNMI and the scale of Super Typhoon Yutu, the impacts of the disaster on the economy were wide-ranging and pronounced. In total, arrivals for November (after the typhoon in October) fell by 88.35 percent or 42,444, marking the sharpest year-over-year downturn in recent history. The closure of the Saipan International Airport also led to a decrease in arrivals by 30 percent (over 400,000 visitors).
Tourism and business advertising campaigns are in general ineligible for CDBG-DR assistance. HUD, however, recognizes that such support can be an important means of economic recovery in a damaged regional economy that depends on tourism and seeks to attract new business investments to generate jobs and create tax revenues.
HUD has previously granted similar waivers for other CDBG-DR grantees with tourism-dependent economies. As CNMI is proposing advertising and marketing activities rather than direct assistance to tourism-dependent and other businesses, and because the measures of long-term benefit from the proposed activities must be derived using indirect means, 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) is waived only to the extent necessary to make eligible use of no more than $10,000,000 for assistance for tourism and business marketing activities to promote travel and to attract new businesses to disaster-impacted areas. No elected officials shall appear in tourism or business marketing materials financed with CDBG-DR funds. Given the importance of tourism to the overall economy, HUD is authorizing this use of these funds without regard to unmet housing need. This waiver will expire two years after the Commonwealth first draws CDBG-DR funds under the allocation provided in the January 27, 2020
In providing similar waivers for other CDBG-DR grantees, the Department has often identified issues in the procurement of tourism and business marketing services, with grantees adding CDBG-DR funds to existing tourism and business marketing contracts procured with other sources of funds. In providing this waiver, HUD advises the Commonwealth to ensure that contracts funded pursuant to this waiver with CDBG-DR funds comply with applicable procurement requirements. The grantee must also develop metrics to demonstrate the impact of CDBG-DR expenditures on the tourism and other sectors of the economy and shall identify those metrics in its action plan.
The Department's January 27, 2020
A grantee that received a certification of its financial controls and procurement processes pursuant to a 2016 or 2017 disaster or for its CDBG-MIT allocation may request that HUD rely on its previous certification for purposes of this grant, provided, however, that grantees shall be required to provide updates to reflect any material changes in the submissions. This information must be submitted within 60 days of the applicability date of this notice. The grant agreement will not be executed until HUD has approved the grantee's certifications. The grantee must implement the CDBG-DR grant consistent with the controls, processes, and procedures as certified by HUD. HUD is requiring each grantee to submit (or update and resubmit, as applicable) all policies and procedures pertaining to its duplication of benefits procedures as outlined below:
HUD is also deleting and replacing the first bullet in section III of the January 27, 2020 notice with the following:
• Within 60 days of the applicability date of this notice (or when the grantee submits its action plan, whichever is earlier), submit documentation for the certification of financial controls and procurement processes and adequate procedures for grant management, as amended in section IV.B.1 of this notice. A grantee that received a certification of its financial controls and procurement processes pursuant to a 2016 or 2017 disaster or for its CDBG-MIT allocation, may request that HUD rely on its previous certification for purposes of this allocation, provided, however, that grantees shall be required to provide updates to reflect any material changes in the submissions.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel,
Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Wilton Rancheria, California (Tribe) leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business leases without further BIA approval.
These regulations were approved on September 23, 2020.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Wilton Rancheria, California.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Wilton Rancheria, California.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
September 22, 2020.
Christopher W. Robinson (202-205-2542), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective February 24, 2020, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigation on glass containers from China,
This supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final LTFV determination is September 29, 2020. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final LTFV determination regarding imports of glass containers from China. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. The supplemental staff report in the final phase of this investigation regarding subject LTFV imports from China will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 9, 2020; and a public version will be issued thereafter.
For further information concerning this investigation see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Lashify, Inc. on September 10, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain artificial eyelash extension systems, products, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: KISS Nail Products, Inc. of Port Washington, NY; Ulta Beauty, Inc. of Bolingbrook, IL; Walmart, Inc. of Bentonville, AR; CVS Health Corporation of Woonsocket, RI; Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Hollyren of China; Qingdao Xizi International Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a Xizi Lashes of China; Qingdao LashBeauty Cosmetic Co., Ltd. d/b/a Worldbeauty of China; Alicia Zeng d/b/a Lilac St.; Artemis Family Beginnings, Inc. of San Francisco, CA; and Rachael Gleason d/b/a Avant Garde Beauty Co. of Dallas, TX. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3488”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Q3 Networking LLC on September 22, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain routers, access points, controllers, network management devices, other networking products, and hardware and software components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: CommScope Holding Company, Inc. of Hickory, NC; CommScope, Inc. of Hickory, NC; Arris US Holdings, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; Ruckus Wireless, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. of Palo Alto, CA; Aruba Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA; and Netgear, Inc. of San Jose, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond to upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3493”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 202nd open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held via a teleconference on Thursday, October 22, and Friday, October 23, 2020.
The two-day meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at approximately 5:30 p.m. each day with a one-hour break for lunch. The purpose of the open meeting is for Advisory Council members to hear testimony from invited witnesses and to receive an update from the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).
The Advisory Council will study the following topics: (1) Examining Top Hat Plan Participation and Reporting, and (2) Considerations for Recognizing and Addressing Participants with Diminished Capacity. Descriptions of these topics are available on the ERISA Advisory Council's web page at
The agenda for the meeting, which will include the schedule of witness testimony and the EBSA update, will be available on the ERISA Advisory Council's web page at
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so on or before Thursday, October 15, 2020, to Christine Donahue, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council. Statements should be transmitted electronically as an email attachment in text or pdf format to
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the ERISA Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary no later than October 15, 2020, via email to
Individuals who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary no later than October 15, 2020, via email to
For more information about the meeting, contact the Executive Secretary via email to
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Quarterly Narrative Progress Report, Employment and Training Supplemental Budget Request Activities.” 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 November 27, 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 Jennifer Garrett by telephone at (202) 693-3114, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (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, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Jennifer Garrett by telephone at 202-693-3114 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
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 Office of Management and Budget (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 ETA National and Regional Offices use the Quarterly Narrative Progress Report, Employment and Training Supplemental Budget Request Activities, to monitor the progress of State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) in implementing supplemental grant projects. ETA provides supplemental grants for SWAs to prevent and detect improper benefit payments, improve state performance, and address outdated information technology (IT) system infrastructures. ETA implements these projects through Unemployment
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 it is approved by OMB under the PRA 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. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
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. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
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, (
Office of Inspector General (OIG), United States Department of Labor.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), the U.S. Department of Labor (“Department”) publishes this notice of a new system of records titled “Office of Inspector General Warehouse and Learning System (OWLS),” DOL/OIG-12. This system will consist of data that is already stored in departmental, state, and other Federal databases; and will aid in the furtherance of OIG's statutory duties under the Inspector General Act of 1978 in the performance of audits, evaluations, reviews, and investigations.
This System of Records Notice (SORN) is effective upon its publication in today's
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
U.S. DOL Office of Inspector General, Office of Management and Policy, Attention: Chief, Branch of Database Management and Applications, John Birdsell, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-7055.
This new system of records is established for the general purpose of enabling the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to fulfill its statutory duties and responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3 (“IG Act”). The OIG conducts, supervises, and coordinates audits, evaluations, reviews, and investigations relating to programs and operations of the Department. This system facilitates OIG's performance by providing timely access to data that is already stored in departmental, state, and other Federal databases to which OIG has legal
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the Department may exempt from a limited number of Privacy Act requirements a system of records that is maintained by a component which performs as its primary function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws and which consists of information compiled in furtherance of its functions. Additionally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), through rulemaking, the Department may exempt from a limited number of Privacy Act requirements a system of records which are disclosed to departmental officers and employees with a need for the record, or which contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552(j)(2). The materials in this system of records fall within the scope of sections 552a(j)(2), (k)(1) and (k)(2). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(r), the Department provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system.
Office of Inspector General Warehouse and Learning System (OWLS), DOL/OIG-12.
Unclassified.
Primary location: Offices in various components within the U.S. Department of Labor, at the Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, or other Department offices. Additionally, duplicate versions of some or all system information may also be at satellite locations where the OIG has granted direct access to support OIG operations, system backup, emergency preparedness, and/or continuity of operations. To determine the location of particular program records, contact the system manager, listed in section “SYSTEM MANAGER” below.
U.S. DOL Office of Inspector General, Office of Management and Policy, Attention: Chief, Branch of Database Management and Applications, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.
The system will enable the OIG to fulfill its statutory duties and responsibilities; facilitate the OIG's supervision and coordination of audits, evaluations, reviews, and investigations of departmental programs and operations; conduct, supervise, and coordinate relationships with other Federal, state, and local agencies on matters relating to investigation, prosecution, oversight, or enforcement of laws or regulations; promote economy and efficiency; and prevent fraud and abuse in the Department's programs and operations. The system will use data that OIG has legal authority to obtain and maintain to perform advanced statistical techniques, data modeling for indications of fraud, waste, and abuse, and internal control weaknesses.
Individuals who have applied for or received benefits, grants, payments, contracts, loans, and salary from the Department; those individuals who provided benefits or services under a departmental program; individuals who are associated with various state or Federal programs and whose actions impact the Department; employees of the Department, consultants, contractors, grantees, advisory committee members, and others who receive funds from the Department for performing services; U.S. employers who seek to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations; persons receiving benefits from the Workers' Compensation programs; individuals who have transacted with, utilized, are covered by a departmental component or program, and their surviving spouses, children, dependent parents and siblings; individuals who have transacted with, utilized, or are covered under a program of another Federal or state agency that is associated with a departmental program, and their surviving spouses, children, dependent parents and siblings; individuals alleged to have violated laws, regulations, or policies relating to departmental programs; individuals involved with hearings or inquiries relating to departmental programs; and Federal employees who apply for and/or utilize Government programs or receive or expend funds in an official capacity for the Department.
The system includes but is not limited to names, social security numbers, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, benefits information, medical information, application information, payments, banking and financial information, contracts, loans, salary, travel, hearings, inquiries, investigations, audits, reviews, and other records relevant to benefits or programs administered by the Department or associated Federal or state programs.
The new system will include records obtained from systems of records already maintained by the Department, state, or other Federal agencies.
In addition to the disclosures permitted under 5 U.S.C. 522a(b), as well as those contained in the Department's Universal Routine Uses of Records, all or a portion of the records or information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use under circumstances described below. The OIG may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the OIG collected the record.
(1) The OIG may disclose information from this system of records to other public authorities responsible for identifying fraud, waste, or abuse related to the Department's programs and operations; to enforce, investigate, prosecute, oversee, or assist in the enforcement of laws and regulations if the information is relevant to the functions and responsibilities of the OIG or the receiving entity.
(2) To disclose records to public and private entities or individuals that the OIG has reason to believe possesses information regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the OIG to obtain information relevant to OIG functions and duties. The OIG may disclose information from this system of records as a routine use to public or private sources to the extent necessary to obtain information from those sources relevant to an OIG investigation, audit, inspection, or other inquiry or review.
(3) To disclose to the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) or other Federal entities. OIG may disclose records as a routine use to members and employees of the CIGIE or any successor entity, or other Federal entity for the preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the investigative or audit operations of the
(4) To disclose to a state, local, or other Federal agency considering suspension or debarment action if the information is relevant to the suspension or debarment action. The OIG also may disclose information to any Federal, state, or local agency to gain information in support of the Department's own debarment and suspension actions.
(5) To disclose to complainants and/or victims. To the extent necessary to obtain information from such persons or to provide information or explanations on the progress of an investigation or inquiry.
(6) The OIG may disclose records as a routine use to any Federal, state, local, or foreign agency, or other public authority,
a. if relevant to the prevention or detection of fraud and abuse in benefit programs administered by any agency or public authority; or
b. if relevant to the collection of debts or overpayments owed to any agency or public authority.
(7) The OIG may disclose records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in this system has been compromised to assist the OIG in responding to the suspected or confirmed compromise and in helping the OIG prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(8) To disclose to the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
The following Universal Routine Use for DOL Privacy Act Systems applies: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DOL Agency may be made to a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.
The following Universal Routine Use for DOL Privacy Act Systems applies: To the Department of Justice when: (a) DOL or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of DOL in his or her official capacity; or (c) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, DOL determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which DOL collected the records.
The following Universal Routine Use for DOL Privacy Act Systems applies: A record from a system of records maintained by a DOL Agency may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(1) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DOL suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records,· (2) DOL has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOL (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DOL efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(2) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOL determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
The records are primarily maintained in electronic form on encrypted magnetic disks, encrypted tape cartridges, and on electronic media.
Records in this system of records may be retrieved by any identifying information of an individual, institution, or business.
Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Department's Records Disposition Schedules applicable to the aforementioned records. A new records retention and disposition schedule is under development for this system of records. Until NARA approves a retention and disposition schedule for these records, the OIG will not destroy any records.
OWLS is housed within a secure and controlled data center, with access restricted to authorized personnel. All data contained in the system is kept on a secured and restricted non-pubic network. The general public does not have access to OWLS. All information stored in this system is secured by using database encryption technology and is resistant to tampering and circumvention by unauthorized users. Access to data by all users is monitored using both automated and manual controls.
A request for access should be mailed to the System Manager and comply with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 71.2.
A petition for amendment should be mailed to the System Manager and comply with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 71.9.
Inquiries should be mailed to the System Manager and comply with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 71.
The system will consist of records compiled from existing systems of records maintained by the Department and other Federal and state agencies. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the Secretary, through rulemaking, plans to exempt the system from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act. Additionally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), the Secretary, through rulemaking, plans to exempt a limited number of Privacy Act provisions. The OIG will continue to apply to individual records within the system any Privacy Act exemptions which apply to the system(s) from which the relevant record(s) originated. The Privacy Act Systems of Records
None.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 28, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anthony May by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The CPS has been the principal source of the official Government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 75 years. The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation news release contains data from this survey and is designated as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator (PFEI). Moreover, the survey also yields data on the characteristics of persons not in the labor force. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation. The labor force data gathered through the CPS are provided to users in the greatest detail possible, in conjunction with the demographic information obtained in the survey. In brief, the labor force data can be broken down by sex, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational level, certification and licensing status, disability status, and other characteristics. Through such breakdowns, one can focus on the employment situation of specific population groups as well as on general trends in employment and unemployment. Information of this type can be obtained only through demographically oriented surveys such as the CPS. The basic CPS data also are used as an important platform on which to base the data derived from the various supplemental questions that are administered in conjunction with the survey. By coupling the basic data from the monthly survey with the special data from the supplements, one can get valuable insights on the behavior of American workers and on the social and economic health of their families. There is wide interest in the monthly CPS data among Government policymakers, legislators, economists, the media, and the general public. While the data from the CPS are used in conjunction with data from other surveys in assessing the economic health of the Nation, they are unique in various ways. Specifically, they are the basis for much of the monthly Employment Situation report, a PFEI. They provide a monthly, nationally representative measure of total employment, including farm work, self-employment, and unpaid family work; other surveys are generally restricted to the nonagricultural wage and salary sector, or provide less timely information. The CPS provides data on all job seekers, and on all persons outside the labor force, while payroll-based surveys cannot, by definition, cover these sectors of the population. Finally, the CPS data on employment, unemployment, and on persons not in the labor force can be linked to the demographic characteristics of the many groups that make up the Nation's population, while the data from other surveys often have limited demographic information. Many groups, both in the government and in the private sector, are eager to analyze this wealth of demographic and labor force data. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 28, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anthony May by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized,
All comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• 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.
•
• MSHA will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Roslyn Fontaine, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
Under section 103(a) of the Mine Act, authorized representatives of the Secretary or Secretary of Health and Human Services must make frequent inspections and investigations in coal or other mines each year for the purpose of gathering information with respect to mandatory health or safety standards.
Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 75.159 and 77.106 require coal mine operators to maintain a list of persons who are certified and qualified to perform duties under 30 CFR parts 75 and 77, such as examining for hazardous conditions, testing for methane and oxygen deficiency, conducting tests of air flow, performing electrical work, repairing energized surface high-voltage lines, and performing the duties of hoisting engineer. This information collection is necessary to ensure that only persons who are properly trained and sufficiently experienced are permitted to perform these duties. Although MSHA does not specify a format for the recordkeeping, it normally consists of the names of the certified and qualified persons listed in two columns on a sheet of paper. One column is for certified persons and the other is for qualified persons.
Sections 75.100 and 77.100 pertain to the certification of certain persons to perform specific examinations and tests. Sections 75.155 and 77.105 outline the requirements necessary to be qualified as a hoisting engineer or hoistman. Under sections 75.160, 75.161, 77.107, and 77.107-1, the mine operator must have an approved training plan developed to train and retrain the qualified and certified persons to effectively perform their tasks.
These regulations recognize State certification and qualification programs. However, where State programs are not available, MSHA may certify and qualify miners to carry out certain functions prescribed in the Mine Act.
Under this program, MSHA will qualify or certify individuals if these individuals meet the requirements for qualification or certification, fulfill any applicable retraining requirements, and remain employed at the same mine or by the same independent contractor.
Applications for MSHA qualification or certification are submitted to the MSHA Qualification and Certification Unit in Denver, Colorado. MSHA Form 5000-41, Safety & Health Activity Certification or Hoisting Engineer Qualification Request provides the coal mining industry with a standardized reporting format that expedites the certification and qualification process while ensuring compliance with the regulations. MSHA uses the information collected through this form to determine if applicants satisfy the requirements to obtain the certification or qualification sought. Persons must meet certain minimum experience requirements depending on the type of certification or qualification sought.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Certification and Qualification to Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to 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,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns provisions for Certification and Qualification to Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on September 28, 2020.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of two test standards to the scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted two applications, one dated June 28, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0028-0066), and another dated January 14, 2019 (OSHA-2006-0028-0067). The applications seek to expand MET's scope of recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the applications and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion applications in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to MET's applications, go to
OSHA examined MET's expansion applications, the capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on the review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the scope of recognition, subject to conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of MET's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's scope of recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, OSHA may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in the operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of the recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the conditions specified above.
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Notice of meeting.
We are announcing 2020's annual meeting of the Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers Council, co-chaired by the Director of OGIS and the Director of OIP.
The meeting will be on Wednesday, October 14, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EDT. Please register for the meeting no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, October 12, 2020 (registration information is detailed below).
Martha Murphy by email at
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(k)). Additional details about the meeting will be available on OGIS's website at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemptions; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued 15 exemptions in response to requests from 7 licensees. The exemptions afford these licensees temporary relief from certain requirements under NRC regulations. The exemptions are in response to the licensees' requests for relief due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency (PHE). The NRC is issuing a single notice to announce the issuance of the exemptions.
During the period from August 3, 2020, to August 28, 2020, the NRC granted 15 exemptions in response to requests submitted by licensees from June 24, 2020, to August 20, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0110 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.
James Danna, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7422, email:
During the period from August 3, 2020, to August 28, 2020, the NRC granted 15 exemptions in response to requests submitted by licensees from June 24, 2020, to August 20, 2020. These exemptions temporarily allow the licensees to deviate from certain requirements (as cited below) of various parts of chapter I of title 10 of the
The exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs,” for Exelon Generation Company, LLC (for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant), and NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) allow these licensees temporary relief from the work-hour controls under 10 CFR 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(7). The exemptions from 10 CFR 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(7) ensure that the control of work hours and management of worker fatigue do not unduly limit licensee flexibility in using personnel resources to most effectively manage the impacts of the COVID-19 PHE on maintaining the safe operation of these facilities. Specifically, the licensees stated that their staffing levels are affected or are expected to be affected by the COVID-19 PHE, and they can no longer meet or likely will not meet the work-hour controls of 10 CFR 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(7). The licensees have committed to effecting site-specific administrative controls for COVID-19 PHE fatigue-management for personnel specified in 10 CFR 26.4(a).
The exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 55, “Operators' Licenses,” for NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) affords the licensee a temporary exemption from requirements related to licensed operator requalification program scheduling (under 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1), 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2), and 10 CFR 55.59(c)(1)). The exemption from the requalification program requirements provides increased scheduling flexibility to manage conditions resulting from the COVID-19 PHE by allowing NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC to reduce the possibility of exposures associated with groups of people gathered in a single location, as discussed above.
The exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 73 for Exelon Generation Company, LLC (for Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2); Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (for Palisades Nuclear Plant); Nebraska Public Power District (for Cooper Nuclear Station); Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2); PSEG Nuclear LLC (for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2); and Entergy Operations, Inc. (for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) afford these licensees temporary exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 73, appendix B, “General Criteria for Security Personnel,” section VI. The exemptions will help to ensure that these regulatory requirements do not unduly limit licensee flexibility in using personnel resources in a manner that most effectively manages the impacts of the COVID-19 PHE on maintaining the safe and secure operation of these facilities and the implementation of the licensees' NRC-approved security plans, protective strategy, and implementing procedures. These licensees have committed to certain security measures to ensure response readiness and for their security personnel to maintain performance capability.
The NRC is providing compiled tables of exemptions using a single
The tables below provide the facility name, docket number, document title, and ADAMS accession number for each exemption issued. Additional details on each exemption issued, including the exemption request submitted by the respective licensee and the NRC's decision, are provided in each exemption approval listed in the tables below. For additional directions on accessing information in ADAMS, see the
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the October 15, 2020, meeting of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee previously announced in the
The virtual meeting will be held on October 15, 2020, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
The meeting will convene virtually.
Madeline Gonzalez, 202-606-2858, or email
According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that the October 15, 2020, meeting of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee previously announced in the
This meeting will be open to the public, with an audio option for listening. This notice sets forth the agenda for the meeting and the participation guidelines.
The following information must be provided when registering:
Members of the press, in addition to registering for this event, must also RSVP to
A confirmation email will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Audio teleconference information for participation will be sent to registrants the morning of the virtual meeting.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing,
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via audio webcast only on the Commission's website at
The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to Regulation ATS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) that would, among other things, eliminate an exemption from compliance with Regulation ATS for ATSs that trade government securities, require ATSs that trade government securities to file a new public form, apply the fair access rule under Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS to ATSs that meet certain volume thresholds for U.S. Treasury securities and agency securities, and require the electronic filing of Form ATS and Form ATS-R; and propose amendments to Regulation SCI to apply to ATSs that meet certain volume thresholds for U.S. Treasury securities and agency securities. The Commission will also consider whether to issue a concept release on the regulatory framework for electronic platforms that trade corporate debt and municipal securities.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202) 551-5400.
On July 29, 2020, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
ICC is proposing to make changes to its Risk Management Model Description in connection with its proposed launch of the clearing of credit default index swaptions (“Index Swaptions”).
The proposed changes would amend the Risk Management Model Description to incorporate a stochastic implied mean absolute deviation (“MAD”) feature in connection with the proposed launch of the clearing of Index Swaptions and make certain other minor clarification changes. Specifically, the proposed amendments would modify Section VII of the Risk Management Model Description to add a subsection on stochastic implied MAD modeling. In ICC-2020-002, which is one of the Swaption Rule Filings, ICC modified the integrated spread response component of the margin model to incorporate an options-implied credit spread distribution, which includes a scale parameter related to the MAD implied from swaption prices (“implied MAD”).
Under the proposed changes, the risk methodology for clearing Index Swaptions would consider the risk arising from the joint fluctuations of the underlying index levels and the options implied MAD scales in proposed Subsection VII.3. ICC would identify and describe the distribution that the changes of the implied MAD scales associated with each option expiry follow. ICC would also discuss and provide the rationale for its selected parameter estimation approach. Specifically, ICC would set out how the distribution parameters are estimated for a set of implied MAD changes. The proposed changes further explain how ICC models the joint fluctuations of the underlying index levels and the options implied MAD scales. Proposed Figure 12 illustrates the simulation approach and is thus intended to replace Figure 11 in Subsection VII.2.2 that ICC proposes to remove. Relatedly, in Subsection VII.5.1.1 with respect to instrument profit/loss (“P/L”) estimations for Index Swaptions, ICC proposes to add reference to notations related to the stochastic implied MAD from proposed Subsection VII.3.
The rule proposal would also make minor clarification changes to the Risk Management Model Description. Specifically, the proposal would reference the clearinghouse in Subsection III.6 when describing from where certain data is obtained and to abbreviate the term `mean absolute deviation' in Subsection VI.2. Because of the addition of Subsection VII.3, the proposal would therefore renumber the subsections in Section VII accordingly. Additionally, the proposal would make clarifications to a formula and its notes in Subsection VII.5.1.2 regarding risk factor P/L estimations, including with respect to the description of an alternative option position P/L computation, subsequent risk estimations and the addition of certain payments to portfolio requirements.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible.
As noted above, the proposed rule change would enable a stochastic implied MAD feature in the Risk Management Model Description in connection with the proposed launch of the clearing of Index Swaptions. The stochastic implied MAD approach considers the joint fluctuations of the underlying index levels and the options implied MAD scales, which is in contrast to the static implied MAD formulation where the implied MAD scale does not change in response to the simulated underlying index levels. The Commission believes that by adjusting its risk modeling to account for rapidly changing and highly volatile markets, ICC will enhance its ability to manage the participant default risk by taking into account changing market environments. The Commission also believes that the clarification updates foster more clear and up to date
The Commission believes that such enhancements to ICC's ability to manage default risk combined with more up to date documentation will consequently enhance its financial position by facilitating the collection of margin more precisely tailored to the risks of the relevant products and, therefore, promote its ability to manage the applicable credit exposures, thereby helping to ensure ICC's continued operations in the event of a default and to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions. Similarly, the Commission believes that the more precisely tailored margin could, in turn, help reduce the amount of credit losses that would potentially be charged to non-defaulting members in the event of a default, thereby helping to ensure that ICC is able to safeguard securities and funds in its custody and control. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining additional financial resources at the minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the two participant families that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
As noted above, the proposed rule change would modify the Risk Management Model Description to add a subsection on stochastic implied MAD modeling in which the risk methodology for clearing Index Swaptions would consider the risk arising from the joint fluctuations of the underlying index levels and the options implied MAD scales. The Commission believes that by incorporating these changes, ICC will be in a better position to anticipate risks in these products under more dynamic and volatile market conditions for the underlying indexes, thereby enhancing its ability to collect the appropriate margin and consequently cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the two participant families that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market. As noted above, the proposed rule change considers the relationship between the underlying index levels and the implied MAD scales and presents a more advanced risk modeling technique for option instruments in rapidly changing market conditions and high-volatility market environments. The Commission believes that by taking into account the market dynamics of the underlying index levels, the proposed change will enable ICC to produces margin levels commensurate with the risks and attributes of Index Swaptions. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is therefore consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend Rule 4
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would amend Rule 4 to provide expressly that the Participants Fund continues to be a liquidity resource that may be used by DTC to fund a settlement funding gap to complete settlement on a Business Day, whether the funding gap is the result of a Participant Default or otherwise. In addition, the proposed rule change would make other technical and clarifying amendments to Rule 4 to provide enhanced transparency with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources to complete settlement on a Business Day, as discussed below.
DTC is the central securities depository (“CSD”) for substantially all corporate and municipal debt and equity securities available for trading in the United States. DTC plays a critical role in the national financial infrastructure.
The DTC settlement system records money debits and credits to Participant settlement accounts throughout a Business Day. Credits to a Participant settlement account arise from deliveries versus payment, receipt of payment orders, principal and interest distributions in respect of securities held, intraday settlement progress payments and any other items or transactions that give rise to a credit. Debits to a Participant settlement account are primarily due to receives versus payment, as well as other types of charges to the account permitted under the Rules. As these debits and credits to a Participant's settlement account are recorded intraday, the Participant's settlement account will be in a net debit balance or net credit balance from time to time and, finally, at the end of a Business Day, a net debit, net credit or zero balance is determined. This final net debit or net credit balance determines whether the Participant has an obligation to pay or to be paid in the process of DTC completing settlement on that Business Day. A Participant with an end-of-day net debit balance has an obligation to pay DTC that amount; a Participant with an end-of-day net credit balance is entitled to receive a payment from DTC. When a Participant has an end-of-day zero net balance or an end-of-day net credit balance, it is deemed to have satisfied its settlement obligations for that Business Day, and securities processed for delivery versus payment for delivery to the Participant will be credited to its account. When a Participant with a net debit balance pays its settlement obligation, and DTC completes system-wide settlement, all securities processed for delivery versus payment to that Participant on that Business Day will be credited to its account and it will have paid for those deliveries. As to payments due to the Participant for its deliveries on that Business Day, the Participant will have been paid as well, because credits for those deliveries intraday have offset and reduced its other debit obligations, even though, on balance, it finished the Business Day with a settlement obligation. A Participant that defaults on its settlement obligations on a Business Day will not have paid for the securities processed for delivery versus payment, and the securities will not be credited to its account.
There may be circumstances in which the amount of settlement payments received or available to DTC on a Business Day is not sufficient to pay all Participants with an end-of-day net credit balance on that Business Day (a “settlement gap”). A settlement gap could occur on a Business Day as a result of, principally, a Participant Default, where a Participant fails to pay its settlement obligation (a “default gap”). A settlement gap could also occur on a Business Day as a result of causes other than a Participant Default (a “non-default gap”). For example, a non-default gap could occur if the funds required to complete settlement are not available to DTC, in whole or in part, due to an operational or data issue arising at DTC, a Participant or Settling Bank, or due to a cyber incident, or other technological business disruption.
The Rules and Procedures of DTC specify the extent of the obligation of DTC to achieve settlement on each Business Day, and, as DTC is not a central counterparty (“CCP”), do not guarantee settlement.
The Participants Fund is designed to be one of the foundational liquidity resources available to DTC to fund a settlement gap to complete settlement on a Business Day. Rule 4 contains the key provisions of the Rules and Procedures specifying the rights, duties and obligations of Participants and DTC with respect to the Participants Fund. Every Participant is required to make at least a minimum deposit to the Participants Fund, and Participants with higher levels of activity that impose greater liquidity risk to the DTC settlement system have proportionally larger required deposits. The principal purpose of the Participants Fund is, and historically has been, to provide a mutualized liquidity resource to satisfy DTC losses and liabilities attributable to its business conducted for the benefit of its Participants.
On August 28, 2018, the Commission approved a rule change filed by DTC with respect to Rule 4 (“Loss Allocation Rule Change”).
As part of the Loss Allocation Rule Change, Previous Rule 4 was restructured to provide separate and distinct provisions for (i) in Section 4 of Rule 4, the application of liquidity resources, including, but not limited to, the pro rata application of the Participants Fund, in order to complete settlement on a given Business Day when there is a settlement gap, and (ii) in Section 5 of Rule 4, the allocation of losses and liabilities of DTC arising out of Default Loss Events or Declared Non-Default Loss Events.
Nevertheless, as explained in more detail below, DTC now recognizes that certain of the provisions of amended Section 4 of Rule 4 might be read in a manner that conflicts with the stated, and historical, purpose of the Participants Fund.
Currently, Sections 3 and 4 are the primary sections of Rule 4 that are relevant to the application of the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap.
Section 3 of Rule 4 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f a Participant is a Participant that is a Defaulting Participant pursuant to Rule 9(B) or is otherwise obligated to the Corporation pursuant to these Rules and the Procedures and fails to satisfy any such obligation (a “Participant Default”) . . . the Corporation shall, to the extent
Section 3 of Rule 4 is the basic provision of remedies if a Participant fails to satisfy an obligation to DTC.
Section 4 of Rule 4 currently provides:
The Participants Fund shall constitute a liquidity resource which may be applied by the Corporation in such amounts as the Corporation shall determine, in its sole discretion, to fund settlement if there is a Defaulting Participant and the amount charged to the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of the Defaulting Participant pursuant to Section 3 of this Rule is not sufficient to complete settlement. In that case, the Corporation may apply the Actual Participants Fund Deposits of Participants other than the Defaulting Participant (each, a “non-defaulting Participant”) as provided in this Section and/or apply such other liquidity resources as may be available to the Corporation from time to time, including the End-of-Day Credit Facility.
If the Participants Fund is applied to complete settlement, the Corporation shall promptly after the event notify each Participant and the SEC of the amount applied and the reasons therefor (“Settlement Charge Notice”). Each non-defaulting Participant's pro rata share of such application of the Participants Fund (each, a “pro rata settlement charge”) shall be equal to (i) its Required Participants Fund Deposit, as such Required Participants Fund Deposit was fixed on the Business Day of such application less its Additional Participants Fund Deposit, if any, on that day, divided by (ii) the sum of the Required Participants Fund Deposits of all non-defaulting Participants, as such Required Participants Fund Deposits were fixed on that day, less the sum of the Additional Participants Fund Deposits, if any, of such non-defaulting Participants on that day.
The above provisions of Section 4 of Rule 4 were drafted as part of the restructuring and revision of Rule 4 in connection to the Loss Allocation Rule Change. The intention was that these new provisions would track the historical principle of Section 4 of Previous Rule 4 that the Participants Fund may be applied to a loss or liability, including a settlement gap, that could not be satisfied by charging the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 4. Nevertheless, because Section 4 of Rule 4 is now silent as to the use of the Participants Fund to complete settlement when there is a non-default gap, it could be construed as limiting the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap to default scenarios.
On each Business Day, settlement occurs during a tight timeframe, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve's National Settlement Service (NSS) and Fedwire.
In light of the foregoing, in order to facilitate timely action by DTC in connection with any settlement gap, DTC is proposing to amend Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide expressly for the use of the Participants Fund to fund settlement irrespective of whether the settlement gap is a default gap or a non-default gap.
DTC believes that certain other amendments that were made pursuant to the Loss Allocation Rule Change may have impacted the transparency of Section 4 of Rule 4 with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources for settlement. Therefore, as described below, DTC is proposing to (i) clarify that a Participant's pro rata share of an application of the Participants Fund would be the same whether there is a default gap or a non-default gap, (ii) restore the express provision for the optional use of a discretionary amount of existing retained earnings of DTC to fund settlement, (iii) specifically state that DTC may apply its available resources to fund settlement, in such order and in such amounts as it determines, in its sole discretion, and (iv) make ministerial changes for conformity and readability.
In order to reflect that Section 4 of Rule 4 would address the liquidity resources to fund settlement, including the application of the Participants Fund to fund settlement when there is a default gap or a non-default gap, DTC is proposing to replace the current heading of Section 4 of Rule 4 “Application of Participants Fund Deposits of Non-Defaulting Participants” with “Liquidity Resources to Fund Settlement; Application of Participants Fund.”
DTC is proposing to add a new opening paragraph to Section 4 of Rule 4 that would reflect and summarize the purpose of the proposed Section 4 of Rule 4. Specifically, DTC is proposing to add the following paragraph: “This Section sets forth liquidity resources available to the Corporation to fund settlement on a Business Day, in the event of a Participant Default or otherwise.”
DTC is proposing to:
1. Streamline the language referring to a settlement gap resulting from an unsatisfied Participant Default
2. Expressly address a non-default gap by adding the phrase “ . . . or if Section 3 is not applicable, . . . ” into the description of the circumstances in which DTC may apply the Participants Fund to fund settlement;
3. Revise the language that refers to DTC's sole discretion to apply its liquidity resources, including Participants Fund, to fund settlement,
4. Enhance the transparency of Section 4 of Rule 4 with respect to liquidity resources that may be available to DTC to fund settlement by amending Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide DTC may apply:
(a) the Actual Participants Fund Deposits of all Participants (other than a Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is exhausted pursuant to Section 3);
(b) the existing retained earnings or undivided profits of DTC; or
(c) any other liquidity resources as may be available to DTC from time to time, including, but not limited to, the End-of-Day Credit Facility.
Specifically, with respect to (a), DTC is proposing to replace the reference in the first paragraph of Section 4 of Rule 4 to “non-defaulting Participants” with “all Participants (other than a Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is exhausted pursuant to Section 3).” The purpose of this change is to provide expressly that (i) in the case of a non-default gap, all Participants would be charged a pro rata share of the application of the Participants Fund, and (ii) a Participant that cured its Participant Default pursuant to Section 3 by the application of some, but not all, of its Actual Participants Fund Deposit on that Business Day, would still be subject to a pro rata share of the application of the Participants Fund to fund settlement, up to the remaining balance of its Actual Participants Fund Deposit, if there is (x) a default gap (due to the default of another Participant) or (y) a non-default gap.
With respect to (b), in order to enhance the transparency of available resources to fund settlement, DTC is proposing to restore the express provision for the optional use of a discretionary amount of existing retained earnings of DTC
In sum, pursuant to the above proposed changes, the revised paragraph would state:
If, on a Business Day, there is a Participant Default which is not satisfied pursuant to Section 3 of this Rule by the application of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant, or if Section 3 is not applicable, then the Corporation shall apply, in such order and in such amounts as the Corporation shall determine, in its sole discretion, to the extent necessary to fund settlement on the Business Day:
(a) The Actual Participants Fund Deposits of all Participants (other than a Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is exhausted pursuant to Section 3);
(b) the existing retained earnings or undivided profits of the Corporation; or
(c) any other liquidity resources as may be available to the Corporation from time to time, including, but not limited to, the End-of-Day Credit Facility.
For conformity, DTC is proposing to modify this paragraph to conform with the proposed changes to the third paragraph. Specifically, pursuant to the proposed rule change, this paragraph would state: “If the Participants Fund is applied pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section, the Corporation shall promptly after the event notify each Participant and the SEC of the amount of the Participants Fund applied and the reasons therefor (“Settlement Charge Notice”).”
In addition, to further streamline Section 4 of Rule 4, DTC is proposing to move the proposed amended paragraph to follow the proposed fourth paragraph.
For enhanced transparency with respect to the governance relating to a pro rata application of the Participants Fund, DTC is proposing to add the following paragraph:
A determination to apply the Participants Fund pursuant to this Section shall be made by either the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Financial Officer, a member of any management committee, Treasurer or any Managing Director as may be designated by the Chief Risk Officer from time to time. The Board of Directors (or an authorized Committee thereof) shall be promptly informed of the determination.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would revise this paragraph
In sum, DTC is proposing that this paragraph be revised to state: “The pro rata share of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of any Participant applied pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be equal to the ratio of (i) the Required Participants Fund Deposit of the Participant, as fixed on the Business
There would be no changes to these paragraphs. The proposed rule change would not affect the Settlement Charge Termination Notification Period, the Settlement Charge Cap, nor the right of DTC to retain the entire amount of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant subject to a pro rata settlement charge, up to the amount of the Participant's Settlement Charge Cap. The proposed rule change would not affect the requirement that if the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant is applied pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 4, and, as a result, the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of such Participant is less than its Required Participants Fund Deposit, the Participant must, upon the demand of DTC and within such time as DTC would require, deposit to the Participants Fund the amount in cash needed to eliminate any resulting deficiency in its Required Participants Fund Deposit.
Section 1(f) of Rule 4 currently states, in relevant part: “The Actual Participants Fund Deposits of Participants to the Participants Fund shall be held by the Corporation and may be used or invested as provided in these Rules and as specified in the Procedures. The Actual Participants Fund Deposits of Participants may be used (i) to satisfy the obligations of Participants to the Corporation, as provided in Section 3 of this Rule, (ii) to fund settlement among non-defaulting Participants, as provided in Section 4 of this Rule and (iii) to satisfy losses and liabilities of the Corporation incident to the business of the Corporation, as provided in Section 5 of this Rule.”
In conformity with the proposed changes to Section 4 of Rule 4, DTC is proposing a ministerial change of removing the word “non-defaulting” from Section 1(f) of Rule 4.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
The proposed rule change would amend Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide expressly for the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to
The proposed rule change would also make other technical and clarifying amendments in order to provide enhanced transparency with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources for settlement. The proposed amendments would (i) clarify that a Participant's pro rata share of an application of the Participants Fund would be the same whether there is a default gap or a non-default gap, (ii) restore the express provision for the optional use of a discretionary amount of existing retained earnings of DTC to fund settlement, (iii) specifically state that DTC may apply its available resources to fund settlement, in such order and in such amounts as it determines, in its sole discretion, and (iv) make ministerial changes for conformity and readability. Without the foregoing changes, DTC's rights with respect to the manner and use of its liquidity resources to fund settlement might not be promptly ascertainable, particularly in a time of stress.
Therefore, the proposed rule change is designed to enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of settlement on a Business Day in circumstances where there is a settlement gap by facilitating timely action by DTC to complete settlement on a Business Day when there is a settlement gap, including, but not limited to, in situations where Section 3 of Rule 4 is not applicable. The ability of DTC to take timely action to fund a settlement gap, including, but not limited to, the pro rata application of the Participants Fund, would allow DTC to continue to support end-of-day net funds settlement in connection with book-entry transfers of securities on each Business Day, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires that DTC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change to amend certain provisions of
As noted above, the Participants Fund is designed to be one of the foundational liquidity resources available to DTC to fund a settlement gap to complete settlement on a Business Day. The proposed rule change would enhance DTC's ability to quickly and effectively use the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to respond to a non-default gap on a Business Day. DTC recognizes, however, that a pro rata application of the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap, including a non-default gap, could potentially result in a deficiency in the Required Participants Fund Deposit of one or more Participants, which could potentially impose a burden on competition. Under Rule 4, in the event of a deficiency in the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant after a pro rata application of the Participants Fund to a settlement gap, the Participant, upon the demand of DTC and within such time as DTC may require, would be required to deposit into the Participants Fund the amount of cash needed to eliminate the deficiency.
DTC does not believe that any burden imposed by the proposed rule change would be significant. First, if DTC were to use a pro rata application of the Participants Fund to fund a non-default gap, it would not necessarily result in a deficiency to the Required Participants Fund Deposit of any Participant. Whether there would be any deficiencies would depend on the facts and circumstances on that Business Day, including, but not limited to, the amount of funds a Participant has on deposit in the Participants Fund that is in excess of its Required Participants Fund Deposit, as well as the aggregate amount of the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to fund the settlement gap. Second, the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant is itself based on the amount of activity of the Participant, and therefore any burden on a Participant from the requirement to replenish its Required Participants Fund Deposit would be proportional to the volume of its business activity at DTC.
Regardless of whether the potential burden on competition is significant, DTC believes that any burden on competition that may be created by the proposed rule change would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
DTC believes that any burden on competition created by the proposed rule change would be necessary to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Furthermore, DTC believes that any burden on competition resulting from the proposed rule change would be appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change to make technical and clarifying amendments to provide enhanced transparency with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources for settlement would have an impact on competition.
Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 3, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 16, 2020, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2020-003 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On May 21, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Change so that the Commission has sufficient time to consider the issues raised by the Proposed Rule Change and to take action on the Proposed Rule Change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Department of State.
Initial publication of list of properties; notice.
The Department of State is publishing the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List identifying properties subject to additional prohibitions with respect to certain lodging-related transactions under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR).
Effective on September 28, 2020.
Emily Belson, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, tel.: 202-647-6526; Robert Haas, Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, tel.: 202-453-8456, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
On June 16, 2017, the President signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 5, “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” (NSPM-5). As part of its implementation of NSPM-5, on September 28, 2020 the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a final rule in the
The publication of the CPA List implements the policy in paragraph 2(a) of NSPM-5 to end economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government or its military, intelligence, or security agencies or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people. Properties that are owned or controlled by the Cuban government compete with independent private sector lodging such as legitimately private
This document and additional information concerning the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List are available from the State Department's Cuba sanctions website (
Below is the U.S. Department of State's Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List, a list of properties in Cuba owned or controlled by the Cuban government, a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as
* Property is marketed as a “casa” but is owned or controlled by the Cuban government and is not an independent “casa particular.”
‸ Property is a “casa particular” but it nonetheless meets the criteria for inclusion on the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations and Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA has decided to adopt the Preferred Alternative identified in the Gallatin Fossil Plant (GAF) Surface Impoundment Closure and Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was made available to the public on August 7, 2020. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the
Elizabeth Smith, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11B-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, or by email
TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving more than 10 million people in an 80,000 square mile area comprised of most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. In addition to operation of its power system, TVA provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation.
GAF was built between 1953 and 1959 and operates four coal-fired, steam-generating units. Four combustion turbine (CT) units were added to GAF in the 1970s, and another four were added in 2000. The plant generates about seven billion kilowatt-hours of electric power in a typical year, which is enough electrical energy to meet the needs of approximately 480,000 homes. The plant consumes an average of 3.5 million tons of coal per year, which results in the annual production of approximately 255,000 tons of CCR.
TVA has prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts associated with several projects to facilitate long-term management of CCR at GAF which include the following.
• Surface impoundment closures of the Ash Pond Complex (APC) which includes Ash Pond A, Ash Pond E, Middle Pond A, Bottom Ash Pond, and stilling ponds.
• Permanent disposition of CCR from the surface impoundments, including CCR previously removed from the Bottom Ash Pond that may be temporarily stockpiled in the existing onsite landfill, as well as
• Construction of a lateral expansion of the existing onsite landfill.
• Location requirements analysis for a beneficial re-use processing facility.
• Disposal of CCR materials not usable by a beneficial re-use processing facility in either the onsite landfill or an offsite landfill.
TVA estimates that approximately 11,945,000 yd
With a long-standing commitment to safe and reliable operations and to environmental stewardship, TVA began, in 2009, to convert from wet to dry management of CCR. On April 17, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities rule (CCR Rule) in the
In June of 2016, TVA issued a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that analyzed methods
The proposed action at GAF tiers from the PEIS. The purpose, therefore, is to address the disposition of CCR onsite at GAF, to support the implementation of TVA's goal to eliminate all wet CCR storage at its coal plants by closing CCR surface impoundments across the TVA system, and to assist TVA in complying with EPA's CCR Rule and other applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. The proposed actions would also provide long-term onsite landfill space for operations and/or storage of CCR.
TVA considered two alternatives in the Draft EIS and Final EIS with two options for disposal and transport of CCR. These alternatives are:
The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for potential changes to environmental resources; however, the alternative is inconsistent with TVA's plans to convert all of its wet CCR systems to dry systems. The No Action Alternative also would be inconsistent with EPA's CCR Rule and TVA's commitments to the State of Tennessee and TDEC. Consequently, this alternative would not satisfy the project purpose and need and, therefore, is not considered viable or reasonable. It does, however, provide a benchmark for comparing the environmental impacts of implementation of Alternative B.
The primary actions under Alternative B that TVA is considering at GAF consist of closure of the surface impoundments that make up the APC and expansion of the existing onsite landfill. Closure of the APC will require stabilization of ponded areas and removal of CCR material and underlying soil within the impoundment footprint. Specific closure activities would include:
Following excavation activities, lower portions of the APC would be converted to storm water management basins with appropriate approvals. The stilling ponds would continue to receive storm water from existing offsite areas north and east of the ponds and could continue to receive storm water runoff from the restored pond area. Upon completion of closure activities, the site would be graded and vegetated to provide appropriate surface water management.
To facilitate the construction activities associated with closing the surface impoundments, an approximately 31-acre area located between the NRL Landfill and Ash Pond A would be used for laydown, access, and logistical purposes. This laydown/logistical use area would support equipment storage, material stockpiles, construction trailer placement, and would provide direct access for excavation and dewatering equipment to the APC.
Closure of the surface impoundments may entail the addition of borrow material to achieve proposed finished grades and provide a suitable medium to support restoration of the former impoundment with approved, non-invasive seed mixes designed to quickly establish desirable vegetation. Suitable borrow material would be obtained from the TVA-owned permitted borrow site located 1.5 miles northwest of the fossil plant.
The existing onsite landfill at GAF, the 52-acre NRL Landfill, is a Class II disposal facility that went into service in 2016. The NRL Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of approximately 6.8 million yd
The lateral landfill expansion, referred to as the South Rail Loop (SRL) Landfill, will contain a 130-acre disposal area adjacent to the NRL Landfill with an approximate landfill volume of 17.2 million yd
Under Alternative B, TVA is considering two options for disposal of CCR removed from the APC. Option 1, CCR removed from surface impoundments would be transported via onsite haul roads and placed in either the existing onsite NRL Landfill, an expansion of the existing landfill (SRL Landfill), or a combination of these landfills.
Under Option 2, CCR would be transported to an offsite beneficial re-use processing facility to be processed for use in concrete and other marketable materials. Under Option 2, some of the CCR may be unusable for beneficial re-use and would be disposed of in either the onsite landfill or transported to an existing offsite landfill previously permitted to receive CCR. TVA estimates that a minimum of 80% of CCR in the APC, or approximately 800,000 yd
No specific provider of the beneficiation services or the specific site in which a beneficial re-use processing facility would be constructed has been developed at this time. However, TVA recognizes that such a facility would be constructed and operated because TVA has the necessary raw materials (
Alternative A—No Action would result in the lowest level of environmental impacts as the impacts associated with closure of the impoundments and disposal of CCR under Alternative B would be avoided. However, Alternative A—No Action, does not meet the purpose and need for the project. TVA's preferred alternative is Alternative B with Option 1 as it would achieve the purpose and need of the project. Alternative B would include the closure of the APC by removal and the lateral expansion of the existing onsite landfill. Under Option 1, CCR removed from surface impoundments would be transported via onsite haul roads and placed in either the existing onsite NRL Landfill, an expansion of the existing landfill (SRL Landfill), or a combination of these landfills. Option 1 would result in minor impacts to the natural environment primarily from the construction of the onsite landfill, but these are not significant and are mitigated, as appropriate. Under Option 1, air and noise emissions, transportation impacts, safety risks and disruptions to the public that would be associated with the offsite transport of CCR along public roadways are minimized relative to Option 2.
Removal of CCR from the impoundments would result in predominantly minor impacts to the natural environment (surface water, floodplains, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic ecology and wetlands), that would be temporary and localized. Alternative B would provide a long-term benefit to groundwater by the removal of the potential future source of CCR constituents from the impoundments to groundwater. It would also eliminate the potential interaction between the CCR and the uppermost aquifer and eliminate new groundwater risk from groundwater constituents of concern potentially migrating offsite.
No federal post-closure care measures are currently required as the impoundments would be closed under the Closure-by-Removal option. State requirements for post-closure care would be implemented as needed and the CARA Plan would be implemented. TVA will implement supplemental mitigative measures as required by TDEC, as well as its approved closure plan, which could include additional groundwater monitoring, assessment or corrective action programs. There would be only minor short-term impacts to the natural environment associated with transport of CCR to an offsite beneficial re-use processing facility or offsite landfill.
Impacts to the human environment (air quality, climate change, visual resources, land use, socioeconomics, and public and worker safety) would be primarily related to closure activities and landfill construction, and would be minor and short-term. Although the proposed closure of the impoundments would have a minor impact on the regional transportation system, there could be moderate localized impacts to low volume roadways due to increased operations, construction workforce, and borrow transport. There would be no effect to solid and hazardous waste, although CCR previously managed in the impoundments at GAF would be disposed in a permitted landfill.
Closure of the impoundments and expansion of the existing onsite landfill could impact six cemeteries located within the GAF reservation. Because of the potential importance of these cemeteries to the surrounding community and to local history, and in order to respect state law regarding cemeteries, TVA proposes to remove all graves in the affected cemeteries and relocate them to a new burial ground in consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), federally-recognized Indian tribes, and interested members of the Gallatin community. In consultation with the SHPO, TVA proposes delineating the cemetery boundaries, generating accurate maps, completing historical and genealogical research, engaging the community in the cemetery relocation project, completing analyses of grave contents, and installing signage or a marker. TVA would also ensure the relocation cemetery preserves information about the original cemeteries and is accessible to members of the public. These measures are further stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that has been signed by TVA and the SHPO. With the signing of the MOA, TVA may proceed with the project under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 as long as TVA remains in compliance with the obligations set forth in the MOA. After completing these steps, TVA would reinter all the graves in the relocation cemetery with the original grave markers.
Under NHPA Section 106, TVA has consulted with the SHPO regarding TVA's determination that five of the cemeteries are potentially eligible for the NRHP. Under the MOA, TVA will carry out additional investigations to more fully determine the cemeteries' NRHP eligibility. These investigations will include informant interviews, examinations of additional historical records, and a tabulation of the remains found in disinterred graves. Should the investigations indicate that any of the cemeteries to be relocated would qualify for inclusion in the NRHP, TVA will make a finding of adverse effect, will consult further with the SHPO and other consulting parties, and will perform mitigation steps to resolve the adverse effect.
TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS: Alternative B—Closure of the APC via Closure-by-Removal and Expansion of the Existing Onsite
On December 7, 2018, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS to address the closure of the APC and expansion of the existing landfill at GAF was published in the
Public comments on the scope of the EIS were collected from December 7, 2018 through January 11, 2019. TVA received 13 comment submissions from members of the public and state and federal agencies. Comments received on the proposed alternatives generally expressed concern regarding onsite storage of CCR material and requested that it be moved to an offsite location away from the Cumberland River or other bodies of water. Other commenters stressed concerns regarding potential risks to surface water and ground water quality in conjunction with the disposition of CCR in the existing ash ponds. Comments also included requests that the EIS include analysis of impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Several commenters expressed a desire to close the ash ponds by removal to reduce potential effects to sensitive resources and to consider the closure of coal plants to be replaced with natural gas or renewable energy. A comment was received requesting the EIS provide more detail regarding the beneficiation process and its potential issues relating to heavy metals. TVA considered these comments in the preparation of the Final EIS.
TVA released the Draft EIS for public review on December 27, 2019. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in the
TVA accepted comments submitted through mail, email, a comment form on TVA's public website, and at the public meeting. TVA received 96 comment submissions from members of the public, organizations and state and federal agencies. Comment submissions were carefully reviewed and compiled into 127 specific comments which received responses. Most of the comments received were of a general nature, such as the promotion of clean air and water and environmental stewardship. Other comments received were related to public health and safety, groundwater impacts, sufficiency of the bounding analyses, beneficial re-use, cemetery relocation, and consideration of impacts to communities requiring environmental justice considerations. TVA provided responses to these comments, made appropriate minor revisions to the Draft EIS and issued the Final EIS. The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the
TVA will use appropriate best management practices (BMPs) during all phases of closure of the APC and expansion of the existing onsite landfill. Mitigation measures and actions taken to reduce adverse impacts associated with the proposed action are detailed in the Final EIS and include:
• Standard BMPs will be applied during construction activities to minimize environmental effects and would be implemented by construction personnel or included in contract specifications.
• A General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities TNR100000 or an Individual Construction Storm Water Permit will be obtained and would require development of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the TDEC General Construction Storm Water permit and the Tennessee Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
• Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs described in The Tennessee Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook—4th Edition and outlined in the project-specific SWPPP will be implemented to minimize erosion, protect surface waters and groundwater, and preserve soils and geologic features during construction and site restoration activities.
• Equipment washing and dust control discharges will be handled in accordance with BMPs described in the Construction General Permit's SWPPP or BMP Plan required by the site's NPDES Permit TN0005428 to minimize construction impacts to surface waters.
• BMPs for herbicide and fertilizer application and to control sediment infiltration will be used to protect groundwater.
• TVA will comply with fugitive dust emission standards specified in the GAF's Title V Operating Air Permit, the GAF CCR fugitive dust control plan and associated BMPs, and the construction permit from TDEC.
• Noise emissions will be minimized through implementation of BMPs.
• Customary industrial safety standards including OSHA requirements for workers will be followed during all project activities.
• Sanitary wastes generated during construction activities will be collected by the existing onsite septic system(s) or by means of portable toilets (
• Solid and hazardous wastes generated by proposed project activities will be managed in accordance with standard procedures for spill prevention and cleanup and waste management protocols in accordance with pertinent federal, state and local requirements.
• Consistent with E.O. 13112 as amended by E.O. 13751, disturbed areas will be graded and revegetated with native or non-native, non-invasive plant species to avoid the introduction or spread of invasive species.
• A CCR removal plan will be submitted for TDEC approval prior to removal.
• The proposed new SRL landfill expansion would adhere to TDEC Class II permitting and EPA CCR Rule requirements.
• Potential risk and impact to karst features will be investigated and mitigated during construction activities according to a karst mitigation plan that recommends stages and actions to be performed both prior to landfill construction and during landfill construction.
• State requirements for post-closure care and/or remediation will be implemented as needed and the CARA Plan will be implemented.
• Leachate from the proposed landfill expansion will be collected in either a collection tank or a sump and pumped to the flow management system, where it will be treated prior to discharge from a permitted NPDES outfall.
• The conservation measures required for this project are identified on pages 5-7 of the TVA Bat Strategy Project Screening Form, and they will be implemented as part of the proposed project.
• A survey will be performed between one and three months prior to removal of structures located within the landfill expansion footprint to determine if wildlife or active nests of migratory birds are present.
• Should the two osprey nests located on transmission line towers within the proposed project area be active in future years, ash pond closure activities will be minimized within a 660-foot diameter buffer around the nest during the osprey nesting season.
• A Tennessee Stream Quantification Tool will be required per TDEC regulations to assess the quality of streams to be impacted by the proposed projects. A TDEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification/ARAP and USACE 404 permit will be required for disturbance to wetlands and stream features, and the terms and conditions of these permits would include mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts.
• Non-critical actions proposed within the 100-year floodplain that were not reviewed in TVA's 1981 Class Review of Repetitive Actions in the 100-Year Floodplain will be subject to further review under the floodplains No Practicable Alternative analysis. Critical actions would need to be located outside the 500-year floodplain. Specific conditions to minimize adverse impacts for any non-critical actions proposed within the 100-year floodplain will be determined in a subsequent environmental review.
• TVA will mitigate impacts to cemeteries located within the project area by removing all graves and relocating them to a new burial ground per stipulations outlined in the MOA signed by TVA and the SHPO.
• TVA commits to conducting a traffic analysis and traffic management plan to identify and evaluate potential mitigative measures and their effectiveness for reducing traffic related impacts.
• In addition to any federal requirements that may apply to the impoundments at GAF after closure is completed, TVA will implement supplemental mitigative measures as required by TDEC, as well as its approved closure plan, which could include additional groundwater monitoring, assessment or corrective action programs.
• If the proposed action were to change significantly from that described in the EIS because of additional or new information, additional environmental analyses will be undertaken if necessary.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2020-0016 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Sarah Pascual 202-366-0087,
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, States' failure to comply by October 1 of each fiscal year resulted in a withholding penalty of 8 percent from States' apportionments for the fiscal year. Any funds withheld from a State under 23 U.S.C. 159 shall not be available for apportionment to that State.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection, which is summarized below under Supplementary Information. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2020-0018 by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Bartz, (512) 536-5906, Office of Program Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 300 East 8th Street, Suite 826, Austin, Texas 78701. Office hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2020-0017 by any of the following methods:
Karen Scurry, 202 897-7168, Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 202, West Trenton, NJ, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-
The existing provisions of Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 130, Railway-Highway Crossings Program, as well as implementing regulations in 23 CFR 924, remain in effect. Included in these combined provisions are requirements for State DOTs to annually produce and submit to FHWA by August 31 reports related to the implementation and effectiveness of their HSIPs, that are to include information on: (a) Progress being made to implement HSIP projects and the effectiveness of these projects in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries [Sections 148(h)]; and (b) progress being made to implement the Railway-Highway Crossings Program and the effectiveness of the projects in that program [Sections 130(g) and 148(h)], which will be used by FHWA to produce and submit biennial reports to Congress. To be able to produce these reports, State DOTs must have safety data and analysis systems capable of identifying and determining the relative severity of hazardous highway locations on all public roads, based on both crash experience and crash potential, as well as determining the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects. FHWA provides an online reporting tool to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional information is available on the Office of Safety website at
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitations on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces action taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final. This final agency action relates to a proposed highway project on I-275 from the Howard Frankland Bridge to north of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and I-4 from I-275 to east of 50th Street. The project will provide multilane improvements along I-275 including the addition of 2 tolled express lanes in each direction, reconstruction of the I-275/SR60 (Westshore) interchange, and operational improvements to the I-275/I-4 (Downtown) interchange. The Tampa Interstate System (TIS) project corridor traverses the urban area of Tampa in Hillsborough County, Florida. The FHWA's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) provides details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed improvements.
A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 25, 2021. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For FHWA: Luis D. López Rivera, P.E., Senior Environmental Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, Florida Division, 400 W Washington Street, Suite 4200, Orlando, FL 32801; (407) 867-6420;
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken a final agency action by issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) for the following highway project in the State of Florida: Tampa Interstate System (TIS) Multilane Improvements along I-275 include the addition of 2 tolled express lanes in each direction, reconstruction of the I-275/SR60 (Westshore) interchange, and operational improvements to the I-275/I-4 (Downtown) interchange. The length of the project is approximately fifteen miles. The full reconstruction of the I-275/SR 60 (Westshore) interchange will include new general purpose “flyover” ramps, the addition of tolled express lanes and ramps, and will accommodate future fixed-guideway transit in the median. The proposed express lane improvements will provide several direct connections to and from I-275, and Reo Street will be modified as a part of this project. Southbound, a new two-lane bridge will be constructed north of the existing southbound I-275 lanes over the Hillsborough River. Northbound, a new one-lane bridge will be constructed south of the existing northbound I-275 lanes over the Hillsborough River.
The I-275/SR 60 (Westshore) interchange is fully funded through construction in the current Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) of the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO)
The I-275/I-4 (Downtown) interchange is fully funded through
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny Pronto.ai, Inc.'s (“Pronto”) application for an exemption from the 11-hour driving limit and the prohibition against driving after the 14th hour after coming on duty. Under the exemption, drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with the Copilot by Pronto advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), the SmartDrive® Video Safety Program, and operating under certain other safeguards, would be allowed to drive up to 13 hours during a work shift within 15 consecutive hours after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and determined that the applicant has not demonstrated that the requested exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption.
This decision is applicable September 28, 2020.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division: Telephone: (202) 366-4225. Email:
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's decision must be published in the
The hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for interstate drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) allow a period of 14 consecutive hours (49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)) in which to drive up to 11 hours (49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)) after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours. The 14-consecutive-hour “driving window” begins when the driver starts any kind of work. Once the driver reaches the end of this 14-consecutive hour period, the driver cannot drive again until he/she has been off duty for another 10 consecutive hours, or, in the case of drivers using sleeper berths, the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty.
Pronto requests an exemption from the 11-hour limit and the 14-hour “driving window” on behalf of its customers operating CMVs equipped with the Copilot by Pronto advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), the SmartDrive® Video Safety Program, and operating with certain other safeguards discussed in the application. The exemption would allow drivers operating these CMVs to drive up to 13 hours within 15 hours after the beginning of the work shift, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. According to Pronto, its distinctive combination of advanced safety technologies would help reduce physical and mental driver stress, thereby allowing a modest increase in certain HOS parameters. Pronto believes that the same technologies would provide additional levels of safety by reducing the risk of the driver becoming drowsy or distracted and assist the driver in maintaining safe and proper control of the CMV.
Pronto stated that drivers and carriers operating under the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the current regulation, as a result of safety improvements from: (1) Mandatory use of the most sophisticated ADAS system on the market, coupled with SmartDrive's best-in-class video-based safety program and intelligence platform; (2) a significant increase in a driver's physical comfort, resulting in less physical fatigue during a shift; (3) an active management approach to the technology roll-out with carriers and drivers, achieved through Pronto's compulsory, full-day driver training program and the ability of SmartDrive's platform to enable rapid identification of drivers needing additional training; (4) Pronto's unique “Safe Landing” feature that identifies highly inattentive or non-responsive drivers, and attempts to safely and gradually bring the truck to a complete stop; and (5) SmartDrive's fatigue-monitoring and alerting system, SmartSense, which provides real-time in-cab alerts to the driver and triggers a video for immediate verification and intervention by the carrier.
On April 20, 2020, the Agency published a notice requesting public comment on Pronto's exemption application (85 FR 21915). The Agency received more than 300 comments, primarily from individuals, but also from prominent industry trade groups. A total of 294 commenters opposed the exemption request. Opponents included the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; California Highway Patrol; Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Institute for Safe Trucking/Road Safe America; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association; Transportation Trades Department American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); Transport Workers Union of America AFL-CIO; Truckload Carriers Association; and the United States Transportation Alliance.
Commenters that opposed the exemption believe the lack of safety metrics for ADAS poses a risk to the public. The commenters also noted the lack of a Federal framework to ensure that any transition to automated driving system technologies is done in a measured, secure, and responsible manner to protect people traveling on our roadways.
Opponents of Pronto's request also emphasized that the application would result in a needless threat to public safety by increasing the driving hours and extending the workday of CMV operators, and that the applicant failed to provide the required analysis and supporting information required by statute. Lastly, the opposing commenters believed that granting the exemption would give Pronto an unfair competitive advantage to carriers that utilize its product.
Six commenters supported the exemption request, including Scopelitis Transportation Consulting. Supporters believe the exemption would be in line with the recent HOS changes proposed on August 22, 2019 (84 FR 44190) and adopted on June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33396). Another point emphasized by a supporting commenter was that the
The FMCSA's HOS regulations set driving time limits for the work shift and prohibit driving after the 14th hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. The requirements are intended to reduce the risk of individuals experiencing fatigue during the work shift. FMCSA is not aware of data or information that would enable the Agency to determine whether the advanced technology described by Pronto reduces the workload for CMV drivers to such an extent that additional driving time during the work shift should be allowed, or that individuals should be allowed to operate an extended work shift. Neither Pronto nor commenters supporting the exemption application provided data or information that would help to explain why this exemption would not reduce safety.
Based on the numerous research studies concerning fatigue and hours of service that the Agency has reviewed in recent years, we do not believe there is a basis for allowing individuals to drive up to 13 hours during a work shift, or operate after the 14th hour after coming on duty (except during adverse driving conditions). The premise that the use of advanced technology should reduce the workload on drivers appears reasonable on the surface but the absence of data or information to quantify the impact on driver fatigue and alertness leaves the Agency with no choice but to deny the application.
In summary, after reviewing the application for an exemption and all the comments submitted to the public docket, FMCSA cannot ensure that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulations.
For these reasons, FMCSA denies the request for exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; denial of application.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny an application from Right-A-Way, LLC (Right-A-Way) requesting an exemption from the requirement that its short-haul drivers use electronic logging devices (ELDs) when they are required to prepare records of duty status (RODS) more than eight days in a 30 consecutive day period. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and has determined that the applicant would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. FMCSA therefore denies Right-A-Way's application for exemption.
Ms. La Tonya Mimms, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; (202) 366-9220
Currently, 49 CFR 395.1(e) provides exceptions from the requirement to prepare records of duty status (RODS) for drivers operating in short-haul operations, provided certain conditions are satisfied. Section 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) allows motor carriers to require drivers to record drivers' duty status manually rather than use an ELD, if the drivers are operating commercial motor vehicles “in a manner requiring completion of a record of duty status not more than 8 days within any 30-day period.” Drivers operating in short-haul operations are not required to prepare RODS, except for the days when they do not satisfy all the criteria provided in 49 CFR 395.1(e). These drivers may prepare paper RODS for those occasions as long as RODS are not required more than 8 days in a 30-day period. For operations where the short-haul drivers fail to satisfy the applicable criteria more than eight days in a 30-day period, the carrier and its drivers would be required to use ELDs.
Right-A-Way explained that it is a pipeline contract service company who sub-contracts to maintain the pipeline's right-of-way corridor above ground. Right-A-Way's operation covers refined products, crude oil and natural gas covering 2,500 miles of pipeline in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Colorado, with anticipated expansion to Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming. In addition, Right-A-Way maintains 1,100 miles of ammonia pipline that services the agricultural demand center in the Midwest.
Right-A-Way is requesting an exemption from the requirement to use ELDs when its drivers do not satisfy all the criteria for the short-haul exception to the RODS requirement. The exemption would enable the company's short-haul drivers to use paper RODS rather than ELDs for more than 8 days in a 30-day period. The applicant requested the exemption be granted for 5 years. The exemption if granted, would cover approximately eight drivers and eight CMVs.
The applicant believes that its operation is similar to the operations provided by drivers of utility service vehicles. Right-A-Way wrote that FMCSA determined there was no compelling safety argument to include drivers engaged in short-haul operations in the ELD requirements, and emphasized that Part 395 already provides some industry-specific exceptions for certain operations, including, oilfield operations, pipeline wielding trucks, and utility service vehicles. The applicant contends that these exceptions and exemptions reflect the unique operating conditions of these industries, and assessment by Congress or FMCSA that the exceptions do not raise a compelling hazard.
To ensure an equivalent or greater level of safety absent the granted exemption, Right-A-Way offers daily safety training on all hazards on the job and driving conditions to its drivers and crews. A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket for this notice.
On April 28, 2020, FMCSA published notice of the application for exemption and asked for public comment (85 FR 23592). There were no comments submitted to the docket.
When FMCSA published the rule mandating ELDs it relied upon research indicating that the rule improves CMV safety and reduces the overall paperwork burden for both motor carriers and drivers by increasing the use of ELDs within the motor carrier industry, which will in turn, improve compliance with the HOS rules. The rule includes an exception allowing motor carriers up to 8 days in a 30-day period to operate under conditions subject to the ELD requirement, without being required to do so. The 8-day exception covers short-haul operations that occasionally exceed the distance or time limits for the short-haul exception to the RODS requirements. Right-A-Way did not demonstrate how expanding the 8-day exception would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption.
Right-A-Way did not provide an alternative means of ensuring compliance with the HOS rules if drivers rely on paper RODS for more than eight times in a 30-day period. FMCSA does not accept mere maintenance of RODS more than eight days as an alternative to ELDs. There must be additional measures such as safety management oversight processes to achieve an equivalent level of safety and the applicant has not provided an acceptable alternative. Thus, Right-A-Way's request for an exemption is denied.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption from the commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements for Mr. Thomas Passegger, a driver employed by Daimler Trucks North America. Mr. Passegger is Daimler's Project Manager for Autonomous Trucks. He holds a valid German commercial license and wants to test drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements in “real world” environments and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German commercial license ensure that operation under the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
This exemption is effective September 28, 2020 and expires September 29, 2025.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; telephone: 202-366-4325; email:
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Daimler has applied for an exemption for Thomas Passegger from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate or intrastate commerce. Mr. Passegger is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to his lack of residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
The exemption would allow Mr. Passegger to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to develop improved safety and emission technologies. Daimler stated that Mr. Passegger will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for one to two days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day. He will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
Mr. Passegger holds a valid German commercial license. As explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that, when operating under the exemption, he would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation. Daimler requests that the exemption cover the maximum allowable duration of five years.
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2015, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions: March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79410); July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45217); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496); August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39151); September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45742).
On September 24, 2019, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comments (84 FR 50096); no comments were submitted.
Based upon the merits of this application, including Mr. Passegger's extensive driving experience and safety record, FMCSA has concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Thomas Passegger an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Mr. Passegger to drive CMVs in this country without a State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 350-399);
(2) The driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German commercial license;
(3) The driver must be employed by and operate the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler;
(4) At all times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the driver must be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes traveled;
(5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver; and
(6) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days if this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 5 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if:
(1) Mr. Passegger fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) The exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
(3) Continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny the Ohio Department of Public Safety's (DPS) request for an exemption to modify the mandatory skills test requirements for qualified military veterans. FMCSA has determined that the applicant did not provide an alternative to ensure that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved under the exemption. Furthermore, although a majority of the docket comments favored the exemption, none provided supporting data.
This decision is effective September 28, 2020.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Telephone: (202) 366-2722; Email:
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's decision must be published in the
The Ohio DPS requested an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR 383.77(b)(2)(i)(A) and (C) that an applicant for a skills test waiver certify that he/she (1) is regularly employed or was so employed within the last year in a military position requiring operation of a CMV, and (2) operated a vehicle representative of the CMV that the driver operates or expects to operate for at least 2 years immediately preceding discharge from the military. In lieu of those requirements, Ohio DPS proposed that the applicant be required to have held a military position that required operation of a CMV for at least 2 years sometime during his/her military career, thus eliminating the current 1-year window to apply for a skills test waiver.
According to Ohio DPS, its goal is to promote the opportunities for experienced CMV operators who have served in the military by reducing the regulatory burden of obtaining a CDL. By doing so, Ohio DPS hopes that an increase in the population of CDL holders will benefit the Ohio transportation industry, and create better civilian employment opportunities for Ohio veterans and service members.
In addition, as this issue could be applicable in each of the States, FMCSA requested public comment on whether the exemption, if granted, should cover all State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs).
A copy of the Ohio DPS's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
To ensure an equivalent or greater level of safety, Ohio DPS proposed a skills test waiver process in which the applicant would submit the following documentation to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles: (1) A violation-free driving record for the last 2 years; (2) proof of being regularly employed in a military position requiring operation of a CMV; and (3) proof of experience operating a representative vehicle which was exempt from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.113(c) for at least 2 years. In addition, applicants would be required to submit an Ohio waiver form similar to FMCSA's Military Skills Test Waiver form, currently found on FMCSA's website.
On April 18, 2019, FMCSA published notice of the application and requested public comment (84 FR 16330). The Agency received 37 comments, 35 of which favored both the exemption and its extension to all SDLAs. Among the advocates for the exemption were the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT); the American Beverage Association; the Ohio Trucking Association; the Ohio Propane Gas Association; and the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA); and two individual commenters. Additionally, 27 Members of Congress jointly expressed support for the application. A primary reason cited for the exemption was the trucking industry's serious need for qualified, skilled drivers. Commenters believed that the exemption would be a positive step toward addressing that need and would simultaneously credit the relevant skills and experience gained through military service toward obtaining a CDL.
NPGA stated, “. . . It is clear that the depth and breadth of military vehicle training is beyond the civilian skills assessment for a CDL. Similarly, it is evident that military supervisors possess considerable expertise to assess the adequacy of an individual's skills during military service. Thus, the training, assessment, and supervision that a veteran received during military service presents at least the same level of safety, if not greater, as the level of safety achieved by administering the skills assessment of the CDL exam to military veterans.”
Two individuals opposed the Ohio DPS request. One commenter noted that “No length of time is stipulated, hence a driver who drove a military vehicle 10 years ago would qualify even though he has no recent experience. Vehicles change frequently with upgrades to safety and technology.”
FMCSA has evaluated the Ohio DPS' application and the public comments and has concluded that the applicant did not provide an alternative that would ensure an equivalent level of safety under the exemption. Although a majority of the docket commenters favored the exemption, none provided supporting data. The Agency does not have data to determine whether the skills required to operate a CMV decline over time when not used regularly, which the exemtion application would allow. For these reasons the Agency has decided to deny the exemption request.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 23, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 28, 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
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Danny S. Green, Office of Quality, Performance and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 421-1354 or email
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and 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 the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are noncontroversial 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 will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does 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 nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, 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.
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.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program has enabled grantees to augment available housing options for homeless Veterans in high-rent burden communities by increasing the rental assistance for up to 2 years before recertification. This notice will establish locations where the SSVF grantees can place Veterans in housing with this rental subsidy.
SSVF grantees can place Veterans in housing with the rental subsidy described in title 38 CFR 62.34(a)(8) effective October 1, 2019.
John Kuhn, Homeless Program Office, Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-632-8596. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a document published in the
On February 12, 2020, VA published a list of eligible counties for Fiscal Year 2020. SSVF seeks to expand the that list to include some adjacent counties frequently used as housing options for Veteran families. On July 20, 2020, VHA issued a memorandum consistent with 42 U.S.C. 5141, which waived the limitation in section 62.34(a)(8) on the publication of eligible counties to once annually. Accordingly, SSVF may now publish applicable counties for the rental subsidy in section 62.34(a)(8) more than once annually in the
California: Sacramento, Kings, Tulare, Ventura, Solano, Santa Cruz, Amador and San Joaquin;
Maryland: Prince Georges and Montgomery;
Virginia: Fairfax and Prince William;
Washington: Pierce and Snohomish;
Hawaii: Kauai, Maui and Hawaii; and
New York: Nassau, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Ulster, Sullivan and Suffolk.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Brooks D. Tucker, Acting Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 21, 2020 for publication.
(a) “Divisive concepts” means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (6) an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.
(b) “Race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.
(c) “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex. It similarly encompasses any claim that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.
(d) “Senior political appointee” means an individual appointed by the President, or a non-career member of the Senior Executive Service (or agency-equivalent system).
(b) The Department of Labor is directed, through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), to establish a hotline and investigate complaints received under both this order as well as Executive Order 11246 alleging that a Federal contractor is utilizing such training programs in violation of the contractor's obligations under those orders. The Department shall take appropriate enforcement action and provide remedial relief, as appropriate.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OFCCP shall publish in the
(b) The Director of OPM shall propose regulations providing that agency officials with supervisory authority over a supervisor or an employee with responsibility for promoting diversity and inclusion, if such supervisor or employee either authorizes or approves training that promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order, shall take appropriate steps to pursue a performance-based adverse action proceeding against such supervisor or employee under chapter 43 or 75 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Each agency head shall:
(b) If a contractor provides a training for agency employees relating to diversity or inclusion that teaches, advocates, or promotes the divisive concepts set forth in section 2(a) of this order, and such action is in violation of the applicable contract, the agency that contracted for such training shall evaluate whether to pursue debarment of that contractor, consistent with
(c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, each agency shall report to OMB all spending in Fiscal Year 2020 on Federal employee training programs relating to diversity or inclusion, whether conducted internally or by contractors. Such report shall, in addition to providing aggregate totals, delineate awards to each individual contractor.
(d) The Directors of OMB and OPM may jointly issue guidance and directives pertaining to agency obligations under, and ensuring compliance with, this order.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement.
(c) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.