Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule, correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective on November 16, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0125 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jill Shepherd, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1230, email:
The NRC is correcting FR Doc. 20-21148, a final rule that published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are adopting as final the revisions to the regulatory capital rule and the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) rule made under three interim final rules published in the
The final rule is effective December 28, 2020.
In light of recent disruptions in economic conditions caused by the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 and the stress in U.S. financial markets, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), with the approval of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, established certain liquidity facilities pursuant to section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.
In order to prevent disruptions in the money markets from destabilizing the financial system, the Board authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to establish the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF). Under the MMLF, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston may extend non-recourse loans to eligible borrowers to purchase assets from money market mutual funds. Assets purchased from money market mutual funds are posted as collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
In order to provide liquidity to small business lenders and the broader credit markets, and to help stabilize the financial system, the Board authorized each of the Federal Reserve Banks to extend credit under the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF).
Eligible borrowers from the MMLF and PPPLF and holders of PPP covered loans include banking organizations supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together, the agencies) that are subject to the agencies' regulatory capital rule (capital rule)
The capital rule requires banking organizations to comply with risk-based and leverage capital requirements, which are expressed as a ratio of regulatory capital to assets and certain other exposures. Risk-based capital requirements are based on risk-weighted assets, whereas leverage capital requirements are based on a measure of average total consolidated assets or total leverage exposure. Participation in the MMLF or the PPPLF affects the balance sheet of a banking organization. To participate in the MMLF, a banking organization must acquire and hold assets (that is, eligible collateral pledged to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston) on its balance sheet. Similarly, to participate in the PPPLF, a banking organization must hold PPP covered loans on its balance sheet. As a result, without the agencies' issuance of the MMLF capital and PPPLF capital interim final rules, a banking organization that participates in either facility could have been required to maintain increased regulatory capital.
The LCR rule requires covered companies
Absent changes to the LCR rule, covered companies would have been required to recognize outflows for MMLF and PPPLF advances with a remaining maturity of 30 days or less and inflows for certain assets securing the MMLF and PPPLF advances. As a result, a covered company's participation in the MMLF or PPPLF could have affected its total net cash outflow amount, which potentially could have resulted in an inconsistent, unpredictable, and more volatile calculation of LCR requirements across covered companies.
On March 23, 2020, the agencies published in the
On April 13, 2020, the agencies published in the
Additionally, the PPPLF capital interim final rule provides that a banking organization must apply a zero percent risk weight to PPP covered loans, as required by Section 1102 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. A banking organization must apply a zero percent risk weight to PPP covered loans regardless of whether they are pledged under the PPPLF.
On May 6, 2020, the agencies published in the
Advances from the MMLF and PPPLF facilities are non-recourse and the maturity of the advance generally aligns with the maturity of the collateral. Accordingly, a covered company is not exposed to credit or market risk from the collateral securing the MMLF or PPPLF advance that could otherwise affect the banking organization's ability to settle the loan and generally can use the value of cash received from the collateral to repay the advances at
The agencies received two comment letters, from a trade association and an advocacy organization, addressing the MMLF capital interim final rule. These commenters supported the agencies' actions to encourage banking organizations' participation in the emergency lending facility. One commenter recommended broader considerations for money market mutual fund reform that are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The agencies received 14 comment letters from industry participants, advocacy groups, trade associations, and individuals addressing the PPPLF interim final rule. Several commenters expressed support for the agencies' actions under the PPPLF capital interim final rule, and two of these commenters further supported the agencies' determination that good cause existed to issue the interim final rules without notice and comment. Several commenters suggested that the agencies extend the zero percent risk weight to PPP covered loans purchased in secondary markets. The agencies note that, under the PPPLF capital interim final rule, the risk weight for all PPP covered loans is zero percent.
Several commenters asserted that the PPPLF capital interim final rule should extend the leverage exclusion to PPP covered loans that are not pledged to the PPPLF, arguing that the treatment could discourage banking organizations that are not using the PPPLF from making PPP covered loans. Notwithstanding these arguments, the agencies are adopting as final the PPPLF capital interim final rule. The CARES Act set the risk weight of these loans at zero percent and did not exclude these loans from the leverage capital requirements. The favorable leverage capital treatment in the PPPLF capital interim final rule reflects the non-recourse nature of the relevant Federal Reserve Bank's extension of credit to a banking organization only for PPP covered loans pledged by a banking organization to a Federal Reserve Bank.
The agencies received one comment letter, from a trade association, on the LCR interim final rule. The commenter supported the requirements under the LCR interim final rule, arguing that the requirements encourage participation in the facilities, which ultimately provides benefits to small businesses, households, and investors.
For the reasons discussed above, the agencies are adopting as final the revisions to the capital and LCR rules unchanged from the interim final rules. Accordingly, a banking organization may continue to exclude assets acquired as part of the MMLF and PPP covered loans pledged under the PPPLF from its total leverage exposure, average total consolidated assets, advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets, and standardized total risk-weighted assets, as applicable (and for purposes of the community bank leverage ratio).
For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule.
The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions; or (C) 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.
As required by the Congressional Review Act, the agencies will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements. However, in connection with the interim final rules, the Board temporarily revised the Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9 reports; OMB No. 7100-0128) and the Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a; OMB No. 7100-0361) and invited comment on proposals to extend those collections of information for three years, with revision.
Additionally, in connection with the interim final rules, the agencies made revisions to the Call Reports (OCC OMB Control No. 1557-0081; Board OMB Control No. 7100-0036; FDIC OMB Control No. 3064-0052), the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002; OMB Control No. 7100-0032), and the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101; OCC OMB Control No. 1557-0239; Board OMB Control No. 7100-0319; FDIC OMB Control No. 3064-0159). The changes to the Call Reports, FFIEC 002, and FFIEC 101 and their related instructions are addressed in a separate
The Board has extended the FR Y-9 and FR 2052a for three years, with
(1)
FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches (AA) HCs community bank leverage ratio (CBLR)) with less than $5 billion in total assets—71,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—35,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with less than $5 billion in total assets—84,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—154,
FR Y-9C (AA HCs)—19,
FR Y-9LP—434,
FR Y-9SP—3,960,
FR Y-9ES—83,
FR Y-9CS—236.
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs CBLR) with less than $5 billion in total assets—29.17,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—35.14,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with less than $5 billion in total assets—41.01,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—46.98,
FR Y-9C (AA HCs)—48.80,
FR Y-9LP—5.27,
FR Y-9SP—5.40,
FR Y-9ES—0.50,
FR Y-9CS—0.50.
FR Y-9C—1,
FR Y-9LP—1,
FR Y-9SP—0.50,
FR Y-9ES—0.50,
FR Y-9CS—0.50.
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs CBLR) with less than $5 billion in total assets—8,284,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—4,920,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with less than $5 billion in total assets—13,779,
FR Y-9C (non AA HCs non-CBLR) with $5 billion or more in total assets—28,940,
FR Y-9C (AA HCs)—3,709,
FR Y-9LP—9,149,
FR Y-9SP—42,768,
FR Y-9ES—42,
FR Y-9CS—472.
FR Y-9C—1,452,
FR Y-9LP—1,736,
FR Y-9SP—3,960,
FR Y-9ES—42,
FR Y-9CS—472.
The FR Y-9LP, which collects parent company only financial data, must be submitted by each HC that files the FR Y-9C, as well as by each of its subsidiary HCs.
The FR Y-9SP is a parent company only financial statement filed semiannually by HCs with total consolidated assets of less than $3 billion. In a banking organization with total consolidated assets of less than $3 billion that has tiered HCs, each HC in the organization must submit, or have the top-tier HC submit on its behalf, a separate FR Y-9SP. This report is designed to obtain basic balance sheet and income data for the parent company, and data on its intangible assets and intercompany transactions.
The FR Y-9ES is filed annually by each employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) that is also an HC. The report collects financial data on the ESOP's benefit plan activities. The FR Y-9ES consists of four schedules: A Statement of Changes in Net Assets Available for Benefits, a Statement of Net Assets Available for Benefits, Memoranda, and Notes to the Financial Statements.
The FR Y-9CS is a free-form supplemental report that the Board may utilize to collect critical additional data deemed to be needed in an expedited manner from HCs on a voluntary basis. The data are used to assess and monitor emerging issues related to HCs, and the report is intended to supplement the other FR Y-9 reports. The data items included on the FR Y-9CS may change as needed.
With respect to the FR Y-9C report, Schedule HI's data item 7(g), “FDIC deposit insurance assessments,” Schedule HC-P's data item 7(a), “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to U.S. government agencies and government sponsored agencies,” and Schedule HC-P's data item 7(b), “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to other parties” are considered confidential commercial and financial information. Such treatment is appropriate under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) because these data items reflect commercial and financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by the submitter, and which the Board has
In addition, for both the FR Y-9C report, Schedule HC's memorandum item 2.b. and the FR Y-9SP report, Schedule SC's memorandum item 2.b., the name and email address of the external auditing firm's engagement partner, is considered confidential commercial information and protected by exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) if the identity of the engagement partner is treated as private information by HCs. The Board has assured respondents that this information will be treated as confidential since the collection of this data item was proposed in 2004.
Additionally, items on the FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C for loans modified under Section 4013, data items Memorandum items 16.a, “Number of Section 4013 loans outstanding”; and Memorandum items 16.b, “Outstanding balance of Section 4013 loans” are considered confidential. While the Board generally makes institution-level FR Y-9C report data publicly available, the Board is collecting Section 4013 loan information as part of condition reports for the impacted HCs and the Board considers disclosure of these items at the HC level would not be in the public interest. Such information is permitted to be collected on a confidential basis, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, holding companies may be reluctant to offer modifications under Section 4013 if information on these modifications made by each holding company is publicly available, as analysts, investors, and other users of public FR Y-9C report information may penalize an institution for using the relief provided by the CARES Act. The Board may disclose Section 4013 loan data on an aggregated basis, consistent with confidentiality considerations.
Aside from the data items described above, the remaining data items on the FR Y-9C report and the FR Y-9SP report are generally not accorded confidential treatment. The data items collected on FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9ES, and FR Y-9CS reports, are also generally not accorded confidential treatment. As provided in the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information (12 CFR part 261), however, a respondent may request confidential treatment for any data items the respondent believes should be withheld pursuant to a FOIA exemption. The Board will review any such request to determine if confidential treatment is appropriate, and will inform the respondent if the request for confidential treatment has been denied.
To the extent the instructions to the FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, and FR Y-9ES reports each respectively direct the financial institution to retain the work papers and related materials used in preparation of each report, such material would only be obtained by the Board as part of the examination or supervision of the financial institution. Accordingly, such information is considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the financial institution's work papers and related materials may also be protected by exemption 4 of the FOIA, to the extent such financial information is treated as confidential by the respondent (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
(2)
Financial institution information required by the FR 2052a is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process. Therefore, such information is entitled to confidential treatment under Exemption 8 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the institution information provided by each respondent would not be otherwise available to the public and its disclosure could cause substantial competitive harm. Accordingly, it is entitled to confidential treatment under the authority of exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), which protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to consider whether the rules it proposes will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when it promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed previously, the agencies have decided to adopt, without changes, revisions to the capital and LCR rules made under the interim final rules. There was no general notice of proposed rulemaking associated with the interim final rules or this final rule. Accordingly, the agencies have concluded that the RFA's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses do not apply to the promulgation of this final rule.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
As a general matter, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531
For the reasons set forth in the joint
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains corrections to the Treasury Decision 9901, which was published in the
These corrections are effective on October 28, 2020. For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.250-1(b) and 1.861-8(h).
Brad McCormack at (202) 317-6911 and Lorraine Rodriguez at (202) 317-6726 (not toll-free numbers).
The final regulations (TD 9901) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 250 and 861 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on July 15, 2020 (85 FR 43042), the final regulations (TD 9901; FR Doc. 2020-14649) contains errors that need to be corrected.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F)
(
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation (SLR) on the waters of San Diego Bay, California to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway during a boat parade. This SLR temporarily encompasses all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, on a pre-determined course in the northern portion of the San Diego Main Ship Channel from Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero, crossing the federal navigable channel and ending off of Coronado Island. This SLR also establishes a designated section of the commercial anchorage area as a First Amendment area to be used at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative, as a spectator area.
This rule is effective from noon through 3:30 p.m. on November 1, 2020.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable due to the short time between the Coast Guard becoming aware of the event on September 22, 2020, and the scheduled event occurring on November 1, 2020. The marine event sponsor of this boat parade is expecting to draw a high concentration of vessels to the San Diego Bay area along the proposed parade route. Traditionally, the San Diego Bay area serves as a major thoroughfare for commercial traffic, naval operations, ferry routes, and a number of other recreational uses. The Coast Guard is establishing this SLR to minimize impacts on this congested waterway. We must establish this SLR by November 1, 2020 to ensure the safety of individuals, property, and the marine environment and we do not have sufficient time to request and respond to comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector San Diego has determined that potential hazards associated with the proposed parade will be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the parade route. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, spectators, and the marine environment in the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in the vicinity of the marine event during the enforcement period of this rule.
This rule establishes an SLR from noon until 3:30 p.m. on November 1, 2020. The SLR will cover all navigable waters on a pre-determined course in the northern portion of the San Diego Main Ship Channel from Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero, crossing the federal navigable channel and ending off of Coronado Island. This SLR will also temporarily establish a 200-yard radius within the commercial anchorage as a First Amendment area to be used as authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The First Amendment area will encompass all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within 200 yards of 32°43′11.0″ N, 117°10′59.8″ W, within the commercial vessel anchorage.
The duration of the SLR is intended to protect personnel, vessels, spectators, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the event is scheduled to occur. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the SLR. The Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners and will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 that details the vessel restrictions of the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the SLR may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an SLR lasting less than four hours that will monitor entry to the SLR area for the duration of the enforcement period to cover before, during and after the parade has concluded. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1) Parade Area: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, on a pre-determined course in the northern portion of the San Diego Main Ship Channel from Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero, crossing the federal navigable channel and ending off of Coronado Island.
(2) First Amendment Area: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within 200 yards of 32°43′11.0″ N, 117°10′59.8″ W, within the commercial vessel anchorage.
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by calling the Sector San Diego JHOC at 619-278-7033. Those in the regulated area, including participants, must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) All non-participants, including those engaged in protest activity, may be directed by a designated representative to the First Amendment Area described in section (a)(2) of this section, where they must remain during the effective period unless otherwise authorized or directed.
(4) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated areas through advanced notice via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Menominee River in Marinette, WI and Menominee, MI between the Highway 41 bridge and Ogden Street Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the launching of a vessel at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine Shipyard. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. through 12 p.m. on October 31, 2020.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Jeromy Sherrill, Waterways Management Division, Sector Lake Michigan, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 414-747-7148, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the involved parties did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the launch to publish an NPRM. Immediate action is necessary to mitigate potential safety hazards associated with the launch of the vessel. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect against the hazards associated with the launch on October 31, 2020.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan has determined that potential hazards associated with the launching of this vessel into the Menominee River on October 31, 2020, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Menominee River between the Highway 41 Bridge located at coordinates 45.103106° N, 087.626529° W and the Ogden Street Bridge located at coordinates 45.096001° N, 087.598053° W. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the launching of a vessel on October 31, 2020.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on October 31,
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. This rule will prohibit entry into certain navigable waters of the Menominee River at Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI and is not anticipated to exceed five hours in duration. Thus, restrictions on acces by persons and vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, persons and vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP Lake Michigan.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 5 hours that prohibits entry within all navigable waters of the Menominee River between the Highway 41 Bridge and the Ogden Street Bridge during the launching of a vessel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all persons and vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.
(4) Persons and Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Piper Aircraft, Inc., (Piper) Models PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage), PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix), and PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a finding of several airplanes with wing assemblies that did not have the proper stall warning heater modification design. Without the proper stall warning heat control modification kit installed, during flights into icing conditions with the landing gear down, ice can form on the stall vane, which may result in failure of the stall warning system. This proposed AD would require identifying and correcting nonconforming stall warning heat control systems. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 14, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Piper Aircraft Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960, telephone: 772-299-2686, email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
John Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, AIR-7A3, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5568; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to John Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, AIR-7A3, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2008-26-11, Amendment 39-15777 (73 FR 78934, December 24, 2008) (“AD 2008-26-11”) for certain serial-numbered Piper Model PA-46-350P, PA-46R-350T, and PA-46-500TP airplanes. AD 2008-26-11 requires installing stall warning heat control modification kit part number 88452-002. For those serial-numbered airplanes to which AD 2008-26-11 does not apply, Piper incorporated the modification kit in production.
Since the FAA issued AD 2008-26-11, Piper found 11 airplanes (9 domestic) with the left wing replaced with a wing assembly from salvage that did not have the proper stall warning heater modification design change. Without the proper stall warning heat control modification kit during flights into icing conditions with the landing gear down, ice can form on the stall vane, which may result in failure of the stall warning system.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in the pilot being unaware
The FAA reviewed Piper Service Letter No. 1261, dated July 19, 2019. The service information contains procedures to identify and correct nonconforming stall warning heat control systems. The intent of these service letters is to ensure that wiring for the stall warning heat control system meets current type design. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
Piper also issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1192, dated September 15, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2008-26-11.
The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing some of the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would not require the first step, which is identified as a “required for compliance” (RC) step, of Piper Service Letter No. 1261, dated July 19, 2019. The first step specifies reviewing the aircraft records to determine whether the inspection of the stall warning heat control configuration must be done. This proposed AD would not require a records review. Instead, all airplanes identified in the applicability of the proposed AD would have to inspect the stall warning heat control configuration.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 1,261 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, all costs are included in the cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by December 14, 2020.
None.
(c) This AD applies to the following Piper Aircraft, Inc., airplanes, certificated in any category:
(1) Model PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage) serial numbers (S/Ns) 4622041, 4636041, 4636142, 4636143, 4636313, 4636341, and 4636379;
(2) Model PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) S/Ns 4697141, 4697161, 4697086, and 4697020; and
(3) Models PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage), PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix), and PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian), all serial numbers, if the left wing has been replaced with a serviceable (more than zero hours time-in-service) wing.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 3700, VACUUM SYSTEM.
This AD was prompted by nonconforming stall warning heat control systems, utilizing a left wing assembly without the proper stall warning modification design. Without the proper stall warning heat control modification kit during flights into icing conditions with the landing gear down, ice can form on the stall vane, which may result in failure of the stall warning system. The FAA is issuing this AD to identify and correct nonconforming stall warning heat control systems. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the pilot being unaware of an approaching stall situation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the configuration of stall warning heat control system and, if required, install stall warning heat control modification kit part number (P/N) 8452-002 before further flight in accordance with steps 2 and 3 of the Instructions in Piper Aircraft, Inc., Service Letter No. 1261, dated July 19, 2019.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a wing on any Model PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage), PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix), or PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) airplane unless you have determined that the wing has the correct stall warning heat control system as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
A special flight permit may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished provided flight into known icing conditions is prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraph (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact John Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, AIR-7A3, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: (404) 474-5568; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960, telephone: 772-299-2686, email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that threaded fuel couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly and in service. This proposed AD would require repetitive functional tests of the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel feed line shroud, a general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose couplings; and tightening any loose couplings, which would terminate the repetitive functional tests. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 14, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-14, dated April 30, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that threaded fuel couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly and in service. The FAA is proposing this AD to address loose fuel couplings, which could eventually disconnect and could lead to fuel starvation of the APU and pose a risk of fire. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Airbus Canada has issued Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020. This service information describes procedures for repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line shroud, a general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose couplings, and tightening of any loose couplings if necessary. The inspection and tightening of the APU fuel feed line shroud couplings terminates the repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line shroud. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by December 14, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (type certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 50010 through 50018 inclusive, and 50020 through 50041 inclusive.
(2) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 55003 through 55016 inclusive, 55018 through 55054 inclusive, and 55056.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that threaded fuel couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly and in service. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loose fuel couplings, which could eventually disconnect and could lead to fuel starvation of the auxiliary power unit (APU) and pose a risk of fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do an initial functional test of the APU fuel feed line shroud, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020. Thereafter, repeat the functional test at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight hours. If any functional test reveals a leak, before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 9,350 flight hours or within 56 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose couplings, and tighten any loose couplings as applicable, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection and tightening of the APU fuel feed line shroud couplings was done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 001, dated December 13, 2019: Within 9,350 flight hours or 56 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose couplings between frame (FR) 63 and FR 80, and tighten any loose couplings as applicable, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020.
The inspection and tightening of the APU fuel feed line shroud couplings as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD terminate the initial and repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line shroud specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 001, dated December 13, 2019, or Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 002, dated March 18, 2020, provided the functional test is repeated at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight hours from the completion of those actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 001, dated December 13, 2019.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2020-14, dated April 30, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; email a220_
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is considering the amendment of its regulations to mandate continuing education for licensed customs brokers. CBP is seeking comments on a potential framework of continuing education requirements for licensed customs brokers in order to assess the current situation among members of the customs broker industry and analyze the potential impact of such a framework on customs brokers.
Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. USCBP 2020-0042, by
1.
2.
3.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the
Elena D. Ryan, Special Advisor, Programs and Policy Analysis, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at (202) 325-0001 or
Interested persons are invited to participate in this potential rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this ANPRM.
If you wish to submit any protected information in your comments, you must submit your comment by mail to the address listed under
Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), provides that individuals and business entities must hold a valid customs broker's license and permit to transact customs business on behalf of others. The statute also sets forth standards for the issuance of broker licenses and permits; provides for disciplinary action against brokers in the form of suspension or revocation of such licenses and permits or assessment of monetary penalties; and provides for the assessment of monetary penalties against other persons for conducting customs business without the required broker's license.
Section 641 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
CBP is considering the promulgation of regulations to create a framework of continuing education requirements in order to maintain a high standard of professionalism in the customs broker industry. CBP's goal with the publication of this ANPRM is to gather information and data from the broker industry in order to analyze and identify information that would help CBP in considering whether, and if so what type of, mandatory requirements would be beneficial for the trade community and CBP. CBP believes that requiring customs brokers to take continuing education courses would enhance the credibility and value of a customs broker's license and improve a broker's skills, performance, and productivity. CBP also believes that this would increase client service and compliance with the customs laws, which would protect the revenue of the United States and the trade community.
Under 19 U.S.C. 1641(b)(4), a customs broker has the statutory duty to exercise responsible supervision and control over the customs business that he or she conducts. Maintaining current knowledge and competence is an inherent part of the statutory duty of the customs broker. A customs broker reasonably can be expected to uphold such responsible supervision over his or her employees and control over his or her customs business only by acquiring and maintaining the knowledge of customs and related laws. Requiring a customs broker to fulfill a continuing education requirement during the course of his or her work is a way to ensure that the customs broker keeps up with an ever-changing customs practice following the passing of the broker exam and subsequent receipt of the license.
CBP is responsible for administering the licensing for customs brokers.
After passing the customs broker exam, CBP will investigate whether an applicant is qualified for a broker's license, taking into account information provided by the applicant and other aspects pertaining to the applicant, such as his or her business integrity. If CBP finds that the applicant is qualified and has paid all applicable fees, CBP will issue a broker's license. Following the issuance of a license, a customs broker administratively maintains a license primarily through the payment of fees required in 19 CFR 111.96, and the reports and notifications to CBP set forth in 19 CFR 111.30.
While the broker exam provides a good initial indication of an individual's knowledge of customs and related laws, regulations and procedures, bookkeeping, accounting, and all other appropriate matters, the broker exam is, by necessity, limited in scope. The broker exam only captures a state of customs and related laws at a certain point in time and a person's knowledge of such laws at a single point in time. The broker exam also does not test for any of the requirements of the approximately 50 Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) involved in regulating imports and exports. The complex nature of trade and the ever-changing and expanding requirements to comply with U.S. and international law require that a customs broker maintain a high level of functional and accessible knowledge to stay efficient and compliant over time.
Recent developments have demonstrated the need for key parties involved in importing and exporting to keep up-to-date on training and continuously build and maintain their knowledge of current requirements. For example, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) (Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, February 24, 2016) required the issuance of new rules to protect domestic industry from dumping by foreign competitors (19 CFR part 165) and to modernize the processes surrounding duty refunds through the drawback program (19 CFR part 190). Both of these rules are complicated and detailed, requiring entities in the trade—particularly customs brokers serving as the fiduciary agents of the affected importers and exporters —to learn entirely new legal and technical processes. In addition to understanding the implementation of new regulations, a customs broker also needs to know how to research answers to complex questions. For example, determining the country of origin of imported merchandise is much less straightforward than it was in the past, as traders source inputs from various countries and may assemble those inputs in yet another country, before a final product results.
The past several years, in particular, have posed challenges for both CBP and the trade alike, requiring quick adaption to new requirements that compelled changes to operational processes. Low-value shipments, which have exploded with the online shopping revolution,
CBP believes that the vigorous pace and expanding scope of international trade require a more stringent continuing education framework for those individuals involved in the international trade process. Regular continuing education is a professional requirement for many dynamic professions, such as the accounting, legal, and medical industries. CBP believes that maintaining a high level of professionalism of the licensed customs broker is essential for safety, security, efficiency, and trade compliance.
It is in CBP's and the PGAs' interests to have a well-educated customs broker community. A customs broker's involvement in a trade transaction eases the burden of the government—the customs broker takes on the role of educating importers and exporters in the technical requirements of filing in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) and informing them of regulatory requirements. While there are some self-filers, the vast majority of entry filings are completed under the purview of customs brokers; and, thus, CBP has a smaller group of individuals to train and inform when it comes to revised or new filing requirements. Without a well-educated customs broker community, CBP would need many more resources to assist in ABI transmissions and generally support the trade community with navigating the complex import and export requirements; thus, CBP and the PGAs would have to change their approach to trade compliance, which would divert limited resources away from other critical aspects of the trade mission.
The trade community also benefits from well-educated customs brokers who are aware of current requirements in the dynamic environment of international trade. When an importer or exporter enlists the services of a customs broker, that customs broker is perceived to be knowledgeable of customs laws, regulations, and operational processes; however, an importer does not know if the customs broker is in fact aware and knowledgeable of all newly emerging requirements. A continuing education requirement would provide the trade community greater assurance that their agents are knowledgeable in the field of customs laws and regulations, familiar with operational processes, and are properly exercising their fiduciary responsibilities. However, mandating continuing education is just one approach to maintaining integrity and professionalism in the broker industry; CBP is open to considering other approaches provided by the public.
CBP generally seeks to ensure that all parties in the customs broker industry are operating under the current best practices. CBP considers customs brokers to be licensed professionals, and as such, CBP seeks comment regarding potential professional standards for brokers' continuing education, comparable to other licensed professionals. This would help maintain a measure of consistency across all customs brokers.
In June 2018, the World Customs Organization (WCO) published the
Customs broker services need to evolve in order to keep pace with changing commercial and regulatory environments in the international supply chain. Like any other professional service, Customs brokers are required to provide added value for their customers, whilst supporting Customs/governments in enhancing overall compliance with regulatory requirements, making supply chains transparent and secure.
Passing an examination is not a guarantee of continued expertise in the long term. To support quality Customs work, those who provide Customs broker services either to their employer or clients should be required to continue their education and strive to evolve professionally. In some jurisdictions, Customs brokers are required to participate in regular information sessions or advanced training on Customs-focused issues, such as valuation or rules of origin and trade agreements.
Customs administrations, on their own or in partnership with private sector bodies, brokers associations and academia, should consider providing training support for Customs brokers. They can play a significant role in enhancing professional standards of Customs brokers by providing training that challenges their acquired knowledge and skills (
In September 2019, CBP formed the Requirements for Customs Broker Continuing Education Task Force (Task Force), and this Task Force was placed within the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) under the Rapid Response Subcommittee. This Task Force is comprised of representatives throughout CBP and licensed customs brokers from around the country with decades of experience with the trade community. Through this Task Force, members provided valuable input, advice, and operational perspective. This ANPRM represents the outcomes of the deliberations of the Task Force in 2019 and 2020, including the potential benefits and challenges of, and alternatives to, a continuing education requirement. Prior to the formation of this particular Task Force, in 2013, COAC also provided a recommendation that DHS issue a regulation requiring that brokers complete a minimum of 40 hours of continuing education during a triennial reporting cycle, pursuant to CBP's authority under 19 U.S.C. 1641(f), with the proviso that there be no accreditation requirements for such continuing education (
This ANPRM describes a potential framework for mandatory continuing education for licensed customs brokers. In the sections below, CBP has laid out a series of propositions on various topics, which are followed by questions as to which CBP is seeking more information. The comments received in response to this ANPRM will be used, potentially, to draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would provide for proposed regulations to implement mandatory continuing education requirements for licensed customs brokers. All comments are
In this ANPRM, CBP is considering the establishment of a framework for individual license holders to require the completion of 40 hours of continuing education over the course of 3 years. CBP believes that substantially more could be too burdensome for the broker industry, particularly brokers operating as or working for small businesses. However, CBP is concerned that anything less would not be meaningful enough for customs brokers to keep up with a dynamic trade environment full of changing requirements.
CBP believes that a wide variety of activities should qualify as continuing education opportunities to fulfill a mandated requirement. Credit could be given to established corporate training, courses offered by customs brokers associations, and CBP online webinars. Other U.S. government agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission) routinely offer training relevant to customs business, which could be used to fulfill the requirement. CBP also hosts the annual CBP Trade Symposium, other conferences and national customs brokers association meetings, and periodic meetings with the brokers locally at the port level. Activities other than those mentioned above, would potentially need accreditation before being considered to be approved coursework. For specific questions related to the accreditation process, see section I below.
CBP currently conducts hundreds of hours of online webinars annually, covering a wide variety of topics—for example on the implementation of new regulations, intellectual property rights (IPR), specific commodities, valuation, free trade agreements, trade remedies, and Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) functionality. These webinars are interactive when broadcast (participants ask questions and receive live answers) and are recorded and available for download later at any time. These webinars are free and available to anyone.
Customs regulations and laws covering the import and export of goods are changing constantly all over the world. Given that a licensed customs broker is responsible for knowing these rules and regulations and ensuring that they are followed, CBP believes that the majority of continuing education should focus on laws authorizing CBP operations and processes, as well as CBP regulations and programs. The majority (75 percent, or 30 of the 40 hours) would focus on customs business and CBP operational and process requirements, whereas the remainder (25 percent, or 10 of the 40 hours) would be available for education that could focus on other areas related to international trade that are not CBP-specific (such as other government agency requirements).
CBP believes that continuing education requirements should apply to all licensed customs brokers, regardless of—
• The length of time a broker has held a license;
• Whether or not a broker is filing entries or otherwise conducting customs business; or
• Whether or not a broker is a sole proprietor, an employee of a brokerage, or an employee of a company engaged in international trade.
With limited exceptions, the requirements of 19 CFR part 111 apply to all licensed customs brokers regardless of their individual situations or practices. CBP is not intending to deviate from current regulations with this ANPRM. The only differentiation among license holders being considered in this ANPRM is whether: (1) The continuing education requirement is tied to an individual license holder, not a corporate license; and (2) brokers who voluntarily suspend their broker license
In accordance with 19 CFR 111.30(d)(1), licensed customs brokers are required to file a report by February 1 of every third year, in no particular form or format. The objective of this triennial report is to provide CBP an update regarding the active engagement in transacting customs business for each individual or corporate license holder (
To ensure consistency with the existing regulations and the process for providing CBP the triennial report, CBP is not proposing any specific format or method for an individual customs broker to track continuing education hours. Many companies use software that allows their employees to track their training and education and which summarizes their training, as needed. Other customs brokers may choose to use a simple spreadsheet. As long as the customs broker maintains documentation that a customs broker's required continuing education has been completed and a customs broker can provide more detail upon CBP's request, then brokers would be able to track their education as preferred.
CBP is contemplating that an individual customs broker report any education over the past 3 years in ACE, concurrently with the submission of the triennial report. CBP would then conduct compliance activities that would randomly select a certain percentage of customs brokers, who would then be asked to provide the full tracking of their education. During the 2018 reporting cycle, approximately 85 percent of customs brokers submitted their triennial status reports to CBP through
As an example of compliance activities, CBP could determine that for a particular reporting cycle, a random sample of 10 percent of customs brokers must provide additional documentation to validate that sufficient continuing education took place over the past 3 years. The customs brokers would then provide CBP with a spreadsheet, a report from employee training software, or other documentation available that would support the broker's self-certification that the education had been completed. As noted above, CBP does not anticipate a specific format for tracking continuing education; the only requirement would be that it is adequately supportive of the education that the customs broker completed and that it could be produced for CBP review upon request.
CBP is envisioning that the reporting of the continuing education occur at the same time as the submission of the customs brokers' triennial reports. CBP is considering two options but would like to receive other ideas, as well as comments on the two options presented below.
Whether CBP implements option 1, option 2, or another option (perhaps one suggested by a commenter), CBP could request additional documentation from a customs broker during a review of triennial reporting to assure that the customs broker had met the continuing education requirement. If a customs broker could not produce any documentation and the evidence showed that the self-certification in ACE was false or misleading with respect to any material fact, that would be considered a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1641(d)(1)(A). The violation could result in a penalty assessment or suspension
Under either option above, or any other suggested option, CBP would work with individuals who have temporary or extenuating circumstances surrounding their ability to obtain the required education. This is current CBP practice with regard to the triennial status report filing, and CBP would seek to continue that approach.
Under the current regulations, the Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade, may accept a customs broker's written voluntary offer of suspension of the customs broker's license or permit for a specific period of time under any terms and conditions to which the parties may agree (19 CFR 111.52). The most common reasons for voluntarily suspending a license are joining the Federal Government or the military, moving out of the country for an extended period of time, or making a lifestyle change, where a customs broker's license is no longer required but may be useful again in the future. During the period of voluntary suspension, a customs broker may forgo paying applicable fees and providing the triennial status report.
To parallel existing regulations, CBP is considering that while a license is in voluntary suspension, the license holder does not need to meet the continuing education requirements. If and when the customs broker contacts CBP to reactivate the suspended license, CBP would notify the customs broker of the continuing education requirements and would provide the timeline and due date for the next round of educating and reporting. CBP does not believe that any continuing education requirements must be fulfilled prior to the license becoming re-activated. However, CBP is considering adding a requirement for the first year after being re-activated for the customs broker to complete a certain number of credits to refresh the knowledge and skill set, especially if the customs broker's license was inactive for several years.
CBP is contemplating a framework for providing continuing education where all Federal Government-provided content directly relevant to customs business, import, and export (training limited to requirements that CBP administers and/or enforces) would automatically be deemed appropriate and acceptable towards meeting the 3-year requirement. Due to resource constraints, CBP is not currently in a position to accredit education opportunities offered by private-sector entities. Those education opportunities could be provided by an accredited entity. This potential accreditation process would ensure that quality training is provided and accounted for, and provide a structure where a set of objective standards is applied equally across those entities that would like to offer education opportunities to customs brokers. Notwithstanding the above suggestion for an accreditation process, CBP is open to receiving comments whether it should allow for more flexibility and not place any restrictions or requirements on the accreditation of continuing education.
CBP would likely approach selecting accreditors through a Request for Information (RFI) in the manner it currently conducts procurement activities, using the System for Award Management (SAM,
In addition to issuing an RFI, CBP would publish a notice in the
(1) More than one approved accreditor, which would allow for competition and keep costs at market level without creating a monopoly;
(2) An open and transparent application process; and,
(3) An opportunity for small businesses and non-profit organizations to become approved accreditors.
Based on conversations with industry experts, CBP believes that 5-10 entities would apply to CBP to become approved accreditors for continuing education. At this time, CBP is not proposing a floor or a ceiling to the number of accreditors it intends to approve. Any such limits, were they deemed necessary at a later date, would be announced in the
The precise criteria for how applicants would be evaluated could be added in a regulation. Application instructions would be provided in a
• At least one key official in the entity must have a customs broker's license;
• A demonstrated knowledge of international trade laws, regulations, and customs business for goods both imported into and exported from the United States;
• A demonstrated knowledge of other government agencies that are involved in transactions of international trade;
• A list of professional references;
• Resumes for the key personnel who would be involved in accrediting course work;
• A description of the process for how someone would submit his or her activity proposed for credit to the accreditor, including electronic and online methods for submitting materials for consideration;
• A description of the criteria the accreditor would use to approve/deny activities and courses for continuing education credit;
• A description of how the accreditor would avoid conflicts of interest;
• A description of how the accreditor would track accreditation activity for CBP review;
• A description of how customers can provide feedback to the accreditor and CBP on the approval process;
• An estimate of the “turn around” time for approving/denying activities under consideration for accreditation;
• An estimate of the charge, if any, for approving/denying an activity under consideration for accreditation.
To avoid any perceived conflicts of interest, CBP is contemplating that any entity that is approved by CBP to provide continuing education should not be allowed to self-approve its own course content and activities. The entity would have to submit the proposed activity to one of the other accreditors for approval or denial of that activity. CBP believes this potential process provides the fairest approach for both content creators and accreditors.
At this time, CBP is not proposing that applicants to become accreditors submit an application fee. If CBP determines that an application fee is necessary to re-coup the costs of proposal review, then CBP would propose the relevant regulations in a future NPRM and provide a justification for the fee to be charged.
Each accreditor would make clear on its website and in other materials the process for submitting content for accreditation consideration (note that this is one of the criteria that must be met to receive CBP approval to be an accrediting body). CBP is requiring that an accreditor provide an electronic means for a content provider to submit the details of the activity under consideration. The accreditor must also make clear on its website the average or typical timeframe the content provider can expect before receiving an approval or a rejection.
CBP is not proposing to set the cost of what an accreditor would charge to review and approve/deny activities for continuing education. The accreditor would have to make any charge explicit and clear during the application for course approval.
Once an accreditor has been approved under a 3-year agreement, it may become necessary over the course of time to reconsider the suitability of an accreditor to provide services. The terms of the agreement would be written in a way that both CBP and the accreditor independently have the ability to end the agreement with a 30-day notice. This approach parallels the process for CBP monetary contracts.
Any individual or organization would be able apply to become an approved accreditor during the application process that CBP considers opening on a 3-year cycle. Any additional accreditors outside of the 3-year cycle would not be considered.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This ANPRM is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under that order.
A future regulatory framework to implement continuing education requirements would affect those customs brokers maintaining active licenses so that they may transact customs business, as well as any brokers re-activating their licenses after a period of voluntary suspension. In addition to attendance at trainings, customs brokers would need to track continuing education credits. Providers of customs-related trainings would also be affected, as they would likely see a rise in demand for training and would need to have their offerings accredited by an acceptable organization.
There are currently several accreditors for customs-related trainings, although those organizations operate entirely independently from CBP and have neither sought, nor received, CBP approval. Should continuing education become mandatory, more entities would
As of January 2020, there are approximately 10,000 individually licensed customs brokers. Details are provided in Table 1 below.
The addition of continuing education to the requirements for maintaining a customs broker license may produce new costs for some brokers, particularly smaller brokerages. However, many customs brokers already pursue additional training and continuing education and may already be meeting the potential requirements. To determine the net cost or benefit of mandatory continuing education, CBP seeks comments on the following areas:
With continuing education requirements in place, customs brokers would face new costs. Those customs brokers already taking part in a continuing education program may see increased costs if they must increase the amount of training they participate in, or if they must switch to different, more expensive training opportunities because their current programs are not accredited. Customs brokers (or their employers) would need to pay tuition and fees, and spend time registering and preparing for, as well as attending trainings. Depending on the type of training, customs brokers (or their employers) may pay expenses related to travel and overnight trips including hotels, rental cars, and meals. To meet requirements, customs brokers would need to track and report completed trainings, which may require new systems or software, though most customs brokers would likely use existing spreadsheet or database applications. Employers may also choose to satisfy requirements by paying to produce training in-house, which would need to be accredited by a CBP-approved organization.
Accrediting organizations would need to go through some type of application process to receive CBP approval to accredit trainings. That application would require time to prepare and submit. CBP would face the costs of creating and providing the accreditor-approval process. CBP may also need to increase the number of trainings it offers (though as noted above, this is not likely), which would result in increased costs. Finally, CBP would face increased costs of enforcement, likely in the form of more frequent or more thorough audits of customs brokers' records.
The addition of mandatory continuing education to the requirements for maintaining an individual customs broker license would have several benefits. A better educated and more informed workforce would be more prepared for the dynamic and complex trade environment. The customs broker industry as a whole would likely see improvements in professionalism and reputation. Customs brokers would likely need to spend less time asking questions of CBP and would commit fewer unintentional errors and violations. CBP would benefit as well, with fewer errors, issues, and violations to address. Importers, exporters, and other members of the international trade community would experience greater
The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for purposes of publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, or conditionally approve, all or portions of three state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) in the Eastern Kern, California (“Eastern Kern”) ozone nonattainment area. The three SIP revisions include the “2017 Ozone Attainment Plan For 2008 Federal 75 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” the Eastern Kern portion of the “2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,” and the “Transportation Conformity Budget State Implementation Plan Update for the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan.” In this action, the EPA refers to these submittals collectively as the “2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP.” The 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP addresses certain nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the requirements for an emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, contingency measures, among others; and establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP as meeting all the applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements except for the contingency measure requirement, for which the EPA is proposing conditional approval, and the reasonably available control measures and attainment demonstration requirements, for which the EPA is deferring action at this time. In addition, the EPA is beginning the adequacy process for the updated motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020 in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP through this proposed rulemaking.
Written comments must arrive on or before November 27, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0709 at
John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3963 or
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS are concentration levels that, the attainment and maintenance of which, the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
In 2008, the EPA lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (referred to herein as the “2008 ozone NAAQS”) to replace the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.
Under CAA section 181(b)(2), the EPA is required to determine whether an area attained the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and in May 2016, the EPA found that Eastern Kern had failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable Marginal attainment date (
In response to the reclassification to Moderate, the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD or “District”) began to develop an ozone plan meeting the applicable ozone nonattainment area requirements, such as an attainment demonstration.
On July 27, 2017, the EKAPCD adopted the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan and transmitted the plan to CARB for approval and submittal to the EPA. Through Resolution 17-25 (dated September 28, 2017), CARB adopted the plan and the EKAPCD's request for voluntary reclassification. On October 25, 2017, CARB submitted the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. CARB's October 25, 2017 SIP revision submittal constitutes a request for reclassification of the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area. In 2018, the EPA approved the reclassification of the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious.
Eastern Kern is located on the western edge of the Mojave Desert, separated from populated valleys and coastal areas to the west and south by several mountain ranges. Ozone and its precursor emissions transported from these valleys and coastal areas are the major factor affecting ozone exceedances
The surrounding mountain ranges contain a limited number of passes that serve as transport corridors.
States must implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS under title I, part D of the CAA, including sections 171-179B of subpart 1 (“Nonattainment Areas in General”) and sections 181-185 of subpart 2 (“Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas”). To assist states in developing effective plans to address ozone nonattainment problems, in 2015, the EPA issued a SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (“2008 Ozone SRR”) that addressed implementation of the 2008 standards, including attainment dates, requirements for emissions inventories, attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, among other SIP elements, as well as the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and associated anti-backsliding requirements.
The EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR was challenged, and on February 16, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) published its decision in
In this document, we are proposing action on all or portions of three SIP revisions, which are described in detail in the following paragraphs. Collectively, we refer to the relevant portions of the three SIP revisions as the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP.
On October 25, 2017, CARB submitted the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
Since submittal of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, CARB has replaced or supplemented certain elements of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, including the RFP demonstration, the 2020 budgets, and the contingency measure element, as discussed further below. In this document, we are proposing action on all the elements of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, except for the RFP demonstration, which has been withdrawn, and the RACM and attainment demonstrations for which we are deferring action at this time.
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the “2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan” (“2018 SIP Update”) to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
The 2018 SIP Update also includes supplemental information developed to support the approval of the contingency measure element of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan.
The 2018 SIP Update includes updates for 8 different California ozone nonattainment areas. We have already taken action to approve the Coachella Valley, Imperial County, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and Ventura County portions of the 2018 SIP Update.
On August 31, 2020, CARB submitted the “Transportation Conformity Budget State Implementation Plan Update for the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan” (“2020 Conformity Budget Update”) to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
Sections 110(a) and 110(l) of the CAA require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of the SIP revisions that comprise the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP. With respect to the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, the District provided a public review period exceeding 30 days for the draft Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan. On June 22, 2017, the District gave notice in local newspapers
CARB also provided public notice and opportunity for public comment on the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan. On August 25, 2017, CARB released for public review its Staff Report for the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan and gave notice of public meeting to be held on September 28, 2017, to consider adoption of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan.
With respect to the 2018 SIP Update, CARB also provided public notice and opportunity for public comment. On September 21, 2018, CARB released for public review the 2018 SIP Update and published a notice of public meeting to be held on October 23, 2018, to consider adoption of the 2018 SIP Update.
With respect to the 2020 Conformity Budget Update, CARB provided public notice and opportunity for public comment. On June 19, 2020, CARB released for public review the draft 2020 Conformity Budget Update and published a notice of public meeting to be held on July 23, 2020, to consider adoption of the revised 2020 budgets.
Based on information provided in each of the SIP revisions summarized above, we find that the submittals of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, the 2018 SIP Update, and the 2020 Conformity Budget Update meet the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) require states to submit for each ozone nonattainment area a “base year inventory” that is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. In addition, the 2008 Ozone SRR requires that the inventory year be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP demonstration, which is the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements.
The EPA has issued guidance on the development of base year and future year emissions inventories for ozone and other pollutants.
Future baseline emissions inventories must reflect the most recent population, employment, travel and congestion projections for the area. In this context, future “baseline” emissions inventories refer to emissions estimates for a given year and area that reflect rules and regulations and other measures that are already adopted and that take into account expected growth. Future baseline emissions inventories are necessary to show the projected effectiveness of SIP control measures. Both the base year and future year inventories are necessary for photochemical modeling to demonstrate attainment.
The Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan includes base year (2012) and future year baseline inventories for NO
Emissions estimates of VOC and NO
For the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan, stationary point source emissions for the 2012 base year emissions inventory are based on reported data from facilities using the District's annual emissions reporting program, which applies under District Rule 108.2 (“Emission Statement Requirements”) to all stationary sources in Eastern Kern that emit more than 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or NO
On-road emissions inventories in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan are calculated using CARB's EMFAC2014 model and vehicle and travel activity data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the Kern Council of Governments (COG).
Table 1 of this document provides a summary of the 2012 base year emissions estimates in tons per day (tpd) (average summer day) for VOC and NO
Following the
We have reviewed the 2012 base year emissions inventory in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan and the inventory methodologies used by the District and CARB for consistency with CAA requirements and EPA guidance. First, as required by EPA regulation, we find that the 2012 inventory includes estimates for VOC and NO
Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators of stationary sources of VOC or NO
The 2008 Ozone SRR provides that nonattainment areas are subject to the requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA that apply for that area's classification.
The Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan addresses compliance with the emissions statement requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by reference to District Rule 108.2 (“Emission Statement Requirements”).
For this action, we have reviewed EKAPCD's evaluation of SIP-approved District Rule 108.2 for compliance with the specific requirements for emissions statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). We agree with the District that District Rule 108.2 applies within the entire Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; applies to all stationary sources of VOC and NO
Therefore, we propose to approve the emissions statement element of the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and the 40 CFR 51.1102.
Requirements for RFP for ozone nonattainment areas are specified in CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(2)(B). Under CAA section 171(1), RFP is defined as meaning such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required under CAA part D (“Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas”) or may reasonably be required by the EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. CAA section 172(c)(2) generally requires that a nonattainment plan include provisions for RFP. CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as Moderate or above demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC between the years of 1990 and 1996. The EPA has typically referred to section 182(b)(1) as the rate of progress (ROP) requirement. For ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher, section 182(c)(2)(B) requires reductions averaged over each consecutive 3-year period, beginning 6 years after the baseline year until the attainment date, of at least 3 percent of baseline emissions per year. The provisions in CAA section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) allow an amount less than 3 percent of such baseline emissions each year if the state demonstrates to the EPA that the plan includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the area in light of technological achievability.
In the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA provides that areas classified Moderate or higher for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will have met the ROP requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) if the area has a fully approved 15 percent ROP plan for the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS, provided that the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment areas are the same.
Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the baseline year are creditable for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are met. Because the EPA has determined that the passage of time has caused the effect of certain exclusions to be de minimis, the RFP demonstration is no longer required to calculate and specifically exclude reductions from measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by January 1, 1990; regulations concerning Reid vapor pressure promulgated by November 15, 1990; measures to correct previous reasonably available control measure requirements; and, measures required to correct previous inspection and maintenance programs.
The 2008 Ozone SRR requires the RFP baseline year to be the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory was required to be submitted to the EPA. For the purposes of developing RFP demonstrations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the applicable triennial inventory year is 2011. As discussed previously, the 2008 Ozone SRR provided states with the opportunity to use an alternative baseline year for RFP,
The Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan addresses both the ROP (VOC only) demonstration requirement and the RFP demonstration requirement. With respect to the former, the District cites the EPA's 1997 approval of the ROP demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the District's portion of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area and concludes that, based on the 1997 approval, the ROP requirement has been met for Eastern Kern for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
With respect to the RFP demonstration requirement, the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan includes an RFP demonstration based on emissions estimates for an RFP baseline year of 2008 and for RFP milestone years 2017 and 2020. CARB developed the emissions estimates for the RFP demonstration in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan by applying growth and control profiles to the base year inventory, described in section III.A of this document. Growth profiles for point and area-wide sources are derived from surrogates such as economic activity, fuel usage, population, housing units, etc.
Under the EPA's SIP regulations for nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs, a state may allow new major stationary sources or major modifications to use emission reductions credits (ERCs) that were generated through shutdown or curtailed emissions units occuring before the base year of an attainment plan. However, to use such ERCs, the projected emissions inventory used to develop the attainment demonstration must explicitly include the emissions from such previously shutdown or curtailed emissions units.
In response to the
Table 2 of this document provides a summary of CARB's 2011 RFP baseline year, 2017 RFP milestone year, and 2020 RFP milestone/attainment year emissions estimates from the 2018 SIP Update. Documentation for the Eastern Kern RFP baseline and milestone emissions inventories is found in the 2018 SIP Update on pages 21-23 and Appendix A on pages A-11 through A-14. For both sets of baseline emissions inventories (those in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan and those in the 2018 SIP Update), emissions estimates reflect District rules adopted through December 2015 and CARB rules adopted through December 2014.
The revised RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update did not include the ERCs included in year 2020 projections in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan. However, CARB further revised the RFP demonstration for Eastern Kern in the 2020 Conformity Budget Update and provided a demonstration of how the revised budgets are consistent with the RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update for Eastern Kern, as revised to include the ERCs. Table 3 of this document presents the updated RFP demonstration for Eastern Kern for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as revised by CARB in the 2020 Conformity Budget Update.
The revised RFP demonstration calculates future year VOC targets from the 2011 baseline, consistent with CAA 182(c)(2)(B)(i), which requires reductions of “at least 3 percent of baseline emissions each year;” and it substitutes NO
In 1997 the EPA approved a 15 percent ROP plan for the Kern District portion of the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the Eastern Kern nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the same as the Kern District portion of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS except that the Eastern Kern nonattainment area (for the 2008 ozone NAAQS) excludes the Indian Wells Valley.
With respect to future year baseline projections, we have reviewed the growth and control factors and find them acceptable and conclude that the future baseline emissions projections in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning assumptions.
With respect to the RFP demonstration requirement, we note that the future baseline projections for 2017 and 2020 take into account emissions reductions from adopted state and local air pollution control rules and regulations. Generally, to take credit for emissions reductions from state and local control measures (such as adopted state and local rules and regulations) in future baseline projections, the control measures must be approved by the EPA as part of the SIP. For this action, we have reviewed the District's VOC and NO
Based on our review of the emissions inventory documentation in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP, as discussed above and in section III.A of this document, we find that CARB and the District have used the most recent planning and activity assumptions, emissions models, and methodologies in developing the RFP baseline and milestone year emissions inventories. For these reasons, we have determined that the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP demonstrates RFP in the 2017 and 2020 milestone years, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. Therefore, we propose to approve the RFP demonstration for Eastern Kern for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii).
Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measure will be implemented without significant further action by the state or the EPA.
Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA's 2008 Ozone SRR reiterates the EPA's policy that contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the RFP baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.
It has been the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9) that states may rely on federal measures (
The EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation—
The District and CARB had largely prepared the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan prior to the
In the 2018 SIP Update, CARB revises the RFP demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for Eastern Kern and recalculates the extent of surplus emission reductions (
To comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), as interpreted in the
The District's commitment is to amend Rule 410 (“Organic Solvents”), and if necessary, Rule 410.8 (“Aerospace Assembly and Coating Operations”) or Rule 432 (“Polyester Resin Operations”), through the required public review and subsequent EKAPCD Board approval processes, to apply more stringent requirements upon a determination that the Eastern Kern nonattainment area failed to meet an RFP milestone or failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The District anticipates the following types of rule revisions and associated emissions reductions:
• Amend Rule 410 to tighten the control efficiency from 85 percent to 95 percent or to establish a maximum VOC content requirement on all organic solvents over a minimum threshold. The District estimates that these revisions would achieve approximately 0.183 tpd reduction in VOC emissions.
• Amend District Rule 410.8 to require use of more stringent formulations and additional VOC controls. The District estimates that these revisions would achieve approximately 0.014 tpd reduction in VOC emissions.
• Amend Rule 432 to lower the specific material monomer weight percentage and require addition controls at specific emission levels. The District estimates that these revisions would achieve approximately 0.003 tpd reduction in VOC emissions.
CARB attached the District's commitment to revise a rule or rules to include contingency provisions to a letter committing CARB to adopt and submit the revised EKAPCD rule(s) to the EPA within one year of the EPA's final conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP.
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require contingency measures to address potential failure to achieve RFP milestones or failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date through implementation of additional emissions controls in the event the area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Contingency measures must provide for the implementation of additional emissions controls, if triggered, without significant further action by the state or the EPA.
As discussed above, the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP provides estimates of emissions reductions that can be considered surplus in that they are beyond the reductions necessary for RFP or attainment, but it does not yet include the type of measure that would implement additional emissions controls, if triggered, without significant further action by the state or the EPA. However, CARB and the District recognize that the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP needs to be supplemented with such a measure or measures and have submitted commitments to adopt and submit revised District rule(s) with the necessary provisions as a SIP revision within one year of the EPA's final action the contingency measure element of the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP. The specific types of revisions the District has committed to make, such as tightening control efficiencies or establishing content limits, upon a failure to achieve a milestone or a failure to attain, would comply with the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) because the additional controls would be undertaken if the area fails to achieve a milestone or fails to attain, and would take effect without significant further action by the State or the EPA.
Next, we considered the adequacy of the contingency measure(s) (once adopted and submitted) from the standpoint of the magnitude of emissions reductions the measure would provide (if triggered). Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations for the ozone NAAQS establish a specific amount of emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but we generally expect that contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of RFP, which, for ozone, amounts to reductions of 3 percent of the RFP baseline year emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Eastern Kern, one year's worth of RFP is approximately 0.26 tpd of VOC or 0.93 tpd of NO
For the purposes of evaluating the adequacy of the emissions reductions from the contingency measures (once adopted and submitted), we find it useful to distinguish between contingency measures to address potential failure to achieve RFP milestones (“RFP contingency measures”) and contingency measures to address potential failure to attain the NAAQS (“attainment contingency measures”).
With respect to the RFP contingency measure requirement for milestone year 2017, we note that, to address nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, CARB has recently submitted base year (2017) emissions inventories for the various California nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including Eastern Kern.
For the Eastern Kern 2008 ozone Serious nonattainment area, the 2020 RFP milestone coincides with the attainment date, and thus, we review the emissions reductions estimated by the District for the to-be-adopted contingency measure(s) in light of the facts and circumstances in Eastern Kern in the year following the attainment year to determine whether there will be sufficient continued progress in that area in the event the area fails to achieve the 2020 RFP milestone or fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2020 while a new attainment plan is being developed.
As discussed above, given the types of rule revisions under consideration, the District estimates VOC emissions reductions ranging from 0.183 tpd (if only revisions to Rule 410 are adopted) to 0.190 tpd (if revisions are adopted for all three rules under consideration). This amounts to a range of approximately 71 percent to 74 percent of one year's worth of RFP for this area. The EPA normally recommends that contingency measures provide for the equivalent of one year's worth of progress, and based on the estimates provided by the District, the contingency measure(s) (to be adopted by the District) would fall short of that recommendation.
However, the District's contingency measure(s) would provide additional emissions reductions beyond those that are already expected to occur in the year following the attainment year. Based on emissions inventories in the 2018 SIP Update, emissions in the year following the attainment year (2021) in Eastern Kern are expected to be approximately 0.05 tpd lower for VOC and 0.22 tpd lower for NO
In this instance, we find that the emissions reductions from the to-be-adopted contingency measures together with the reductions expected to occur due to already-implemented measures would amount to approximately 114 percent to 117 percent of one year's worth of progress, which is consistent with our guidance recommending that contingency measures provide for one year's worth of progress in the event of a failure to meet an RFP milestone or a failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Therefore, in light of the year-to-year reductions in the VOC and NO
For these reasons, and in light of commitments from the District and CARB to adopt and submit a revised District rule(s) that will apply tighter limits or requirements upon a failure to achieve an RFP milestone or the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, we propose to approve conditionally the contingency measure element of the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP as meeting the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Our proposed approval is conditional because it relies upon commitments to adopt and submit a specific enforceable contingency measure (
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving timely attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets”) contained in all control strategy SIPs. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone plans should identify budgets for on-road emissions of ozone precursors (NO
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.
The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a budget consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budget during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or inadequacy.
The Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan includes budgets for the 2017 RFP milestone year and the 2020 attainment year. The budgets in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan are 2 tpd for VOC and 5 tpd for NO
On December 5, 2018, CARB submitted the 2018 SIP Update, which revised the RFP demonstration for Eastern Kern consistent with the
On August 31, 2020,
We are proposing action only on the 2020 RFP milestone budgets adopted by CARB in the 2020 Conformity Budget Update for the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP. CARB did not revise the 2017 RFP milestone year budgets in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan because they would only have been used to evaluate regional transportation-related emissions analyses for years 2017 through 2019, and with the passage of time, such analyses are no longer necessary for conformity purposes. Therefore, the EPA is not acting on the 2017 budgets in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan.
The revised 2020 budgets in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP were derived from motor vehicle emissions estimates prepared using EMFAC2014,
As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP, we have evaluated the budgets using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). We will complete the adequacy review concurrent with our final action on the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP. The EPA is not required under its transportation conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of them.
As documented in a separate memorandum included in the docket for this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP meet each adequacy criterion.
In addition to the SIP requirements discussed in the previous sections, the CAA includes certain other SIP requirements applicable to Serious ozone nonattainment areas, such as Eastern Kern. We describe these provisions and their current status below.
Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as Serious or above to implement an enhanced motor vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) program in each urbanized area (in the nonattainment area), as defined by the Bureau of the Census, with a 1980 population of 200,000 or more. The requirements for those programs are provided in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
An enhanced vehicle I/M program is not required in Eastern Kern because the area does not meet the population threshold in CAA section 182(c)(3).
Section 182(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop SIP revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for permits in accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction and operation of each new or modified major stationary source for VOC and NO
The 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP cites District Rule 210.1 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review (NSR)”), as amended by the District on May 4, 2000, as the rule that meets Serious area requirements for nonattainment NSR.
Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the CAA require California to submit to the EPA for approval measures to implement a Clean Fuels Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to opt-out of the federal clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in at least equivalent long-term reductions in ozone precursors and toxic air emissions.
In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt-out of the federal clean-fuel fleet program. The submittal included a demonstration that California's low-emissions vehicle program achieved emissions reductions at least as large as would be achieved by the federal program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to opt-out of the federal program on August 27, 1999.
Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a SIP revision by November 15, 1992, that requires owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline vehicle refueling vapor recovery (“Stage II”) systems in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and above. California's ozone nonattainment areas implemented Stage II vapor recovery well before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990.
Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate standards requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. The EPA promulgated the first set of ORVR system regulations in 1994 for phased implementation on vehicle manufacturers, and since the end of 2006, essentially all new gasoline-powered light- and medium-duty vehicles are ORVR-equipped.
While a SIP submittal meeting CAA section 182(b)(3) is not required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, under California state law (
In Eastern Kern, the installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced through District Rule 412.1 (“Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks”), most recently approved into the SIP on October 7, 1996.
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that all ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or above implement measures to enhance and improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NO
On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision addressing the PAMS network for six ozone nonattainment areas in California, including San Joaquin Valley (which then included Eastern Kern), to meet the enhanced monitoring requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1) and the PAMS regulations. The EPA determined that the PAMS SIP revision met all applicable requirements for enhanced monitoring and approved the PAMS submittal into the California SIP.
Prior to 2006, the EPA's ambient air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR part 58 (“Ambient Air Quality Surveillance”) set forth specific SIP requirements (see former 40 CFR 52.20). In 2006, the EPA significantly revised and reorganized 40 CFR part 58.
The 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP does not specifically address the enhanced ambient air monitoring requirement in CAA section 182(c)(1). However, we note that CARB includes the ambient monitoring network within Eastern Kern in its annual monitoring network plan that is submitted to the EPA, and that we have approved the most recent annual monitoring network plan (“Annual Network Plan Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts, July 2019” (“2019 ANP”)) with respect to the Eastern Kern element.
For the reasons discussed herein, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the California SIP the following portions of the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP submitted by CARB on October 25, 2017, December 5, 2018, and August 31, 2020:
• Base year emissions inventory element in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
• Emissions statement element in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
• ROP demonstration element in the Eastern Kern 2017 Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
• RFP demonstration element in Chapter IV of the 2018 SIP Update, as corrected in the 2020 Conformity Budget Update, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
• Motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2020 Conformity Budget Update for the RFP milestone/attainment year of 2020 (as shown in Table 4 of this document) because they are consistent with the RFP demonstration for 2020 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS proposed for approval herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e); and
We are also proposing to find that the:
• California SIP revision to opt-out of the federal Clean Fuels Fleet Program meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with respect to Eastern Kern; and
• Requirements for enhanced monitoring under CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for Eastern Kern for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have been met.
In addition, we are proposing, under CAA section 110(k)(4), to approve conditionally the contingency measure element of the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for RFP and attainment contingency measures. Our proposed approval is based on commitments by the District and CARB to supplement the element through submission, as a SIP revision (within one year of our final conditional approval action), of a revised District rule or rules that would add new limits or other requirements if an RFP milestone is not met or if Eastern Kern fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final action.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve, or conditionally approve, state plans as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Multimedia Holdings Corporation (Multimedia), licensee of KARE, channel 11, Minneapolis, Minnesota, requesting the substitution of channel
Comments must be filed on or before November 12, 2020 and reply comments on or before November 23, 2020.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Michael Beder, Esq., Associate General Counsel, TEGNA, Inc., 8350 Broad Street, Suite 2000, Tysons, Virginia 22102.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Members of the public should note that all
See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Announcement of meeting; extension of comment period.
DoD is hosting a public meeting to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding implementation in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) of the statutory presumption of development exclusively at private expense for commercial items in the procedures governing the validation of asserted restrictions on technical data as required to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Kimberly Ziegler, telephone 571-372-6095.
DoD is interested in continuing a dialogue with experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding amending the DFARS to implement statutory amendments for the acquisition of technical data and computer software, and associated license rights.
On August 31, 2020, DoD published a proposed rule in the
DoD hosted public meetings to obtain the views of interested parties with notice published in the
• Full name.
• Valid email address, which will be used for admittance to the meeting.
• Valid telephone number, which will serve as a secondary connection method.
• Company or organization name.
• Whether the individual desires to make a presentation.
Pre-registered individuals will receive instructions for connecting using the Microsoft video conferencing software not more than one week before the meeting is scheduled to commence.
The comment period for the proposed rule is extended to November 30, 2020, to provide additional time for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes.
Government procurement.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to terminate the following 10 U.S. Consumer Standards: The U.S. Consumer Standards for Italian Sprouting Broccoli, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Carrots, U.S. Consumer Standards for Celery Stalks, U.S. Consumer Standards for Husked Corn on the Cob, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Kale, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Spinach Leaves, U.S. Consumer Standards for Brussels Sprouts, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Parsnips, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Turnips, and U.S. Consumer Standards for Beet Greens. This proposed action is part of USDA's work to eliminate regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or impose costs that exceed benefits.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the USDA, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406; fax: (540) 361-1199; or at
David G. Horner at the address above, by phone (540) 361-1120; fax (540) 361-1199; or, email
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are maintained by AMS at:
AMS continually reviews all fruit and vegetable grade standards to ensure their usefulness to the industry, modernize language, and remove duplicative terminology. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which established a Federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. Section 3 of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to (1) evaluate existing regulations and recommend their repeal, replacement, or modification to the USDA Secretary, and (2) identify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or whose costs exceed their benefits.
The consumer standards were originally developed for re-packers and were never fully adopted by industry, which instead uses U.S. grade standards intended for wholesale use, which are revised regularly to reflect current industry practices. AMS identified 10 U.S. consumer standards that are not related to a current, active marketing order, import regulation, or export act and which are obsolete. These consumer standards continue to cause confusion within the industry due to conflicting and outmoded grades and terminology. They are ineffective, unnecessary, and have become a burden to the U.S. and global produce industry.
Therefore, AMS proposes to terminate the following 10 U.S. consumer standards: U.S. Consumer Standards for Italian Sprouting Broccoli, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Carrots, U.S. Consumer Standards for Celery Stalks, U.S. Consumer Standards for Husked Corn on the Cob, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Kale, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Spinach Leaves, U.S. Consumer Standards for Brussels Sprouts, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Parsnips, U.S. Consumer Standards for Fresh Turnips, and U.S. Consumer Standards for Beet Greens.
The elimination of these U.S. consumer standards would reduce obsolete information, lessen confusion in interpreting grade standards, and promote consistency within the industry.
A 60-day comment period is provided for interested persons to submit comments on the proposal to terminate these 10 U.S. consumer standards.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with a revision of a currently approved information collection associated with the Volunteer Program.
We will consider comments that we receive by December 28, 2020.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments will be available for inspection online at
Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Jennifer Moffit at the above address.
For specific questions related to collection activities, contact Ms. Jennifer Moffit at (202) 827-5191 (voice); or, by email at:
Without the information, FSA will be unable to document the services provided by the volunteers. FSA will report the collected information to offices within the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Personnel Management that request information on the Volunteer Program.
FSA continues to use forms AD-2022, AD-2023, AD-2024, and AD-2025 in the Volunteer Program. The burden hours decreased by 10 due to the removal of travel times. The respondents go to the county offices to do regular and customary business with FSA; this means no travel times is required specifically for the information collection and therefore, it is no longer included in the burden hour reporting. For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, ability and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget Approval.
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
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the start of
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 <
The Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will meet on November 9, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be available via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on the identification of emerging and foundational technologies with potential dual-use applications as early as possible in their developmental stages both within the United States and abroad.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Introduction by the Bureau of Industry and Security Leadership.
3. Presentation on ETTAC Structure and Work Plan (Chair/Vice Chair).
4. Presentations on Emerging Technologies Trends.
5. Open Discussion (Comments, Q&A).
6. Conclusion/Adjournment.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of slots will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 19, 2020.
John Conniff; AD/CVD Operations, Office III (Oman) and Eliza Siordia; AD/CVD Operations, Office V (Turkey), Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009 and (202) 482-3878, respectively.
On September 29, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form on behalf of the petitioners,
On October 2, 2020, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in separate supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of the Sultanate of Oman (GSO) and the Government of Turkey (GOT) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of aluminum foil in Oman and Turkey, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic aluminum foil industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the petitioners provided reasonably available information in the Petitions to support their allegation.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on September 29, 2020, the periods of investigation are January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.
The product covered by these investigations is aluminum foil from Oman and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must also be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GSO and the GOT of the receipt of the Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided the 2019 production of the domestic like product by U.S. producers that support the Petitions.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
Because Oman and Turkey are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Oman and/or Turkey materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declining domestic production, shipments, and capacity utilization; negative effects on domestic industry employment; and a decline in financial performance and profitability.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of aluminum foil from Oman and Turkey benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GSO and the GOT, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 8 of the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 25 of the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petition, the petitioners named ten companies from Turkey as producers/exporters of aluminum foil.
On October 15, 2020, Commerce released CBP data on imports of aluminum foil from Turkey under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
In the Petition, the petitioners named only one company as a producer/exporter of aluminum foil in Oman, Oman Aluminum Rolling Company.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GSO and the GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of aluminum foil from Oman and Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope, including aluminum foil to which lubricant has been applied to one or both sides of the foil.
Excluded from the scope of these investigations is aluminum foil that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing materials on one side or both sides of the aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape. Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above. The products under investigation are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6090, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000.
Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of these proceedings may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3091, 7606.12.3096, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3095, 7606.91.6095, 7606.92.3035, and 7606.92.6095. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued two incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with the Transit Protection Program Pier and Support Facilities Project at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in Silverdale, Washington over two years.
These authorizations are effective from July 16, 2021 to January 15, 2022, and July 16, 2022 to January 15, 2023, respectively.
Leah Davis, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On January 14, 2020, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to
The IHAs will be effective from July 16, 2021 to January 15, 2022 for Year 1 activities, and July 16, 2022 to January 15, 2023 for Year 2 activities.
The Navy is proposing to construct and operate a pier for berthing of Transit Protection Program (TPP) blocking vessels, which provide security escort to Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines between Naval Base Kitsap Bangor and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These vessels are currently berthed on a space-available basis at various locations at Kitsap Bangor. Kitsap Bangor is located on Hood Canal approximately 20 miles (mi) (32 kilometers (km)) west of Seattle, Washington. The Navy anticipates that construction for the TPP project, including vibratory and impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal, will occur over two years. The IHAs are effective from July 16, 2021 to January 15, 2022 for Year 1 activities, and July 16, 2022 to January 15, 2023 for Year 2 activities.
The Navy plans to construct a pier for berthing TPP blocking vessels. The TPP pier will consist of an L-shaped, pile-supported trestle from shore connecting to a pile-supported main pier section. The Navy will also install two dolphins, one south and one north of the pier which will be used solely for mooring support. Additionally, the contractor will construct a temporary work trestle (falsework piles and timber decking) for use during construction.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue IHAs to the Navy was published in the
The Commission stated that bubble curtains that are placed immediately around the pile do not achieve consistent reductions in sound levels because they cannot attenuate ground-borne sound. Appreciable attenuation is not observed for the sound that resonates through the ground into the far field or for low-frequency sound in general, and an 8-dB source level reduction factor is unsubstantiated by the data. The Commission thus recommends that NMFS (1) refrain from using the 8-dB source level reduction factor for far-field impacts (>100 m) and (2) consult with acousticians, including those at the University of Washington-Applied Physics Laboratory, regarding the appropriate source level reduction factor to use to minimize near-field (<100 m) and far-field effects on marine mammals.
In addition, in its comments, the Commission mistakenly treated the measurements taken by Illingworth & Rodkin (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2012) at 145 m, 120 m, and 754 m as “source levels.” These are actually received sound levels at far-distances. A source level is the sound level measured or back-calculated at 1 m from the source, or, in the case of in-water pile driving, it's more commonly referred to sound levels measured at approximately 10 m from the pile. Although the measured levels at far-distances (
As a result of an informal comment from the Commission, NMFS corrected an error in the California sea lion take estimates in both IHAs, to reflect a maximum average of 60 sea lions per day, rather than 54. Please see the Estimated Take section for additional information on this take estimation. NMFS also updated the distance to the Level B harassment isopleths for vibratory pile driving of 24-inch, 30-inch, and 36-inch pile driving to standardize rounding across pile types in response to a Commission comment. These updated distances are reflected in Table 5 of this notice, and Table 2 of each IHA.
NMFS added additional requirements for reporting stranded marine mammals to both IHAs, as suggested by the Commission. Please see the
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs (
As indicated above, all five species (with five managed stocks) in Table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have authorized it. While humpback whale, gray whale, Southern Resident killer whale, Dall's porpoise, and bottlenose dolphin have been sighted in the area, the temporal and spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.
Humpback whales (
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the Navy's project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of proposed IHAs (85 FR 48206; August 10, 2020) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by reference into these final IHA determinations and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHAs (85 FR 48206; August 10, 2020).
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through these IHAs, which will inform both NMFS's consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Navy's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
The source levels were derived from the Navy's document titled “Proxy Source Sound Levels and Potential Bubble Curtain Attenuation for Acoustic Modeling of Nearshore Marine Pile Driving at Navy Installations in Puget Sound” (Navy 2015a). In that document, the Navy reviewed relevant data available for various types and sizes of piles typically used for pile driving and recommend proxy source values for Navy installations in Puget Sound. This document is included as Appendix B in the Navy's application. Source levels for each pile size and activity are presented in Table 3.
The Navy will implement bubble curtains (
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log
where
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific transmission loss data for the TPP pier site are not available, therefore the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds.
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. We describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Transient killer whales occasionally occur throughout Puget Sound but are rare in Hood Canal. In Puget Sound, they are typically observed in small groups with an average group size of six individuals (Houghton, 2012). Based on this Puget Sound average, the Navy estimated that two groups of six whales may occur within the Level B harassment zone during construction each year, and has requested 12 Level B harassment takes of killer whale for Year 1 and Year 2. NMFS concurs with this estimate, and has authorized 12 Level B harassment takes of killer whale in each year. Given the estimated number of construction days in Year 2 (10 days), NMFS expects that 12 Level B harassment takes is a conservative estimate for Year 2, but is appropriate given that it accounts for the occurrence of just two groups.
The largest Level A harassment zone for mid-frequency cetaceans extends 11 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-inch steel piles (Table 5). Given the small size of the Level A harassment zones, we do not expect Level A harassment take of killer whales to occur. Additionally, the Navy is planning to implement a 355 m shutdown zone for all cetaceans during that activity (Table 7). These shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of killer whale. Therefore, NMFS has not authorized Level A harassment take of killer whale in Year 1 or Year 2.
Harbor porpoises may be present in all major regions of Puget Sound throughout the year. Aerial surveys conducted throughout 2013 to 2015 in Puget Sound indicated density in Puget Sound was 0.91 individuals/km
In consideration of the harbor porpoise take estimate, the Navy conservatively assumed that vibratory installation of 36-inch piles will occur on every in-water work day, given that that activity resulted in the largest Level B harassment zone. The Navy estimated Level B harassment takes of harbor porpoise by multiplying the 0.44 animals/km
The largest Level A harassment zone for high-frequency cetaceans extends 351 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-inch steel piles (Table 5). The Navy is planning to implement
Steller sea lions are routinely seen hauled out from mid-September through May on submarines at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, with a maximum haulout count of 15 individuals in November 2018. Because the daily average number of Steller sea lions hauled out at Kitsap Bangor has increased since 2013 compared to prior years, the Navy relied on monitoring data from July 2012 through February 2019 to determine the average of the maximum count of hauled out Steller sea lions for each month in the in-water work window (Navy, 2016, 2019). While pinnipeds may haul out longer than the period required for pile driving, therefore not being exposed to underwater sound, the Navy conservatively assumed that any Steller sea lion that hauls out at Kitsap Bangor may enter the Level B harassment zone each day during pile driving.
For each in-water work month, the Navy averaged the maximum number of hauled out Steller sea lions observed in a single survey at Kitsap Bangor during that month for each year (2008 to 2019; see Appendix A of the Navy's application). The Navy then averaged these monthly averages across the entire in-water work period, resulting in a maximum average of four Steller sea lions hauled out per day. The Navy assumed that each of these animals may enter the Level B harassment zone on each in-water work day. Therefore, the Navy requested 320 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lion in Year 1 (4 Steller sea lions × 80 in-water work days), and 40 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lions during Year 2 (4 Steller sea lions × 10 in-water work days). NMFS concurs with this approach and has authorized 320 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lion during Year 1, and 40 Level B harassment takes of Steller sea lion during Year 2.
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 11 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-inch steel piles (Table 5). Given the small size of the Level A harassment zones, we do not expect Level A harassment take of Steller sea lion to occur. Additionally, the Navy is planning to implement a 15m shutdown zone during that activity (Table 7). The Navy's shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of Steller sea lion. Therefore, NMFS has not authorized Level A harassment take of Steller sea lion.
From August through June, California sea lions routinely haul out on the PSB floats and submarines at Kitsap Bangor. For each in-water work month, the Navy averaged the maximum number of hauled out California sea lions observed in a single survey at Kitsap Bangor during that month for each year (2008 to 2019; see Appendix A of the Navy's application). NMFS averaged these monthly averages across the entire in-water work period, resulting in a maximum average of 60 California sea lions hauled out per day. (The proposed rule incorrectly indicated an average of 54 California sea lions hauled out per day.) The daily average number of California sea lions hauled out at Kitsap Bangor has increased since 2013 compared to prior years. Therefore, NMFS relied on monitoring data from July 2012 through February 2019 to determine the average of the maximum count (Navy, 2016, 2019).
While pinnipeds may haul out longer than the period required for pile driving, therefore not being exposed to underwater sound, the Navy conservatively assumed that any California sea lion hauled out at Kitsap Bangor may swim into the Level B harassment zone on each pile driving day. NMFS concurs, and therefore, NMFS has authorized 4,800 Level B harassment takes of California sea lion in Year 1 (60 California sea lions × 80 in-water work days), and 600 Level B harassment takes of California sea lions during Year 2 (60 California sea lions × 10 in-water work days).
The largest Level A harassment zone for otariids extends 11 m from the source during impact pile driving of 36-inch steel piles (Table 5). Given the small size of the Level A harassment zones, we do not expect Level A harassment take of California sea lion to occur. Additionally, the Navy is planning to implement a 15 m shutdown zone during that activity (Table 7). The Navy's shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of California sea lion. Therefore, NMFS has not authorized Level A harassment take of California sea lion.
The harbor seal is the only species of marine mammal that is consistently abundant and considered resident in Hood Canal (Jeffries
The Navy conservatively assumed that each of the estimated 35 harbor seals may occur within the Level B harassment zone on each pile driving day. Therefore, the Navy requested 2,800 Level B harassment takes of harbor seal in Year 1 (35 harbor seals × 80 in-water work days), and 350 Level B harassment takes of harbor seal during Year 2 (35 harbor seals × 10 in-water work days). NMFS concurs with this approach and has authorized 2,800 Level B harassment takes of harbor seal during Year 1, and 350 Level B harassment takes of harbor seal during Year 2.
The largest Level A harassment zone for phocids during Year 1 extends 158 m during impact installation of 36-inch steel piles (Table 5). The Navy is planning to implement a 160 m shutdown zone during that activity (Table 7), which incorporates the entire Level A harassment zone, and the 1 m peak PTS isopleth (Table 5). However, the Navy estimates that some harbor seals may enter, and remain inside the Level A harassment zone undetected by PSOs for a period long enough to be
During Year 2, the largest Level A harassment zone for phocids extends 26 m from the source during vibratory pile driving of 30 and 36-inch steel piles, as no impact pile driving is planned for Year 2. The Navy expects to be able to effectively monitor this zone and implement a 30 m shutdown zone. Therefore, the Navy does not expect Level A harassment take to occur during Year 2. NMFS concurs that the Navy's shutdown zones are expected to eliminate the potential for Level A harassment take of harbor seal in Year 2, and has not authorized Level A harassment take of harbor seal in Year 2.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy will employ the following mitigation measures:
• For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions;
• Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
• For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the Level B harassment zone; and
• If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile installation/removal will shut down immediately if these species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following mitigation measures apply to the Navy's in-water construction activities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
○ The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
○ The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact.
○ The bubble curtain shall be operated such that there is proper (equal) balancing of air flow to all bubblers.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's mitigation measures, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan. Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
• Independent PSOs (
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
• Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator must be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction;
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols.
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior.
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
At least two PSOs will monitor for marine mammals during all pile driving and removal activities. PSO locations will provide a view of the entire shutdown zone for all activities, other than areas where structures may potentially block limited portions of the zone, and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations are as follows:
i. During vibratory pile driving, two PSOs will be stationed on the pier or shore.
ii. During impact pile driving, two PSOs will be stationed on the pier, and one additional PSO will observe from a vessel positioned approximately 200 m from shore.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring.
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were driven or removed and by what method (
• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period (
• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting.
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed.
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting).
• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was active.
• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate).
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the event that a live marine mammal is found stranded, whether on shore or in or on any structure or vessel, the following steps shall be taken:
i. Project personnel who discover the marine mammal shall immediately notify the most appropriate onsite personnel with relevant expertise (
ii. The Navy shall then immediately notify the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, and, in consultation with the Stranding Coordinator, shall immediately notify the most appropriate qualified individual (
iii. In the interim, or in the event that no qualified individual other than onsite marine mammal observers is available to respond to the event, the Navy shall manage the event response and shall take action to prevent any further deterioration of the animal's condition, to the extent possible. Appropriate action may be specific to the event. At minimum, the Navy should provide shade for the animal (if possible), shall not move the animal or cause the animal to move, and shall suspend project activity until the situation is resolved.
iv. The Navy shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, within 48 hours after discovery.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401), NMFS and to the West Coast Region Stranding Hotline (866-767-6114) as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
The report must include the following information:
i. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
ii. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
iii. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
iv. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
v. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
vi. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all of the species listed in Table 6, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below. The analysis below applies to both the Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs, except where noted otherwise.
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated by pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A or Level B harassment, identified above, while activities are underway.
The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of serious injury or mortality. The mitigation is expected to ensure that no Level A harassment occurs to any species except harbor seal, which may be taken by Level A harassment during Year 1 activities. The nature of the estimated takes anticipated to occur are similar among all species and similar in Year 1 and Year 2, other than the potential Level A harassment take of harbor seal in Year 1, described further below.
For all species and stocks, take will occur within a limited portion of Hood Canal, and for the Hood Canal stock of harbor seals, the project site is approximately 13.2 km (8.2 mi) away from the nearest major haulout at the mouth of the Dosewallips River. For all species other than harbor seal, take will be limited to Level B harassment only due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In addition to the expected effects resulting from Level B harassment, we anticipate that harbor seals may sustain some Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury in Year 1 only. However, animals that experience PTS will likely only receive slight PTS,
As noted above in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities, the Navy has identified a few observations of harbor seal births at Kitsap Bangor. However, Kitsap Bangor is not a significant rookery area; observation of these births are very rare, and only a few have been reported. The closest major haulouts to Kitsap Bangor that are regularly used by harbor seals are at the mouth of the Dosewallips River, located approximately 13.2 km (8.2 mi) away. Given the rarity of harbor seal births at Kitsap Bangor and the maximum of five hours of pile driving anticipated in a day, we do not expect harbor seals to give birth in the TPP project area while the project is underway.
The project is also not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitats. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized.
• For all species except harbor seal, no Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
• The Level A harassment exposures are anticipated to result only in slight PTS, within the lower frequencies associated with pile driving for harbor seals only;
• The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks.
• Pile driving is only expected to occur for a maximum of five hours in a day.
• We do not expect significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
For the Washington Inland Waters, Hood Canal stock of harbor seal, no current abundance estimate is available. The most recent abundance estimate for harbor seals in Washington inland waters is from 1999, which estimated 1,088 harbor seals in the Washington Inland Waters, Hood Canal stock. It is generally believed that harbor seal populations have increased significantly since (
We anticipate that estimated takes of harbor seals are likely to occur only within some portion of the relevant population, rather than to animals from the stock as a whole. For example, takes anticipated to occur at Kitsap Bangor are expected to accrue to the same individual seals that routinely occur on haulouts at these locations, rather than occurring to new seals on each construction day. In summary, harbor seals taken as a result of the specified activities are expected to comprise only a limited portion of individuals comprising the overall relevant stock abundance. Therefore, we find that small numbers of harbor seals will be taken relative to the population size of the Hood Canal stock of harbor seal in Year 1 and Year 2.
For all other species and stocks, our analysis shows that, in Year 1 and Year 2, take of all species or stocks is below one third of the estimated stock abundance. The number of animals authorized to be taken for the killer whale West Coast Transient stock, harbor porpoise Washington Inland Waters stock, Steller sea lion Eastern U.S. stock, and California sea lion United States stock, would be considered small relative to the relevant stock's abundances even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual, which is an unlikely scenario.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued two IHAs to the Navy for the potential harassment of small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to Transit Protection Program Pier and Support Facilities Project at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in Silverdale, Washington over two years, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are followed.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) for the re-issuance of a previously issued incidental harassment authorization (IHA) with the only change being effective dates. The initial IHA authorized take of seven species of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to construction associated with the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal Modifications and Improvements Project in Juneau, Alaska. The project has been delayed and none of the work covered in the initial IHA has been conducted. The initial IHA was effective from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. ADOT&PF has requested re-issuance with new effective dates of November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021. The scope of the activities and anticipated effects remain the same, authorized take numbers are not changed, and the required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting remains the same as included in the initial IHA. NMFS is, therefore, issuing a second identical IHA to cover the incidental take analyzed and authorized in the initial IHA.
This authorization is effective from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021.
An electronic copy of the final 2019 IHA previously issued to ADOT&PF, ADOT&PF's application, and the
Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On October 23, 2019, NMFS published final notice of our issuance of an IHA authorizing take of marine mammals incidental to the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal Modifications and Improvements Project (84 FR 56767). The effective dates of that IHA were January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. On August 24, 2020, ADOT&PF informed NMFS that the project was delayed. None of the work identified in the initial IHA (
The planned activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting), authorized incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized through the previously issued IHA.
ADOT&PF is planning to modify and improve the existing dolphin structures at the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal. There are currently three Alaska Marine Highway System ferry berths in Auke Bay. The planned project will involve the East Stern Berth facility, which was originally constructed in 2003 to accommodate new fast vehicle ferries. The East Stern Berth must be renovated to accommodate two new Alaska-class ferries, which entered service in spring 2020. Four existing dolphins at the ferry terminal will be removed using a vibratory driver, and three breasting dolphins and two mooring dolphins will be installed using both vibratory and impact hammers. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the initial IHA. The mitigation and monitoring are also as prescribed in the initial IHA.
Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor porpoise (
We refer to the documents related to the previously issued IHA, which include the
ADOT&PF will conduct activities as analyzed in the initial 2019 IHA. As described above, the number of authorized takes of the same species and stocks of marine mammals are identical to the numbers that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards and authorized under the initial IHA and no new information has emerged that would change those findings. The re-issued 2020 IHA includes identical required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as the initial IHA, and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) ADOT&PF's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
The effects of this proposed federal action were adequately analyzed in NMFS' Biological Opinion for the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal Modifications Project, dated October 3, 2019, which concluded that the take NMFS proposed to authorize through this IHA would not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat.
NMFS has issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for in-water construction activities associated with the specified activity from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021. All previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements from the initial 2019 IHA are incorporated.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before December 28, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Walter Ikehara, Fishery Information Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Pacific Islands Region, (808) 725-5175,
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) established the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), to develop fishery ecosystem plans (FEP) for fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and high seas of the Pacific Islands Region. These plans, when approved by the Secretary of Commerce, are implemented in Federal regulations by
Regulations at 50 CFR 665.16, 300.35, and 300.217 require that all U.S. vessels with Federal permits fishing for western Pacific fishery management unit species display identification markings on the vessel. Each Vessel registered for use with a permit issued under Subparts B through E and Subparts G through I of 50 CFR 665, must have the vessel's official number displayed on both sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck. Regulations at 50 CFR 300.35 require that each vessel fishing under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty must display its international radio call sign on the hull, the deck, and on the sides of auxiliary equipment, such as skiffs and helicopters. Vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Convention Area and in international waters must comply with the regulations at 50 CFR 300.217 requiring the display of the vessel's international radio call sign on both sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck, unless specifically exempted. In each case, the numbers must be a specific size and in specified locations. The display of the identifying numbers aids in fishery law enforcement.
The regulations at 50 CFR 665.128, 665.228, 665.428, 665.628, and 665.804 require that certain fishing gear must be marked. In the pelagic longline fisheries, the vessel operator must ensure that the official number of the vessel is affixed to every longline buoy and float. In the coral reef ecosystem fisheries, the vessel number must be affixed to all fish and crab traps. The marking of gear links fishing or other activity to the vessel, aids law enforcement, and is valuable in actions concerning the damage to or loss of gear, and civil proceedings.
The vessel owner or crew paint the identification markings on each vessel and associated equipment and gear. NMFS collects no other information.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this Information Collection Request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before December 28, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Craig Cockrell at 301-427-8503, and
This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Exempted fishing permits (EFPs), scientific research permits (SRPs), display permits, letters of acknowledgment (LOAs), and shark research fishery permits are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
Regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 and 50 CFR 635.32 govern scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activities with respect to Atlantic HMS. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not include scientific research within the definition of “fishing,” scientific research is exempt from this statute, and NMFS does not issue EFPs for bona fide research activities (
Scientific research is not exempt from regulation under ATCA. NMFS issues SRPs for collection of species managed under this statute (
To regulate these fishing activities, NMFS needs information to determine the justification for granting an EFP, LOA, SRP, display, or shark research fishery permit. The application requirements are detailed at 50 CFR 600.745(b)(2). Interim, annual, and no-catch/fishing reports must also be submitted to the Atlantic HMS Management Division within NMFS. The authority for NMFS requiring this information is found at 50 CFR 635.32.
NMFS has updated the burden estimates based on participation in the Atlantic HMS Management Division's exempted fishing program from 2018 to 2019 and the Shark Research Fishery from 2018 to 2019.
Respondents can submit the required information via email via electronic forms.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/NMFS to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before December 28, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to David Ulmer, Fishery Reporting Specialist, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (757-723-0303/978-559-1552),
This is a request to extend a currently approved information collection.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources and their habitats within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The mandates and authorities are derived from numerous statutes, most significantly the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Under the MSA, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for conservation and management of the nation's marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NMFS. In an effort to achieve the goals of the MSA, several fisheries are now being managed by harvest limits including quotas, annual target total allowable catches (TAC) and domestic annual harvest (DAH) limits. These fisheries often have short fishing seasons and require in-season management measures, such as closures and trip limits, to ensure that harvest levels established in each Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are not exceeded. Therefore, as more fisheries are being managed by harvest limits, the timely collection of data from dealers and vessel owners and operators is and will continue to be a necessary component of most management regimes, as evidenced in several FMPs.
All federal permitted dealers of Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Northeast (NE) multispecies, monkfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring, skates, tilefish, hagfish, American lobster must have been issued and have in their possession a federal dealer permit in order to purchase such species from fishing vessels. Federal permitted dealers in the above fisheries are required to submit certain information regarding their fish purchases to NMFS. Trip-level (trip by trip) reports provide the comprehensive data that are necessary for successful long-term management of each fishery.
In all fisheries requiring mandatory reporting, 'negative reporting' by dealers is required if no fish was purchased during the reporting period. Negative reports are necessary in order to accurately identify dealers who have not purchased fish as opposed to those who have failed to report their purchases.
All large vessel at-sea processors of Atlantic mackerel that have been issued and have in their possession a federal at-sea processor permit may purchase mackerel from fishing vessels at sea for processing provided the large vessel did not harvest the mackerel. These Federal permitted vessels are also required to submit certain information regarding their fish purchases to NMFS.
The information collected is used by several offices of NMFS, the Northeast Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to monitor quota-managed species, ensuring that conservation and management actions may be taken in a timely manner. Accurate and timely landings reports are especially important for monitoring commercial landings by species and evaluating the effectiveness of each FMP in achieving its fishing mortality targets.
In addition to the uses specifically relating to management of individual species, the statistics collected through these reports will be incorporated into the NMFS databases which are used in many analyses by various offices of NMFS, the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), state fishery enforcement agencies, the Departments of State and Commerce, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Corps of Engineers, Congressional staffs, the fishing industry, and the public. The data also serve as inputs to a variety of uses such as biological analyses and stock assessments, and in support of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review”, quota and allocation selections and monitoring, economic profitability profiles, trade and import tariff decisions, allocation of grant funds among states, and identification of ecological interactions among species. Data used are also utilized for monitoring and evaluating ESA and MMPA actions.
Dealers submit purchase information through an electronic process by one of the following: The web based system as administered by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program, a computer based trip ticket program approved by the NMFS, or through a NMFS approved proprietary mechanism.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before December 28, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Doug Bell, National Sea Grant Office, (301-734-1080), and
This request is for the extension, with minor proposed revisions, of a currently approved information collection.
The objectives of the National Sea Grant College Program, as stated in the Sea Grant legislation (33 U.S.C. 1121
The National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1126) also provides for the designation of a public or private institution of higher education, institute, laboratory, or State or local agency as a Sea Grant college or Sea Grant institute. Applications are required for designation of Sea Grant Colleges and Sea Grant Institutes, although no forms are required. The data the collection provides helps the National Sea Grant Office determine the suitability of the applicant for meeting the standards and conditions for being a Sea Grant College as set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1126 and 15 CFR 918.5.
The NSGO proposes two primary revisions to this information collection. The NOAA Form 90-2 is collected using an Excel spreadsheet (>98% of use cases). The NSGO intends to migrate the Excel spreadsheet to an online webform that is hosted on Sea Grant's Planning, Implementation and Evaluation Resource (PIER) database. The online webform would provide an additional and alternative method of information collection, but not eliminate the option for an Excel-based collection. The webform may require slight modifications on the form structure and existing data formats (such as “Classifications” or “Partners”). These modifications may be driven by software requirements, but are mostly sought to improve information management and the user interface. Public comments from previous extensions of this information collection have requested linkage of the NOAA Form 90-2 to the PIER database. This modification would enable synchronization of existing PIER data, so that time of user entry and data quality control is minimized. The second proposed revision utilizes existing components of the NOAA Form 90-2. The NSGO is proposing to collect more resolved information that will allow Sea Grant to classify the level of effort by topic (
Responses are made in a variety of formats, including forms and narrative submissions, via mail, fax or email. The Sea Grant Project Record Form (NOAA Form 90-2) and Sea Grant Budget Form (NOAA Form 90-4) must be submitted in electronic format through
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods and identify that it is for the renewal of Collection Number 3038-0103. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Elie Mishory, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, at (202) 418-5609 or
• Pursuant to § 17.01(a), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), clearing members, and foreign brokers shall identify new special accounts to the Commission on Form 102A;
• pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing members shall identify volume threshold accounts to the Commission on Form 102B; and
• pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators shall identify reportable sub-accounts to the Commission on Form 71 when requested via a special call by the Commission or its designee.
Additional reporting requirements arise from § 18.04, which results in the collection of information via Form 40 from and regarding traders who own, hold, or control reportable positions; volume threshold account controllers; persons who own volume threshold accounts; reportable sub-account controllers; and persons who own reportable sub-accounts.
Reporting requirements also arise from § 20.5(a), which requires all reporting entities to submit Form 102S
In addition to the reporting requirements summarized above, § 18.05 imposes recordkeeping requirements upon: (1) Traders who own, hold, or control a reportable futures or options on futures position; (2) volume threshold account controllers; (3) persons who own volume threshold accounts; (4) reportable sub-account controllers; and (5) persons who own reportable sub-accounts.
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.
On, the Commission published in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
David Steinberg, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5102, email:
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 OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981.
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Dated: October 23, 2020.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place.
Day 1—Open to the public Tuesday, December 8, 2020 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Day 2—Open to the public Wednesday, December 9, 2020 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held by videoconference. Participant access information will be provided after registering. (Pre-meeting registration is required. See guidance in
Colonel Elaine Freeman, U.S. Army, (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
This notice provides a notification of TRICARE Plan program changes for calendar year 2021. Changes or improvements to the TRICARE program benefits are provided in the supplementary information section.
TRICARE health plan information in this notice is valid for services during calendar year 2021 (January 1, 2021-December 31, 2021).
Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Health Plan, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042-5101.
Mr. Mark A. Ellis, (703) 681-0039.
An interim final rule published in the
The following changes or improvements to the TRICARE program benefits apply for calendar year 2021:
• Improving what's covered:
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Response:
➢ The following three temporary changes were made effective May 12, 2020, for care and treatment within the United States (US) and effective March 10, 2020, for the TRICARE Overseas Program: Temporary audio-only telephonic office visits; temporary waiver of cost-shares, co-pays and deductibles for all covered in-network telehealth services (for Prime and Select beneficiaries); and temporary interstate and international licensing. These changes will expire when the President of the US declares the national emergency is terminated. Overseas termination date may vary from the US date and will be determined by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
➢ Flexibility was added for reinstatement of coverage for TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) by expanding the three-month window to reinstate coverage for a beneficiary due to a lapse in coverage to a five-month window. This is in effect until the termination of the state of national emergency.
Screenings:
➢ Effective January 1, 2020, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) for Breast Cancer (BC) Screening is covered under the Provisional Coverage Program. This three-dimensional mammography DBT for BC screening may be covered annually instead of conventional two-dimensional screening mammography. It is covered for all women beginning at age 40 and covered annually beginning at age 30 for women who have a 15 percent or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer. No pre-authorization is required.
➢ Effective December 2, 2019, and covered under the TRICARE Basic Program, this change allows for the separate reimbursement of instrument-based vision screening for children age one to age six when provided by a physician other than an ophthalmologist or optometrist as part of a regular preventive office visit under the well-child care program. No pre-authorization is required.
Mental Health:
➢ The Autism Care Demonstration is focused on ensuring TRICARE beneficiaries diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families receive high-value care and services that will help them reach their maximum potential. During the COVID-19 period, DHA has authorized the temporary use of unlimited applied behavior analysis parent/training guidance (Current Procedural Terminology Code 97156) only via telehealth to ensure Military children diagnosed with ASD and their families continue to receive support during the crisis. This exception to policy allows parents to maintain elements of the treatment plan during the crisis, which has in many cases made provision of in- person services impossible or unsafe.
➢ Effective March 5, 2019, but implemented in 2020, SpravatoTM is covered under the Basic Medical Program for treatment-resistant depression. This drug is administered intra-nasally under the supervision of a TRICARE-authorized provider during an office visit. Pre-authorization under the medical benefit is required. Off-label use of Spravato is excluded.
Demonstrations, Programs & Pilots:
➢ The existing Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) demonstration ensuring beneficiaries continue to have access to safe and effective non-FDA approved LDTs has been extended for an additional three years. Additionally, TRICARE Overseas Program (TOP) beneficiaries may now receive tests covered under the LDT demonstration from either Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988-certified laboratories or laboratories otherwise approved by the TOP contractor in conjunction with specific government-directed standards.
➢ Effective January 1, 2020, TRICARE implemented a three-year Home Health Value-Based Purchasing demonstration designed to improve the quality and delivery of home health services by rewarding providers with incentive payments that give higher quality and more efficient care. This demonstration applies to home health agencies that provide services in the following nine states: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
➢ Launched on May 1, 2020, the TRICARE Select Navigator Program provides a health care assistance service to certain covered beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Select using purchased care to improve health outcomes and patient experience for covered beneficiaries with complex medical conditions.
➢ Humana Military continues to partner with Kaiser Permanente to offer care and coverage to TRICARE Prime eligible beneficiaries in the Atlanta, Georgia area through the TRICARE Accountable Care Pilot. The pilot began on January 1, 2020, and will continue through 2022.
Other Significant Changes:
➢ Effective January 1, 2020, and covered under the TRICARE Basic Medical Program, Continuous Glucose Monitor Systems (CGMS) are now covered for Type 2 diabetes in addition to Type 1 diabetes. Smart phones and watches used in conjunction with CGMS are not covered.
➢ Effective November 21, 2019, and covered under the TRICARE Basic Medical Program, this benefit enhancement adds coverage for non- implantable bone conducting hearing devices for infants and toddlers who are too young (typically age 5 and younger) for implants. These devices are considered a prosthetic bridge to transplantation for patient whose skull development will not yet support an implant, and are also covered as prosthetic devices for Active Duty Family Members who meet criteria for hearing aid coverage. No preauthorization is required.
➢ Effective April 16, 2020, TRICARE reimburses for care provided by Physical Therapist Assistants (PTAs) and Occupational Therapist Assistants (OTAs) who are supervised by physical therapists and occupational therapists, increasing the provider pool available to care for TRICARE beneficiaries.
➢ A Move Away From Lower-Value-Care Interventions: (1) Vitamin D Screening for otherwise healthy/asymptomatic individuals is excluded as the screening has no impact on health outcomes. (2) Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulators are excluded for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain because there is increasing evidence that this treatment is not effective.
• Out-of-Pocket Costs:
Certain beneficiary out-of-pocket costs (enrollment fees, premiums, catastrophic caps, deductibles, and copayments) are annually adjusted based on federal law and regulations, most notably by the annual retiree cost of living adjustment, or Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Currently there is a difference in copayments between those who joined the military before January 1, 2018, (Group A), and those who joined after that date (Group B). The retiree COLA will not be announced until mid-October 2020. As of August 31, 2020, the projected COLA increase is 1.3 percent. Beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses impacted by the 2020 COLA will be posted to the
Pharmacy Out-of-Pocket Expenses for CY 2021 remain the same. See table below for TRICARE Pharmacy out-of-pocket expenses that take effect on January 1, 2021.
• For more information, visit
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), as the lead agency, announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed changes in operational concept and other associated activities for the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) located at Clear Air Force Station (CAFS), Alaska. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of the Air Force (DAF) are cooperating agencies to this Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA; MDA's NEPA Implementing Procedures; DAF Environmental Impact Analysis Process; and FAA's NEPA Policies and Procedures. The Draft EIS also supports compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its implementing regulations.
The 52-day public comment period will be from October 30, 2020 to December 21, 2020. All public comments are requested by December 21, 2020. Due to recent federal and state guidance on public gatherings, MDA will hold an Online Open House and Telephone Public Meeting, in place of in-person public meetings. Notification for public involvement will be published and announced in local news media to encourage public participation and review.
Comments may be submitted by:
•
•
•
•
All comments received during the 52-day public comment period will become part of the public record and considered in the Final EIS.
Mr. Ryan Keith, MDA Public Affairs, at 256-450-1599 or by email:
MDA has considered two alternatives to the Proposed Action: The No Action Alternative and the two-tier alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the LRDR would be operated in a manner that would contain HIRF within existing R-2206 such that no new actions would need to be taken to limit aircraft flight. Under the two-tier alternative, the existing R-2206 would be expanded with two new Restricted Areas. The two-tier alternative was presented during the scoping process, but was eliminated from further analysis in order to minimize potential impacts on airspace.
The environmental analysis in the Draft EIS addresses the following environmental resource areas: Airspace management; air quality; biological resources; climate; hazardous materials; solid waste and pollution prevention; historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources; land use; natural resources and energy supply; noise and compatible land use; safety; socioeconomics and environmental justice; subsistence; visual effects; and water resources.
This Draft EIS supports the FAA rulemaking process related to the Restricted Areas.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of decision and order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) gives notice of a Decision and Order (Case Number 2020-001) that grants to Hoshizaki America, Inc. (“Hoshizaki”) a waiver from specified portions of the DOE test procedure for determining the energy consumption of specified basic models of automatic commercial ice makers (“ACIM”). Under the Decision and Order, Hoshizaki is required to test and rate the specified ACIM basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order.
The Decision and Order is effective on October 28, 2020. The Decision and Order will terminate upon the compliance date of any future amendment to the test procedure for ACIM located in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 431 section 134 that addresses the issues presented in this waiver. At such time, Hoshizaki must use the relevant test procedure for this equipment for any testing to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and any other representations of energy use.
Ms. Lucy deButts, 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. Email:
Ms. Sarah Butler, 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) 586-1777. Email:
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 431.401(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and Order grants Hoshizaki a waiver from the applicable test procedure at 10 CFR 431.134 for specified basic models of ACIM and provides that Hoshizaki must test and rate such equipment using the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order. Hoshizaki's representations concerning the energy consumption of the specified basic models must be based on testing according to the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same requirements when making representations regarding the energy consumption of this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
Consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(j), not later than December 28, 2020, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States equipment employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a petition for waiver. Manufacturers not currently distributing such equipment in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of that equipment in the United States. 10 CFR 431.401(j). Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 431.401.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 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), 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 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 energy efficiency, energy use or
Any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures.
By letter dated January 28, 2020, Hoshizaki filed a petition for waiver and a petition for interim waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to ACIM set forth in 10 CFR 431.134. Hoshizaki additionally responded by email to two DOE requests for technical information on February 13, 2020 and March 19, 2020.
In the models for which Hoshizaki requested a waiver, DCM-270BAH and DCM-270BAH-OS, the ice bin is situated above the evaporator and ice is pushed up through the evaporator directly into the bottom of the bin. Therefore, Hoshizaki claimed that an ice bin one-half full of ice prior to the test makes it impossible to accurately test because ice produced during the test cannot be readily distinguished from the ice placed in the bin prior to the test (as compared to units in which the ice is dropped into a bin below the production area—allowing for “intercepting” the ice produced during the test). Hoshizaki requested an alternate test procedure in which testing is started with an empty internal bin and ice is harvested through continuous operation of the unit's dispenser as opposed to collection in the internal bin.
On July 23, 2020, DOE published a notice that announced its receipt of the petition for waiver and granted Hoshizaki an interim waiver. 85 FR 44529 (“Notice of Petition for Waiver”). In the Notice of Petition for Waiver, DOE reviewed Hoshizaki's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by Hoshizaki, specification and parts sheets for the specified basic models, and additional technical correspondence. Based on this review, DOE granted Hoshizaki an interim waiver for its Hoshizaki branded DCM-270BAH and DCM-270BAH-OS ACIM basic models. The alternate test procedure granted to Hoshizaki in the interim waiver provides additional clarification to the alternate test procedure requested by Hoshizaki, but does not change the test setup or conduct requested by Hoshizaki.
By letter dated July 28, 2020, Hoshizaki requested that the interim waiver be extended to include two additional basic models of ACIM, Hoshizaki branded DCM-271BAH and DCM-271BAH-OS, and that these two additional basic models be considered under its petition for waiver.
In the Notice of Petition for Waiver, DOE also solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and the specified alternate test procedure.
In response to the comment by the CA IOUs, DOE agrees that the suggested approach of collecting the dispensed ice in an external ice bin that is one-half full of ice better represents the ice produced in field conditions and maintains consistency with testing other ACIM according to the DOE test procedure. The ice generated during normal operation of the specified basic models would typically be stored for some period of time in the models' internal storage bins and would melt at a slower rate compared to ice collected
DOE also agrees with the CA IOUs' recommendation regarding the waiver no longer being effective when DOE ACIM test procedure is updated to address this test issue. DOE's regulations require that when the test procedure is amended 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. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).
For the reasons explained here and in the Notice of Petition for Waiver, absent a waiver the basic models identified by Hoshizaki in its original petition and scope extension request cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the recommended procedure suggested by Hoshizaki and concludes that a modified version of the recommended alternate test procedure will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of the equipment, while alleviating the testing problems associated with Hoshizaki's specified basic models. DOE amended the alternate test procedure specified in the interim waiver granted to Hoshizaki based on the comment received in the Notice of Petition for Waiver, as discussed in this section.
Thus, DOE is requiring that Hoshizaki test and rate its specified ACIM basic models according to the alternate test procedure specified in this Decision and Order.
This Decision and Order is applicable only to the basic models listed and does not extend to any other basic models. DOE evaluates and grants waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Hoshizaki may request that DOE extend the scope of this waiver to include additional basic models that employ the same technology as those listed in this waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(g). Hoshizaki may also submit another petition for waiver from the test procedure for additional basic models that employ a different technology and meet the criteria for test procedure waivers. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).
DOE notes that it may modify or rescind the waiver at any time upon DOE's determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, Hoshizaki may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if the company discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).
As set forth above, the test procedure specified in this Decision and Order is not the same as the test procedure offered by Hoshizaki. If Hoshizaki believes that the alternate test method it suggested provides representative results and is less burdensome than the test method required by this Decision and Order, Hoshizaki may submit a request for modification under 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2) that addresses the concerns that DOE has specified with that procedure. Hoshizaki may also submit another less burdensome alternative test procedure not expressly considered in this notice under the same provision.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Hoshizaki, the various public-facing materials (
(1) Hoshizaki must, as of the date of publication of this Order in the
(2) The alternate test procedure for the Hoshizaki basic models listed in paragraph (1) of this Order is the test procedure for ACIM prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.134, with the modifications provided below. All other requirements of 10 CFR 431.134 and DOE's other relevant regulations remain applicable.
Prior to the start of the test, remove the front panel of the unit under test and insert a bracket to hold the shutter (which allows for the dispensing of ice during the test) completely open for the duration of the test. After inserting the bracket, return the front panel to its original position on the unit under test. Conduct the test procedure as specified in 10 CFR 431.134 except that the internal ice bin for the unit under test shall be empty at the start of the test and intercepted ice samples shall be obtained from a container in an external ice bin that is filled one-half full with ice and is connected to the outlet of the ice dispenser through the minimum length of conduit that can be used.
(3)
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401.
(5) DOE issues this waiver on the condition that the statements, representations, and information provided by Hoshizaki are valid. If Hoshizaki makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of these basic models, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and Hoshizaki 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
(6) Hoshizaki remains obligated to fulfill any certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 22, 2020.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on October 19, 2020, RH energytrans, LLC (RH) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time, until December 7, 2022, to complete construction of, and place into service, its Meadville and County Line compressor stations in Crawford and Erie Counties, Pennsylvania as authorized in the December 7, 2018 Order Issuing Certificate (Certificate Order).
On November 22, 2019, the Commission granted RH partial authorization to place into service the pipeline facilities associated with the Risberg Line Project,
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on RH's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
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:
On August 4, 2020, One Drop Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Elizabeth Webbing Falls Dam Project (project) located on the Blackstone River, in Central Falls, Providence County, Rhode Island. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing 220-foot-long, 14-foot-high rock fill, gravity, earth dam with a crest elevation of 34.9 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) an existing impoundment with a surface area of 2.54 acres and a total storage capacity of 23.87-acre-feet at a surface elevation of 25 feet msl; (3) an existing concrete intake structure with a 50-foot-wide mechanical trash rake; (4) an existing 45-foot-long concrete intake canal; (5) an existing 20-foot-long, 50-
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
As first announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on June 17, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference in the above referenced proceeding on Tuesday, October 27, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET).
We note that discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:
There is no fee for attendance, and the conference is open for the public to attend via webcast. Information on this technical conference, including a link to the webcast, will be posted on the conference's event page on the Commission's website (
On August 18, 2020, Rivers Electric, LLC (transferee) filed an application for an after-the-fact transfer of license of the Mill Pond Hydroelectric Project No. 9985. The project is located on Catskill Creek, Greene County, New York.
The applicant seeks Commission approval to transfer the license for the Mill Pond Hydroelectric Project from Rivers Electric Company, Inc. (transferor) to the transferee. On June 26, 2020, Rivers Electric Company, Inc was merged into River Electric, LLC, as a result, Rivers Electric Company, Inc. is no longer active.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-9985-033. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that on October 16, 2020, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) (collectively, Applicants) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time, until December 1, 2024, to complete construction of the Northern Access 2016 Project (Project) and make the Project available for service, as authorized in the February 3, 2017 Order Granting Abandonment and Issuing Certificates (Certificate Order).
The Project consists of approximately 99 miles of new pipeline, primarily 24-inches in diameter, to be constructed in McKean County, Pennsylvania, and Allegany, Cattaraugus, Erie, and Niagara Counties, New York; a new compressor station along Empire's system in Niagara County, New York; and additional compression at National Fuel's existing Porterville Compressor Station in Erie County, New York, as well as new pipeline interconnects and various auxiliary and appurtenant facilities. The Certificate Order required Applicants to complete construction of the Project facilities and make them available for service by February 3, 2019.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on the extension motion may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
Take notice that on October 9, 2020, Spire Storage West LLC (Spire), 3773 Richmond Avenue, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77046, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization of its Clear Creek Expansion Project (Project). Spire requests authorization to: (i) Amend its certificate issued in Docket No. CP98-256-000, for Spire Storage's Clear Creek Storage Field in Uinta County, Wyoming, (ii) reaffirmation of market-based rate authority, and (iii) related authorizations and waivers, as requested herein, as may be necessary in order to grant the authorizations requested. The amended project would increase certificated base gas and working gas capacity each from 4.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 20.0 Bcf, and increase injections and withdrawals from 35 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and 50 MMcf/d to 350 MMcf/d and 500 MMcf/d, respectively, by increasing horsepower (hp) at the Clear Creek Plant from 3,740 hp to 24,340 hp and the installation of 11 injection—withdrawal wells. Additionally, the amended facilities would include approximately 10.6 miles of pipeline between the Canyon Creek compressor station, the Clear Creek Plant, and a new interconnection with the Kern River Gas Transmission mainline, as well as the establishment of a one-quarter mile buffer zone around the storage reservoir, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
Spire Storage West LLC's application states that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. The request for certification must be submitted to the certifying agency and to the Commission concurrently. Proof of the certifying agency's receipt date must be filed no later than five (5) days after the request is submitted to the certifying agency.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Sean P. Jamieson, General Counsel, Spire Storage West LLC, 3773 Richmond Ave., Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77046, Phone: (346) 308-7555, Email:
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 12, 2020.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before November 12, 2020.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-6-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address below.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-6-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: 3773 Richmond Ave., Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77046, or Email:
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on October 2, 2020, the Western Area Power Administration submitted its tariff filing: Western Area Power Administration Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 12/1/2020.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project (project) and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is located on McCorkle Creek near the town of Yellow Pine in Valley County, Idaho, and occupies federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, please contact Suzanne Novak at (202) 502-6665 or at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's progress report in meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration during fiscal year 2018. This progress report also presents the total number of products registered under the “fast-track” provisions of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Submit comments on or before December 28, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0125, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
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
Ramé Cromwell, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9068; email address:
This is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the integration of tolerance reassessment with the reregistration process, and the status of various regulatory activities associated with reregistration and tolerances reassessment. Given the broad interest, the Agency has not attempted to identify all the specific entities that may be interested in this action.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's progress reports in meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration during fiscal year 2018.
The FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136
1.
2.
EPA welcomes input from stakeholders and the general public. Any written comments received will be taken into consideration in the event that EPA determines that further action is warranted. EPA does not expect this report to lead to any particular action, and therefore is not seeking particular public comment.
1.
2.
7 U.S.C. 136a-1(l).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces, and provides a preliminary agenda for, a virtual meeting of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) Hospital Robocall Protection Group (HRPG) via live internet link on the Commission's website.
Monday, December 14, 2020, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EST.
The HRPG meeting will be held via video conference call, with video and audio coverage available to the public at
Donna Cyrus, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at: (202) 418-7325 (voice) or email at:
The December 14th meeting will be open to members of the general public via live broadcast over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
Open captioning will be provided for the live stream. Other reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are available upon request. To request an accommodation, or for materials in accessible formats for persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
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 November 27, 2020.
1.
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for membership on the LEPAC. The LEPAC consists of 15 Federal and non-Federal experts in fields associated with lead screening, the prevention of lead exposure, and services for individuals and communities affected by lead exposure. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishment of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of epidemiology, toxicology, mental health, pediatrics, early childhood education, special education, diet and nutrition, and environmental health. Members may be invited to serve for three-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of LEPAC objectives.
Nominations for membership on the LEPAC must be received no later than December 15, 2021. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be emailed to
Ms. Perri Ruckart, M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA 30341, 770-488-3300,
The members of this committee are selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The committee advises the Secretary, HHS and the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on a range of activities to include: (1) Review of Federal programs and services available to individuals and communities exposed to lead; (2) review of the current research on lead exposure to identify additional research needs; (3) review of and identification of best practices, or the need for best practices regarding lead screening and the prevention of lead exposure; (4) identification of effective services, including services relating to healthcare, education, and nutrition for individuals and communities affected by lead exposure and lead poisoning, including in consultation with, as appropriate, the lead exposure registry as established in Public Law 114-322 Section 2203(b) (42 U.S.C. 300j-27); and (5) undertaking of any other review or activities that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
Annually as determined necessary by the Secretary or as required by Congress, the committee shall submit a report to include: (1) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Federal programs and services available to individuals and communities exposed to lead; (2) an evaluation of additional lead exposure research needs; (3) an assessment of any effective screening methods or best practices used or developed to prevent or screen for lead exposure; (4) input and recommendations for improved access to effective services relating to health care, education, or nutrition for individuals and communities impacted by lead exposure; and (5) any other recommendations for communities affected by lead exposure, as appropriate.
At least half of the committee will consist of Federal representatives from a range of agencies that may include the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Consumer Product Safety Commission; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Food and Drug Administration; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; the U.S. Geological Survey; and such additional federal, state, tribal, and local public and private officials as the Secretary deems necessary for the committee to carry out its function. The rest of the committee will consist of non-Federal members. Only non-Federal members are being solicited with this announcement.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships.
Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for LEPAC membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government.
Candidates should submit the following items:
• Current
• At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in accordance with provisions of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, is seeking nominations for membership on the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program STAC. The STAC consists of 17 members including experts in fields associated with occupational medicine, pulmonary medicine, environmental medicine, environmental health, industrial hygiene, epidemiology, toxicology, mental health, and representatives of World Trade Center (WTC) responders as well as representatives of certified-eligible WTC survivors. The STAC reviews scientific and medical evidence and makes recommendations to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program on additional Program eligibility criteria and additional WTC-related health conditions, reviews and evaluates policies and procedures used to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support adding a health condition to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, makes recommendations regarding individuals to conduct independent peer reviews of the scientific and technical evidence underlying a final rule adding a condition to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, and provides consultation on research regarding certain health conditions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Nominations for membership on the STAC must be received no later than November 20, 2020. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
You may submit nominations, identified by Docket No. NIOSH-229-I by the following methods below.
•
•
Tania Carreón-Valencia, Designated Federal Officer, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS: R-12, Atlanta, GA 30333,
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to accomplishing the committee's objectives. The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is seeking nominations for members fulfilling the following categories:
• Occupational physician who has experience treating WTC rescue and recovery workers;
• Environmental medicine/environmental health professional;
• Toxicologist;
• Epidemiologist;
• Occupational physician;
• Representative of WTC responders; and
• Representative of certified-eligible WTC survivors.
Members may be invited to serve for four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of STAC objectives. More information on the committee is available at
Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address);
The category of membership (environmental medicine or environmental health specialist, occupational physician, pulmonary physician, representative of WTC responders, certified-eligible WTC survivor representative, industrial hygienist, toxicologist, epidemiologist, or mental health professional) that the candidate is qualified to represent);
A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that demonstrates the candidate's suitability for the nominated membership category; and
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate. The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
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 December 28, 2020.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. 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.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, was enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, was enacted on March 30, 2010, collectively known as the “Affordable Care Act.” The Affordable Care Act extended MHPAEA to apply to the individual health insurance market. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regulation regarding essential health benefits (EHB) requires health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets, through an Exchange or outside of an Exchange, to comply with the requirements of the MHPAEA regulations in order to satisfy the requirement to cover EHB (45 CFR 147.150 and 156.115).
MHPAEA section 512(b) specifically amends the Public Health Service (PHS) Act to require plan administrators or health insurance issuers to provide, upon request, the criteria for medical necessity determinations made with respect to MH/SUD benefits to current or potential participants, beneficiaries, or contracting providers. The Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (75 FR 5410, February 2, 2010) and the Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 set forth rules for providing criteria for medical necessity determinations. CMS oversees non-Federal governmental plans and health insurance issuers.
MHPAEA section 512(b) specifically amends the PHS Act to require plan administrators or health insurance issuers to supply, upon request, the reason for any denial or reimbursement of payment for MH/SUD services to the participant or beneficiary involved in the case. The Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (75 FR 5410, February 2, 2010) and the Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 implement 45 CFR 146.136(d)(2), which sets forth rules for providing reasons for claims denial. CMS oversees non-Federal governmental plans and health insurance issuers, and the regulation provides a safe harbor such that non-Federal governmental plans (and issuers offering coverage in connection with such plans) are deemed to comply with requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of 45 CFR 146.136 if they provide the reason for claims denial in a form and manner consistent with ERISA requirements found in 29 CFR 2560.503-1. Section 146.136(d)(3) of the final rule clarifies that PHS Act section 2719 governing internal claims and appeals and external review as implemented by 45 CFR 147.136, covers MHPAEA claims denials and requires that, when a non-quantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) is the basis for a claims denial, that a non-grandfathered plan or issuer must provide the processes, strategies, evidentiary standard, and other factors used in developing and applying the NQTL with respect to med/surg benefits and MH/SUD benefits.
Group health plan participants, beneficiaries, covered individuals in the individual market, or persons acting on their behalf, may use this optional model form to request information from plans regarding NQTLs that may affect patients' MH/SUD benefits or that may have resulted in their coverage being denied.
2.
Specifically, manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies (applicable manufacturers) are required to submit on an annual basis the information required in section 1128G(a)(1) of the Act about certain payments or other transfers of value made to covered recipients during the course of the preceding calendar year. Similarly, section 1128G(a)(2) of the Act requires applicable manufacturers and
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 November 27, 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.
The cornerstone of the PLE qualification process is for PLEs to demonstrate that they engage in a rigorous evidence-based process for developing, modifying, or endorsing AUC. Section 1834(q)(2)(B) specifies that the Secretary must consider whether AUC have stakeholder consensus, are scientifically valid and evidence-based, and are based on studies that are published and reviewable by stakeholders. In the 2016 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule with comment period (80 FR 70886, November 16, 2015; see pages 71102-71116 and pages 71380-71382) we established a qualification process and requirements for qualified PLEs in order to ensure that the AUC development or endorsement processes used by a PLE result in high quality, evidence-based AUC in accordance with section 1834(q)(2)(B).
In order to become and remain a qualified PLE, we require PLEs to demonstrate adherence to specific requirements when developing, modifying or endorsing AUC. To ensure that these requirements are met, we require PLEs to submit information demonstrating their adherence to these requirements. CMS qualifies those PLEs that demonstrate adherence to the requirements for a period of five years. Qualified PLEs are also required, during the 5th year after their most recent approval date, to ensure adherence has been maintained and to account for any changes in the entities' processes. Qualified PLEs must reapply every five years and must submit the applications by January 1 of the 5th year after the PLE's most recent approval date.
2.
The generic clearance will allow rapid response to inform CMS initiatives using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative consumer research strategies (including formative research studies and methodological tests) to improve communication with key CMS audiences. As new information resources and persuasive technologies are developed, they can be tested and evaluated for beneficiary response to the materials and delivery channels. Results will inform communication development and information architecture as well as allow for continuous quality improvement. The overall goal is to maximize the extent to which consumers have access to useful sources of CMS program information in a form that can help them make the most of their benefits and options
The activities under this clearance involve social marketing and consumer research using samples of self-selected customers, as well as convenience samples, and quota samples, with respondents selected either to cover a broad range of customers or to include specific characteristics related to certain products or services. All collection of information under this clearance will utilize a subset of items drawn from a core collection of customizable items referred to as the Social Marketing and Consumer Testing Item Bank. This item bank is designed to establish a set of pre-approved generic question that can be drawn upon to allow for the rapid turn-around consumer testing required for us to communicate more effectively with our audiences. The questions in the item bank are divided into two major categories. One set focuses on characteristics of individuals and is intended primarily for participant screening and for use in structured quantitative on-line or telephone surveys. The other set is less structured and is designed for use in qualitative one-on-one and small group discussions or collecting information related to subjective impressions of test materials. Results will be compiled and disseminated so that future communication can be informed by the testing results. We will use the findings to create the greatest possible public benefit.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Notice of Performance Review Board Membership
In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of a senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the higher-level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance bonuses and pay increases.
Kathy Vaughn, 410-786-1050 or
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) requires the appointment of board members to be published in the
The Chief Operating Officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Jennifer Main, 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by December 28, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports the reporting associated with the submission of petitions and notifications seeking exemptions from the labeling requirements for ingredients derived from major food allergens, and the Agency's associated guidance document.
The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA) (Title II, Pub. L. 108-282) amended the FD&C Act by defining the term “major food allergen” and stating that foods regulated under the FD&C Act are misbranded unless they declare the presence of each major food allergen on the product label using the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived. Section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(1)) sets forth the requirements for declaring the presence of each major food allergen on the product label. Section 201(qq) of the FD&C Act ((21 U.S.C. 321(qq)) defines a major food allergen as “[m]ilk, egg, fish (
In some cases, the production of an ingredient derived from a major food allergen may alter or eliminate the allergenic proteins in that derived ingredient to such an extent that it does not contain allergenic protein. In addition, a major food allergen may be used as an ingredient or as a component of an ingredient such that the level of allergenic protein in finished food products does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health. Therefore, FALCPA provides two mechanisms through which such ingredients may become exempt from the labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. An ingredient may obtain an exemption through submission and approval of a petition containing scientific evidence that demonstrates that the ingredient “does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health” (section 403(w)(6) of the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(6). Alternately, an ingredient may become exempt through submission of a notification containing scientific evidence showing that the ingredient “does not contain allergenic protein” or that there has been a previous determination through a premarket approval process under section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348) that the ingredient “does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health” (section 403(w)(7) of the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(7)).
The labeling requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act apply to all packaged foods sold in the United States that are regulated under the FD&C Act, including both domestically manufactured and imported foods. As noted, section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act requires that the label of a food product declare the presence of each major food allergen. We estimate the information collection burden of the third-party disclosure associated with food allergen labeling under section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act as the time needed for a manufacturer to review the labels of new or reformulated products for compliance with the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act and the time needed to make any needed modifications to the labels of those products. The allergen information disclosed on the label or labeling of a food product benefits consumers who purchase that food product. Because even small exposure to a food allergen can potentially cause an adverse reaction, consumers use food labeling information to help determine their product choices.
We estimate the third-party disclosure burden of the collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we are decreasing our burden estimate for the redesign of labels. FALCPA was enacted in 2004, and we issued associated Agency guidance in 2015. Firms have had substantial time to redesign their labels for compliance with section 403(w) of the FD&C Act. We do not anticipate any firms needing to redesign their label to come into compliance with section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. Thus, we are decreasing the number of respondents redesigning their label from 3,875 to 1 and the number of hours from 62,000 to 16. We estimate one respondent for the purpose of maintaining this information collection provision.
Under sections 403(w)(6) and (7) of the FD&C Act, respondents may request from us a determination that an ingredient is exempt from the labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act. An ingredient may obtain an exemption through submission and approval of a petition containing scientific evidence that demonstrates that the ingredient “does not cause an allergic response that poses a risk to human health” (section 403(w)(6) of the FD&C Act). This section also states that “the burden shall be on the petitioner to provide scientific evidence (including
We issued a guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and Notifications,” which is available on our website at
We estimate the reporting burden associated with the collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions.” Any person is permitted to submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) in order to seek approval to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. The purpose of this guidance is to provide information to potential applicants on how to identify a reference listed drug (RLD), a reference standard, and the basis of submission in an ANDA submission.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Susan Levine, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, 240-402-7936.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Submissions” To obtain approval of an ANDA submitted under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C 355(j)), an ANDA applicant generally must show, among other things, that the proposed generic drug has the same active ingredient(s), conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and, with certain permissible differences, labeling as the specific listed drug referred to in the ANDA,
This guidance provides information to potential applicants on how to identify a “reference listed drug,” “reference standard,” and the “basis of submission” in ANDA submissions. A variety of factors has led to confusion among stakeholders on what these terms mean and how an ANDA applicant should use them. These factors include the discontinued marketing of many approved drug products and FDA's past practice of identifying reference standards with the RLD symbol (“+”) in the printed version, and with a “Yes” under the “RLD” column in the electronic version, of FDA's “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (the “Orange Book”). This guidance is intended to address this confusion by explaining what these terms mean and by clarifying the differences among them. This guidance provides recommendations on how applicants can accurately use these terms in an ANDA, how persons can request FDA designation of an RLD, and how persons can request FDA selection of a reference standard.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance announced in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Referencing Approved Drug Products in Abbreviated New Drug Application Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required.
However, this guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for the submission of new drug applications and ANDAs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001, the submission of citizen petitions is approved under OMB control number 0910-0191, and the submission of controlled correspondence pertaining to ANDAs is approved under OMB control number 0910-0797.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on December 15, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19 pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2020-N-1330. The docket will close on December 14, 2020. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by December 14, 2020. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 2020. The
Comments received on or before December 1, 2020, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Joyce Yu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
The committee will discuss supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 207620-S18, for the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, ENTRESTO (sacubitril and valsartan) tablets, submitted by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., for the proposed indication of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joyce Yu (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on December 16, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19 pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2020-N-1330. The docket will close on December 15, 2020. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by December 15, 2020. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 15, 2020. The
Comments received on or before December 1, 2020, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Joyce Yu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
The committee will discuss spironolactone for the proposed treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, a serious and often fatal condition for which no drug is approved to improve outcomes. The data supporting the new indication are post-hoc analyses of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist trial, which nominally failed to meet its primary endpoint. Spironolactone is currently marketed in the U.S. for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, hypertension, primary hyperaldosteronism, and for the management of edema.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joyce Yu (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Tobacco Products: Principles for Designing and Conducting Tobacco Product Perception and Intention Studies.” The draft guidance provides information intended to assist applicants design and conduct tobacco product perception and intention (TPPI) studies that may be submitted as part of a modified risk tobacco product application (MRTPA), a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA), or a substantial equivalence (SE) report. The draft guidance is intended to discuss a variety of scientific issues applicants may want to consider as they design and conduct TPPI studies.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 28, 2020 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the draft guidance may be sent. See the
Paul Hart, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 877-287-1373,
FDA is announcing the availability for public comment of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Tobacco Products: Principles for Designing and Conducting Tobacco Product Perception and Intention Studies.”
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) (Tobacco Control Act) into law. The Tobacco Control Act grants FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires new tobacco products to undergo review and receive an order from FDA before being
• Submission of a PMTA under section 910(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387j(b)) and receipt of a marketing order under section 910(c)(1)(A)(i),
• Submission of a SE report under section 905(j)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)(1)(A)) and receipt of an SE marketing order, or
• Submission of a request for an exemption from the requirements of demonstrating SE under section 905(j)(3) and receipt of an exemption from FDA (implemented at § 1107.1 (21 CFR 1107.1)).
To introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a modified risk tobacco product, there must be in effect an order under section 911(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387k(g)) and the applicant must satisfy any applicable premarket review requirements under section 910 of the FD&C Act.
The draft guidance is intended to assist applicants design and conduct TPPI studies that may be submitted as part of an MRTPA, a PMTA, or a SE report. Conducting TPPI studies can assist applicants submitting tobacco product applications demonstrate that their product meets applicable requirements to receive marketing authorization under the appropriate pathway. For example, TPPI studies can be used to assess, among other things, individuals' perceptions of tobacco products, understanding of tobacco product information, and intention to use tobacco products. The draft guidance is intended to address a variety of scientific issues applicants may consider as they design and conduct TPPI studies to support tobacco product applications.
FDA is issuing this draft guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on designing and conducting tobacco product perception and intention studies. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in § 1107.1(b) and (c) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0684. The collections of information under section 910 of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0768. The collections of information in section 905(j) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0673.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic version of the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the following virtual public meeting entitled “The Drug Supply Chain Security Act Pilot Project Program and Enhanced Drug Distribution Security.” The purpose of the public meeting is to provide members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to discuss with FDA and provide input on strategies and issues related to the enhanced drug distribution security provisions of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) and the results of FDA's DSCSA Pilot Project Program.
The public meeting will be held on December 8 and 9, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, each day, and will take place virtually (by webcast only). Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by December 28, 2020.
The public meeting will be held virtually and hosted by FDA. Registration to participate in this meeting and other information can be found at
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kristle Green, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3130,
On November 27, 2013, the DSCSA (Title II, Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. The DSCSA outlines critical steps for building an electronic, interoperable system by 2023 to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States. This system will enhance FDA's ability to protect U.S. consumers from exposure to drugs that may be counterfeit, diverted, stolen, intentionally adulterated, or otherwise harmful by improving the detection and removal of potentially dangerous drugs from the drug supply chain. Section 582(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1(j)), which was added by the DSCSA, directs FDA to establish one or more pilot projects, in coordination with authorized manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers, to explore and evaluate methods to enhance the safety and security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain. Additionally, section 582(i) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to hold public meetings to enhance the safety and security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and provide opportunities for comment from members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other interested stakeholders. Section 582(h)(3) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to conduct a public meeting and issue guidance addressing the system attributes necessary to enable secure product tracing of product at the package level.
FDA will hold a virtual public meeting on December 8 and 9, 2020, on FDA's DSCSA Pilot Project Program and related enhanced drug distribution security issues. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to discuss with FDA, and provide input on, strategies and issues related to the enhanced drug distribution security provisions of the DSCSA and FDA's DSCSA Pilot Project Program. The public meeting will focus on the following topics for discussion:
• Findings and lessons learned from FDA's DSCSA Pilot Project Program.
• Other piloting or piloted activities related to DSCSA implementation.
• System attributes necessary for enabling secure product tracing of product at the package level. Examples of discussion topics include, but are not limited to, the system attributes, circumstances, and processes necessary for facilitating:
○ Interoperability among trading partners in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain, FDA, and other appropriate Federal or State official(s);
○ enhanced product tracing activities involving the exchange of data in a secure manner, including management and maintenance of the data;
○ the use of aggregation and inference for product tracing and/or verification; and
○ enhanced verification activities involving communications between trading partners and FDA and exchange of data in a secure manner, including management and maintenance of the data.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristle Green (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Necessary Automated External Defibrillator Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date.” FDA is issuing this guidance to revise its compliance policy regarding the deadline for filing premarket approval (PMA) applications for previously cleared accessories necessary to the operation of automated external defibrillator (AED) systems.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Jessica Paulsen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2108, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6883.
In February 2015, FDA published a final order requiring the submission of premarket approval (PMA) applications for new and existing AEDs and necessary AED accessories. The final order required the submission of a PMA application for any preamendments and substantially equivalent AED necessary accessory—such as batteries, pad electrodes, adapters, and hardware keys for pediatric use—within 90 days of the date of the final order; however, the final order also stated that FDA did not intend to enforce compliance with the PMA submission requirement for these necessary AED accessories for 60 months following the date of the final order, which was February 3, 2020.
For the reasons described in the guidance, at this time FDA does not intend to enforce compliance with the PMA submission requirement for these necessary AED accessories until February 3, 2022.
This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (see section 701(h)(1)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)(1)(C)) and 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). FDA has determined that this guidance document presents a less burdensome policy that is consistent with public health. Although this guidance is immediately in effect, FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidance document as appropriate.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Necessary Automated External Defibrillator Accessories: Policy Regarding Compliance Date. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collection of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30 day comment period for this Notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than November 27, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa
HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau is conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Enhancing Linkage of Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) and HIV Surveillance Data in the RWHAP (Enhancing STI Linkage) demonstration project. The Enhancing STI Linkage demonstration project is a capacity building cooperative agreement that seeks to improve linkage, re-engagement in care, and health outcomes for people with HIV in the RWHAP. Through this demonstration project, a Technical Assistance Provider is collaborating with four RWHAP Part B jurisdictions to provide them with tailored training and technical assistance to facilitate data sharing across STI and HIV surveillance systems. A persistent barrier to addressing HIV and STI infections simultaneously and jointly is the lack of data systems linking HIV and STI surveillance data. Aside from helping to address problems around coinfection, there are substantial opportunities—particularly for the RWHAP—associated with linking HIV and STI surveillance data, including, but not limited to, identifying people with HIV currently out of care and identifying people with STIs who could be tested for HIV and promptly linked to care. This clearance request is for approval of data collection activities associated with the Enhancing STI Linkage evaluation which will occur simultaneously with the demonstration project, over a 3-year project period.
A 60-day notice published in the
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the charter for the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection (SACHRP) has been renewed.
Ms. Julia Gorey, Designated Federal Officer for the SACHRP, Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: (240) 453-8141; Email:
SACHRP is a discretionary Federal advisory committee. SACHRP is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
SACHRP functions to provide advice to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on matters pertaining to the continuance and improvement of functions within the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services concerning protections for human subjects in research.
SACHRP is authorized to have 11 public voting members. The members are selected from among individuals possessing demonstrated experience and expertise in any of the several disciplines and fields pertinent to human subjects protection and/or clinical research. The Committee's public members are appointed by the Secretary. All public members of the Committee are classified as special government employees (SGEs). The Committee structure includes non-voting
On September 30, 2020, the Secretary approved for the SACHRP charter to be renewed. The new charter was effected and filed with the appropriate Congressional committees and the Library of Congress on October 1, 2020. Renewal of the Committee's charter gives authorization for the Committee to continue to operate until October 1, 2022.
A copy of the SACHRP charter is available on the Committee's website at
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is committed to encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to enter the health professions and to assuring the availability of Indian health professionals to serve Indians. The IHS is committed to the recruitment of students for the following programs:
•
•
•
Full-time and part-time scholarships will be funded for each of the three scholarship programs. The scholarship award selections and funding are subject to availability of funds.
Scholarship.
An estimated $13.7 million will be available for fiscal year (FY) 2021 awards. The IHS Scholarship Program (IHSSP) anticipates, but cannot guarantee, student scholarship selections from any or all of the approved disciplines in the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, and Health Professions Scholarship programs for the scholarship period 2021-2022 academic year. Due to the rising cost of education and the decreasing number of scholars who can be funded by the IHSSP, the IHSSP previously changed the funding policy for Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship awards and reallocated a greater percentage of its funding in an effort to increase the number of Health Professions Scholarship, and inherently the number of service-obligated scholars, to better meet the health care needs of the IHS and its Tribal and Urban Indian health care system partners. This policy continues in effect for 2021-2022 academic year.
Approximately 25 new awards will be made by the IHSSP under the Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship programs for Indians. The awards are for 10 months in duration, with an additional 2 months for approved summer school requests, and will cover both tuition and fees and other related costs (ORC). The average award to a full-time student in both programs is approximately $40,372.61. Approximately 100 new awards will be made by the IHSSP under the Health Professions Scholarship program. The awards are for 12 months in duration and will cover both tuition and fees and ORC. The average award to a full-time student is approximately $120,814.38. Approximately a total of 300 awards will be made under the IHSSP Scholarship Program for FY 2021-2022.
The project period for the Preparatory Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC is limited to 2 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 2 years, not to exceed 4 years for part-time students. The project period for the Pre-graduate Scholarship stipend support, tuition, fees and ORC
This is a limited competition announcement. New and continuation scholarship awards are limited to “Indians” as defined at 25 U.S.C. Section 1603(13). NOTE: The definition of “Indians” for Section 103 Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship is broader than the definition of “Indians” for the Section 104 Health Professions Scholarship, as specified below. Continuation awards are non-competitive.
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment in a compensatory, pre-professional general education course or curriculum.
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment or are enrolled in an accredited pre-graduate program leading to a baccalaureate degree in pre-medicine or pre-dentistry.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
Awardees of the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, or Health Professions Scholarship, who accept outside funding from other scholarship, grant, and fee waiver programs, will have these monies applied to their student account tuition and fees charges at the college or university they are attending, before the IHSSP will pay any of the remaining balance, unless said outside scholarship, grant, or fee waiver award letter specifically excludes use for tuition and fees. These outside funding sources must be reported on the student's invoicing documents submitted by the college or university they are attending. Student loans and Veterans Administration (VA)/G.I. Bill benefits accepted by Health Professions Scholarship recipients will have no effect on the IHSSP payment made to their college or university.
Applicants must go online to:
Each applicant will be responsible for entering their basic applicant account information online, in addition to submitting required documents as requested. Applicants must initiate an application through the online portal or the application will be considered incomplete. For more information on how to use the online portal, go to
The following documents must be submitted by February 28, 2021, 7:00 p.m. Eastern:
• A completed online application.
• Official transcript(s) must be uploaded from the last college/university degree you earned, and from your current degree program. Official transcript(s) must support your intended enrollment/classification status for 2021-2022.
• Two Faculty/Employer Evaluations with faculty evaluators identified, evaluations transmitted and completed in the online applicant portal.
• Online narratives-reasons for requesting the scholarship.
• Delinquent Debt form completed in the online applicant portal.
• Course Curriculum Form completed in the online applicant portal. Non-selected applicants will be notified by the end of May. Selected applicants will be notified to upload the following documents within 30 days of notification:
• Current Letter of Acceptance from a college/university or proof of application to a college/university or health professions program.
• Applicant's Documents for Indian Eligibility.
If you are a member of a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide evidence of
A. Certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Certification: Form 4432—Category A or D, (whichever is applicable).
B. For Preparatory Scholarship or Pre-graduate Scholarship, only: If you are a member of a Tribe terminated since 1940 or a State-recognized Tribe, provide official documentation that you meet the requirements of Tribal membership as prescribed by the charter, articles of incorporation or other legal instrument of the Tribe and have been officially designated as a Tribal member as evidenced by an accompanying document signed by an authorized Tribal official; or other evidence, satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, that you are a member of the Tribe. In addition, if the terminated or State-recognized Tribe of which you are a member is not on a list of such Tribes published by the Secretary of the Interior in the
C. For Preparatory Scholarship or Pre-graduate Scholarship, only: If you are not a Tribal member, but are a natural child or grandchild of a Tribal member you must submit: (1) Evidence of that fact,
• Degree/Major Plan of Study.
• Declaration of Federal Employment-OMB Form 3206-0162.
• Addendum OF 306 Form—OMB Form 0917-0028.
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
No more than five percent of available funds will be used for part-time scholarships this fiscal year. Students are considered part-time if they are enrolled for a minimum of six hours of instruction and are not considered in
New and continuation applicants are responsible for using the online application system. See section 3. Submission Dates for application deadlines.
Selected applications will be reviewed and scored with the following criteria.
Applicants are rated according to their academic performance as evidenced by transcripts and faculty evaluations. In cases where a particular applicant's school has a policy not to rank students academically, faculty members are asked to provide a personal judgment of the applicant's achievement. Preparatory, Pre-graduate and Health Professions applicants with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 are not eligible for award.
Applicants are rated according to evaluations by faculty members, current and/or former employers and Tribal officials regarding the applicant's potential in the chosen health related professions.
Applicants must provide a brief written explanation of reasons for asking for the scholarship and of their career goals. Applicants are considered for scholarship awards based on their desired career goals and how these goals relate to current Indian health personnel needs.
The applicant's narrative will be judged on how well it is written and its content.
Applications for each health career category are reviewed and ranked separately.
• Applicants who are closest to graduation or completion of training are awarded first. For example, senior and junior applicants under the Pre-graduate Scholarship receive funding before freshmen and sophomores.
The following is a list of health professions that will be considered for funding in each scholarship program in FY 2021.
○ Preparatory Scholarship is limited to sophomore students pursuing the following degrees.
A. Pre-Nursing.
○ Pre-graduate Scholarship is limited to junior year and above students pursuing the following degrees.
A. Pre-Dentistry.
B. Pre-Medicine.
○ Health Professions Scholarship. This scholarship is limited to students who are or will be in the following plan of study by August 1, 2021.
A. Medicine—Allopathic and Osteopathic doctorate degrees.
B. Nursing—Bachelor of Science (BSN).
C. Nursing (NP, DNP)—Nurse Practitioner/Advanced Practice Nurse.
D. Nursing—Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM).
E. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA).
F. Physician Assistant (certified).
G. Dentistry—DDS or DMD degree.
H. Social Work—Master's degree (Clinical).
I. Clinical Psychology—Ph.D. or PsyD.
J. Counseling Psychology—Ph.D.
K. Optometry—OD.
L. Pharmacy—PharmD.
M. Podiatry—DPM.
N. Physical Therapy—DPT.
O. Chiropractic—DC.
Selected applications will be reviewed and scored by the IHSSP Application Review Committee appointed by the IHS. Reviewers will not be allowed to review an application from their area or their own Tribe. Each application will be reviewed by three reviewers. The average score of the three reviews provides the final ranking score for each applicant. To determine the ranking of each applicant, these scores are sorted from the highest to the lowest within each scholarship health discipline by date of graduation and score. If several students have the same date of graduation and score within the same discipline, the computer will randomly sort the ranking list and will not sort by alphabetical name. Selections are then made from the top of each ranking list to the extent that funds allocated by the IHS among the three scholarships are available for obligation.
It is anticipated that recipients applying for extension of their scholarship funding will be notified in writing during the second week of June, 2021 and new applicants will be notified in writing during the second week of July 2021. An Award Letter will be issued to successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing.
Regulations at 42 CFR 136.304 provide that the IHS shall, from time to time, publish a list of allied health professions eligible for consideration for the award of the Preparatory Scholarship, Pre-graduate Scholarship, and Health Professions Scholarship. Section 104(b)(1) of the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a(b)(1), authorizes the IHS to determine the distribution of scholarships among the health professions.
Awards for the Health Professions Scholarship will be made in accordance with the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1613a and 42 CFR 136.330-136.334. Awardees shall incur a service obligation prescribed under the IHCIA, Section 1613a(b), shall be met by service, through full-time clinical practice (as detailed on page 18 of the IHSSP Service Commitment Handbook at:
(1) In the IHS;
(2) In a program conducted under a contract or compact entered into under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638) and its amendments;
(3) In a program assisted under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-437) and its amendments; or
(4) In a private practice option of his or her profession if the practice (a) is situated in a health professional shortage area, designated in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and (b) addresses the health care needs of a substantial number (75 percent of the total served) of Indians as determined by the Secretary in accordance with guidelines of the Service.
Pursuant to the IHCIA Section 1613a(b)(3)(C), an awardee of a Health Professions Scholarship may, at the election of the awardee, meet his or her
(i) Is located on the reservation of the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled; or
(ii) Serves the Tribe in which the awardee is enrolled, if there is an open vacancy available in the discipline for which the awardee was funded under the Health Professions Scholarship during the required 90-day placement period.
In summary, all awardees of the Indian Health Professions Scholarship are reminded that acceptance of this scholarship will result in a service obligation required by both statute and contract, that must be performed, through full-time clinical practice, at an approved service payback facility. The IHS Director (Director) reserves the right to make final decisions regarding assignment of scholarship recipients to fulfill their service obligation.
Moreover, the Director has the authority to make the final determination, designating a facility, whether managed and operated by the IHS, or one of its Tribal or Urban Indian partners, consistent with IHCIA, as approved for scholar-obligated service payback.
It is the policy of the IHS that a scholarship awardee funded under the Health Professions Scholarship Program of the IHCIA must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good academic standing each semester/trimester/quarter, maintain full-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum hours” constituting full-time enrollment applies) or part-time student status (institutional definition of “minimum and maximum” hours constituting part-time enrollment applies) for the entire academic year, as indicated on the scholarship application submitted for that academic year. The Health Professions Scholarship awardee may not change his or her enrollment status between terms of enrollment during the same academic year unless approved in advance by the Branch Chief of Scholarships. New recipients may not request a leave of absence the first academic year. All requests for leave of absence are to be approved in advance by the Director, Division of Health Professions Support.
An awardee of a scholarship under the Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship authority must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, remain in good standing each semester/trimester/quarter and be a full-time student (institutional definition of “minimum hours” constituting full-time enrollment applies, typically 12 credit hours per semester) or a part-time student (institutional definition of “minimum and maximum” hours constituting part-time enrollment applies, typically 6-11 credit hours). The Preparatory Scholarship and Pre-graduate Scholarship awardee may not change from part-time status to full-time status or vice versa in the same academic year unless approved in advance by the Branch Chief of Scholarships. New recipients may not request a leave of absence the first academic year.
The following reports must be sent to the IHSSP at the identified time frame. Each scholarship awardee will have access to online Student and Service Commitment Handbooks and required program forms and instructions on when, how, and to whom these must be submitted, by logging into the IHSSP website at
Within thirty days from the beginning of each semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees must submit a Recipient's Initial Program Progress Report (Form IHS-856-8), found on the IHS Scholarship Program website at:
Within thirty days from the end of each academic period,
If at any time during the semester/trimester/quarter, scholarship awardees are advised to reduce the number of credit hours for which they are enrolled below the minimum of the 12 (or the number of hours considered by their school as full-time) for a full-time student or at least 6 hours for part-time students, or if they experience academic problems, they must submit this report (Form IHS-856-9), found on the IHS Scholarship Program website at:
Scholarship awardees must immediately notify their Scholarship Program Analyst if they are placed on academic probation, dismissed from school, or voluntarily withdraw for any reason (personal or medical).
Scholarship awardees may not change from the approved IHSSP health discipline during the school year. If an unapproved change is made, scholarship payments will be discontinued.
Any time that a change occurs in a scholarship awardee's expected graduation date, they must notify their Scholarship Program Analyst immediately in writing. Justification must be attached from the school advisor. Approvals must be made by the Branch Chief of Scholarships. New awardees are not eligible to change their graduation dates during the first year in the program since awards were based on graduation dates.
1. Questions on the application process may be directed to the appropriate IHS Area Scholarship Coordinator.
2. Questions on other programmatic matters may be addressed to: Ms. Reta Brewer, Chief, Scholarship Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR (11E53A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-6197 (This is not a toll-free number).
3. Questions on payment information may be directed to: Mr. Craig Boswell, Grants Scholarship Coordinator, Division of Grants Management, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: (09E65A), Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-0056 (This is not a toll-free number).
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible IHSSP health and allied professions is effective for applicants for the 2021-2022 academic
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee. The meeting is devoted to the review and evaluation of journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine and will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the presence of individuals associated with these publications could significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual journals.
Any member of the public may submit written comments no later than 15 days after the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard is announcing the availability of CG-OES Policy Letter 02-20,
This policy is applicable October 28, 2020.
If you have questions or feedback related to this policy, contact Mr. Ken A. Smith, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Division (CG-OES-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1413, email
The Coast Guard's requirements for commercial diving are found in Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 197, subpart B. Based on data obtained by the Coast Guard in 2014, the majority of commercial diving operators subject to these requirements were members of commercial diving organizations that have established commercial diving standards.
These organizations have made improvements over the years, such as in the training and qualification requirements of commercial divers, medical examinations, and procedures associated with the different modes of diving, that have made commercial diving operations safer. The Association of Diving Contractors International (ADCI) and the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) contacted the Coast Guard and requested that we review their standards and issue a Commercial Diving Operations—Equivalent Levels of Safety Policy Letter. The Coast Guard has completed the review and is issuing CG-OES Policy Letter 02-20,
In summary, CG-OES Policy Letter 02-20 provides that the Coast Guard considers commercial diving operations being performed in accordance with ADCI International Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations, edition 6.3 (2016)
Other organizations wishing to be considered by the Coast Guard as providing an equivalent level of safety to the commercial diving regulations in 46 CFR part 197 may submit information to the point of contact identified in the
In addition to being available with other Coast Guard guidance documents at
Pursuant to Title 33 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 1509, 46 U.S.C. 3306, and 43 U.S.C. 1333, the Coast Guard has issued safety regulations for commercial diving operations. These requirements are found in 46 CFR part 197, subpart B. The Coast Guard is issuing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 27, 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
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Several elements will be added to the Form I-736: The foreign passport type, social media identifier, valid email address, and social media provider/platform. Adding these data elements will enhance the existing vetting
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document provides notice to customs brokers that the annual user fee that is assessed for each permit held by a broker, whether it may be an individual, partnership, association, or corporation, is due by January 29, 2021. Pursuant to fee adjustments required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST ACT) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, the annual user fee payable for calendar year 2021 will be $150.33.
Payment of the 2021 Customs Broker Permit User Fee is due by January 29, 2021.
Melba Hubbard, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (202) 325-6986, or
Pursuant to section 111.96 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.96(c)), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses an annual user fee for each customs broker district and national permit held by an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. CBP regulations provide that this fee is payable for each calendar year in each broker district where the broker was issued a permit to do business by the due date.
Sections 24.22 and 24.23 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 24.22 and 24.23) provide for and describe the procedures that implement the requirements of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, December 4, 2015). Specifically, paragraph (k) in section 24.22 (19 CFR 24.22(k)) sets forth the methodology to determine the change in inflation as well as the factor by which the fees and limitations will be adjusted, if necessary. The customs broker permit user fee is set forth in Appendix A of part 24. (19 CFR 24.22 Appendix A.) On July 29, 2020, CBP published a
As required by 19 CFR 111.96, CBP must provide notice in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet November 17-18, 2020. The meeting will be open to the public through virtual means.
The NAC will meet by virtual means Tuesday, November 17 and Wednesday, November 18, 2020, between 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Please note that the meeting may close early if the NAC has completed its business.
All membership, FEMA, invited guest and public participation is by virtual means only. Anyone who wishes to participate must register with FEMA prior to the meeting by providing their name, telephone number, email address, title, and organization to the person listed in the
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the NAC. The topic areas are indicated in the
Public comment periods will be held on Tuesday, November 17, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. and on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, from 4:30 p.m. to 4:40 p.m. Eastern Time. All speakers must limit their comments to three minutes. Comments should be addressed to the NAC. Any comments not related to the agenda topics will not be considered by the NAC. To register to make remarks during the public comment period, contact the person listed in
Jasper Cooke, Designated Federal Officer, Office of the National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3184, telephone (202) 646-2700, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The NAC advises the FEMA Administrator on all aspects of emergency management. The NAC incorporates input from state, local, territorial and tribal governments, and the private sector in the development and revision of FEMA plans and strategies. The NAC includes a cross-section of officials, emergency managers, and emergency response providers from State, local, territorial and Tribal governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020, the NAC will present recommendations to and receive feedback from leadership and discuss strategic priorities with FEMA leadership and topical experts.
The full agenda and any related documents for this meeting will be available by Friday, November 13, 2020, by contacting the person listed in
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of meeting; request for comments.
CISA is publishing this notice to announce the following President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) meeting. This meeting will be partially closed to the public.
The meeting will be held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance, please email
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the meeting from 3:15 p.m. to 3:25 p.m. ET. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register by emailing
Sandra Benevides, 703-705-6232,
The NSTAC was established by Executive Order (E.O.) 12382, 47 FR 40531 (September 13, 1982), as amended and continued under the authority of E.O. 13889, dated September 27, 2019. Notice of this meeting is given under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The NSTAC advises the President on matters related to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP), telecommunications and cybersecurity policy.
The committee will meet in a closed session from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Participants will engage in discussions on key NS/EP communications topics, which may include strategic considerations for hardware and chipsets. The NSTAC will also discuss potential study topics for the upcoming work cycle. For these items, Government officials will share data with NSTAC members on ongoing NS/EP, cybersecurity, and communications resiliency initiatives across the public
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice, extension of temporary exemption.
TSA is extending the exemption from Renewal of the Hazardous Materials Endorsement Security Threat Assessment for Certain Individuals that TSA published on July 31, 2020 which was scheduled to expire on October 30, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Under this exemption, states may extend the expiration date of hazardous materials endorsements (HMEs) that expire on or after March 1, 2020, for 180 days, due to restrictions and business closures in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a state grants an extension, the individual with an expired HME must initiate the process of renewing his or her security threat assessment (STA) for the HME no later than 60 days before the end of the state-granted extension. Federal partners, state licensing agencies and related associations report ongoing difficulties in timely renewal of expiring HMEs and asked TSA to consider extending the exemption until the end of calendar year 2020. TSA has determined it is in the public interest to extend the exemption through December 31, 2020, which aligns with similar waivers issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation. TSA may extend this exemption at a future date depending on the status of the COVID-19 crisis.
This extension of the previously issued exemption published on July 31, 2020 (85 FR 46152) becomes effective on October 30, 2020, and remains in effect through December 31, 2020, unless otherwise modified by TSA through a notice published in the
Stephanie Hamilton, 571-227-2851 or
A public health emergency exists in this country as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 requires individuals who transport hazardous materials via commercial motor vehicle to undergo a STA conducted by TSA.
Under 49 CFR 1572.13(a), no state may issue or renew an HME for an individual's commercial driver's license (CDL), unless the state first receives a Determination of No Security Threat for the individual from TSA following the STA. An individual seeking renewal of an HME must initiate an STA at least 60 days before expiration of his or her current HME.
It may be impracticable for some commercial drivers to renew their STAs during the current COVID-19 crisis. Measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 may affect the ability of commercial drivers to present themselves in-person to a state licensing agency or TSA enrollment center for the collection of fingerprints and applicant information. Without the new STA, TSA's regulations prevent states from renewing or extending the expiration of the individual's state-issued HME.
Consistent with the requirements in 49 CFR 1572.13(b), if the state grants an extension to a driver, the state must, if practicable, notify the driver that the state is extending the expiration date of the HME, the date that the extension will end, and the individual's responsibility to initiate the STA renewal process at least 60 days before the end of the extension. If it is not practicable for a state to give individualized notice to drivers, the state may publish general notice, for example, on the appropriate website.
TSA may grant an exemption from a regulation if TSA determines that the exemption is in the public interest.
The exemption does not compromise the current level of transportation security because TSA continues to conduct recurrent security threat checks on HME holders and is able to take action to revoke an HME if derogatory information becomes available, regardless of expiration date. TSA uses data previously submitted by these
The exemption permits states to extend the expiration date for an HME for up to 180 days for individuals with an HME that expires on or after March 1, 2020, even if the individual did not initiate or complete submission of required information for an STA at least 60 days before expiration of the HME.
Federal partners, States, the American Trucking Associations and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators asked TSA to consider extending the exemption to align with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's exemptions and waivers for drivers and States impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.
For these reasons, TSA is extending the exemption through December 31, 2020.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(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.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs are proposing to revise an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 2020.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Ms. Winter Jojola-Talburt by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the AS-IA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the AS-IA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the AS-IA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Those who would like to submit a TEDC project proposal must submit an application that includes certain information and, once funding is received must submit reports on how they are using the funding. A complete application must contain the following:
• A formal signed resolution of the governing body of the Tribe or Tribal energy resource development organization demonstrating authority to apply;
• A proposal describing the planned activities and deliverable products; and
• A detailed budget estimate, including contracted personnel costs, travel estimates, data collection and analysis costs, and other expenses.
The project proposal must include the information about the Tribe or Tribal energy resource development organization sufficient to allow IEED to evaluate the proposal based on the following criteria:
(a) Energy resource potential;
(b) Applicant's energy resource development history and current status;
(c) Applicant's existing energy resource development capabilities;
(d) Demonstrated willingness of the applicant to establish and maintain an independent energy resource development business entity;
(e) Intent to develop and retain energy development capacity within the applicant's government or business entities; and
(f) Applicant commitment of staff, training, or monetary resources.
The IEED requires this information to ensure that it provides funding only to those projects that meet the goals of the TEDC and the purposes for which Congress provides the appropriations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
The extension takes effect on October 28, 2020.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
An extension to an existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to January 17, 2021. This publication provides notice of the new expiration date of the compact. The Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development for Indian Affairs is exercising this authority under the Departmental Manual at 210 DM 8.2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Ball State University, Department of Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology at the address in this notice by November 27, 2020.
Kevin C. Nolan, Ball State University, Department of Anthropology, 2000 University Avenue, Muncie, IN 47306, telephone (765) 285-5325, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology, Muncie, IN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the vicinities of Strawtown, Hamilton County and Middletown, Henry County, IN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
The Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cherokee Nation; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Band Of Cherokee Indians; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band;
In 1938 or 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the vicinity of Strawtown in Hamilton County, IN. They were excavated by Cloe Morris. In 1987, these human remains (denoted accession 87.49) were donated to the Ball State University Department of Anthropology via James Hixon. The human remains consist of the partial crania of a 25-year-old adult male and a 9-10-year-old juvenile of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. The 97 associated funerary objects are one antler beam, 79 miscellaneous animal bone fragments, five mussel shells, eight pieces of chert debitage, three pottery sherds, and one ash sample.
In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the vicinity of Middletown in Henry County, IN. These individuals were recovered during a salvage effort, after the human remains were exposed and disturbed during earth moving activities on private land. These human remains were recovered from a burial pit. (Two additional burial pits lacking coffins and grave markers were reported on the site form.) While no artifacts were recovered to provide a date range, both the nature of the site and the morphology of the burial pits indicate a likely pre-Colonial period Native American occupation (the investigators, Sharon Fields and Donald Cochran, suspected a Late Archaic or Late Woodland date). Since their excavation, the human remains have been curated at the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology under accession 12-Hn-349. The human remains consist of comingled cranial and post-cranial fragments of a 29-45-year-old adult female and a 29-45-year-old adult of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Ball State University, Department of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their association with prehistoric artifacts and animal bone, the nature of the site (12-Hn-349 is suspected Late Archaic or Late Woodland) where they were discovered, and the absence of historic Euroamerican artifacts and modern dental or surgical modifications to the human remains.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 97 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kevin C. Nolan, Ball State University, Department of Anthropology, 2000 University Avenue, Muncie, IN 47306, telephone (765) 285-5325, email
The Ball State University, Department of Anthropology is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Laboratory of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign NAGPRA Office at the address in this notice by November 27, 2020.
Krystiana Krupa, NAGPRA Program Officer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 412 Swanlund Administration Building, 601 E John Street, MC-304, Champaign, IL 61820, telephone (217) 244-2587, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Laboratory of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Nickajack Cave, Marion County, TN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Nickajack Cave in Marion County, TN. According to an accession card (Nickajack Cave A4782) dated November 1979, the Nickajack Cave materials were found by L.S. Ashley a few hundred yards from the cave entrance, on the margin of a creek flowing through Nickajack Cave, and comprised a collection of Virginia deer leg bones. In 2018, Laboratory of Anthropology staff located and identified a single human right humerus, likely from an adult of unknown sex, and two deer long bones associated with Nickajack Cave A4782. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are two deer long bones.
Officials of the Laboratory of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and collection history.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• The 1817 Treaty with the Cherokee (Land Cessions 84) and the 1819 Treaty with the Cherokee (Land Cessions 101 and 102) indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Krystiana Krupa, NAGPRA Program Officer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 412 Swanlund Administration Building, 601 E John Street, MC-304, Champaign, IL 61820, telephone (217) 244-2587, email
The Laboratory of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), assisted by the Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Research and Collections Facility (SLOCAS), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the California Department of Transportation at the address in this notice by November 27, 2020.
Sarah Allred, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, and in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA and the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Research and Collections Facility, San Luis Obispo, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from San Luis Obispo County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by California Department of Transportation, UCLA, and SLOCAS professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California and three non-federally recognized Indian groups—the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, Northern Chumash Tribe, and Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes and Groups”).
In 1965 and 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 74 individuals were removed from CA-SLO-175 in San Luis Obispo County, CA. David Abrams and Nelson Leonard, in association with the University of California Archeological Survey, began excavations when Caltrans sought to widen Highway 1, which would significantly impact this Middle-to-Late Period site. The land was originally owned by the Hearst Corporation; Caltrans purchased the right-of-way in June 1966. All laboratory work was completed at UCLA. Abrams reported on the site and excavation in the MA thesis he submitted to the University of California Davis. Except for the human remains and associated funerary objects, UCLA sent the collection from CA-SLO-175 to SLOCAS (located at Cuesta College) for further study and analysis in March 1973. Subsequently, additional materials associated with the site were found at UCLA, and in May 1978, they were sent to SLOCAS for permanent curation. On July 14, 2017, UCLA sent the human remains and associated funerary objects to SLOCAS in order to bring the collection back together for an inventory, and to look for missing and loaned artifacts with the assistance of Chumash community members. The human remains derive from 40 formal burials and recovered fragmentary remains, representing a minimum number of 74 individuals in total. (The field notes refer to a Burial 41, but only 40 burials in total were identified, as “Burial 6” was not assigned.) They belong to 47 adult individuals, 15 of whom could be identified as male and nine of whom could be identified as female; 22 juvenile individuals; one infant; and four individuals of unidentifiable age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 1,277 associated funerary objects include 107 pieces and 12 bags of unmodified faunal remains; three bone awl fragments; 14 bone ornaments; six bone whistles; five bone sweat sticks; three modified bone pieces; 46 pieces of chipped chert; one limestone fragment; one coral fragment; one sandstone hammerstone; one siltstone pick; three stone fragments; three steatite beads; two tarring pebbles; two net weights; five obsidian flakes; five pieces of red ochre; 15 fragments and one bag of asphaltum (13 of the 15 pieces are inlaid with shell beads); two asphaltum plugs; 1,019 beads and one bag of shell beads; three shell ornaments; 12 pieces and one bag of unmodified shell; one piece and one bag of shell with asphaltum residue; and one piece of charcoal. (Eight additional items—two pieces of unmodified shell, two pieces of chipped chert, one net weight, one piece of cut wood, and two asphaltum inlaid pipes—have not yet been located.)
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from CA-SLO-179 in San Luis Obispo County, CA. Nelson Leonard and a UCLA Archaeological Survey crew conducted excavation at this large shell midden near Pico Creek before the widening of Highway 1, which would partially destroy the Middle-to-Late Period site. All analysis and reports were completed at UCLA in Anthropology. Except for the human remains and associated funerary objects, UCLA sent the collection from CA-SLO-179 to SLOCAS for further study and analysis in March 1973. Subsequently, additional materials associated with the site were found at UCLA, and in May 1978, they were sent to SLOCAS for permanent curation. On July 14, 2017, UCLA sent the human remains and associated funerary objects to SLOCAS in order to bring the collection back together for an inventory, and to look for missing and loaned artifacts with the assistance of Chumash community members. The human remains of three individuals—two adult males and a juvenile—derive from two formal burials, while the human remains of, at minimum, eight individuals—three of them juvenile—were recovered from midden contexts. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects are projectile point fragments. (One glass fragment and one large mussel shell are currently missing from the collections. Records indicate that the missing items were transferred to Cuesta College in May 1978. No further information could be found.)
Based on geographical, ethnographic, historical, oral traditional, and archeological information, Caltrans has determined that CA-SLO-175 and CA-SLO-179 lie within the traditional territory of the Chumash and Salinan people. The associated funerary objects, too, are consistent with those belonging to groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash and Salinan people.
Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 85 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1,282 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Sarah Allred, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email
The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and Groups that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The Minnesota Historical Society has corrected a Notice of Intent to Repatriate published in the
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Minnesota Historical Society at the address in this notice by November 27, 2020.
Ben Gessner, Minnesota Historical Society, 345 W Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102, telephone (651) 259-3281, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN, that meets the definition of unassociated funerary object and object of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the identity and affiliation of one cultural item, a Jefferson Peace Medal, that was published in a Notice of Intent to Repatriate in the
The Minnesota Historical Society's NAGPRA Committee and leadership examined additional geographic, historical, anthropological and archeological information provided by the Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota (Mdewakanton Dakota), including a report provided by the Prairie Island Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Dr. Ron Schirmer, Professor of Anthropology at Minnesota State University, Mankato, and have determined that in his role as a village headman, Tatankamani would have accepted a Jefferson Peace Medal on behalf of his entire community. Therefore, the Peace Medal cannot be owned by an individual. Further, Minnesota Historical Society's NAGPRA Committee and leadership have determined that the Peace Medal has ongoing historical, traditional, and cultural importance central to the Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota. Mdewakanton Dakota people have lived on the shores of Lake Pepin and on Prairie Island since at least A.D. 1680, and the historical record unequivocally establishes the continuous presence of the Red Wing band of Mdewakanton Dakota people in the area from the 1600s to the current time. Consequently, Minnesota Historical Society's NAGPRA Committee and leadership have determined that the Peace Medal is both an unassociated funerary object and an object of cultural patrimony.
The Prairie Island Indian Community has requested the repatriation of this unassociated funerary object and object of cultural patrimony. Their request is supported by the Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska, as well as a lineal descendant of Tatankamani, Sheila Ann Red Wing.
In the
The Minnesota Historical Society, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of unassociated funerary object and object of cultural patrimony.
In the
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN, that meets the definition of unassociated funerary object and object of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
In the
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the one cultural item described above has ongoing
In the
Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.14(b), Josie Redwing, Melody Redwing, and Sheila Ann Red Wing are direct lineal descendants of Tatankamani, based on genealogical evidence on file with the Minnesota Historical Society.
In the
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary object and object of cultural patrimony and the Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ben Gessner, Minnesota Historical Society, 345 W Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102, telephone (651) 259-3281, email
The Minnesota Historical Society is responsible for notifying Josie Redwing; Melody Redwing; Sheila Ann Red Wing; the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota); Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; and the Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection request.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 27, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this Information Collection Request (ICR), contact Anna Atkinson by email, or by telephone at 703-787-1025. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps BOEM assess the impact of the information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand BOEM's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
The OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331
Under the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior, BOEM is authorized, pursuant to section 1337(k)(2) of the OCS Lands Act, to convey rights to OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources by negotiated noncompetitive agreement for use in shore protection and beach and coastal restoration, or for use in construction projects funded in whole or part by, or authorized by, the Federal Government.
A
BOEM is again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described above. BOEM is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) what can BOEM do to ensure this information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including minimizing the burden through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. BOEM will include or summarize each comment in its request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of this ICR. You should be aware that your entire comment—including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. In order for BOEM to withhold from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if released, would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of your information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. While you can ask BOEM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
BOEM protects proprietary information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), and the Department of the Interior's FOIA implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 10, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Lashify, Inc. of Glendale, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon 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 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,660,388 (“the '388 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984 (“the '984 patent”); U.S. Design Patent No. D877,416 (“the 'D416 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. D867,664 (“the 'D664 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 and 7-22 of the '388 patent; claims 1-29 of the '984; the claim of the 'D416 patent; and the claim of the 'D664 patent; and whether an industry in the
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “artificial eyelash extensions, cartridges for packaging and storage of artificial eyelash extensions, application devices, bonding agents, and removers, as well as artificial eyelash extension systems containing one or more of the same”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 22, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Q3 Networking LLC of Frisco, Texas. A supplement was filed on October 8, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon 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 by reason of infringement of certain U.S. Patent No. 7,457,627 (“the '627 patent”); Patent No. 7,609,677 (“the '677 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,895,305 (“the '305 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,797,853 (“the '853 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Katherine Hiner, Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3 and 8 of the '627 patent; claims 1-6 and 8 of the '677 patent; claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 of the '305 patent;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “Wi-Fi networking products, routers, satellites, extenders, Wi-Fi systems, mesh networks, mesh systems, gateways, modems, access points, controllers, network management devices, storage systems, switches, bridges, wireless services modules, wireless subscriber units, base stations, adapters, other networking products, and their related software/applications”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be named as a party to this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 14, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Solas OLED Ltd. of Ireland. A supplement was filed on September 30, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain active matrix OLED display devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,007 (“the '007 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (“the '068 patent”); and 7,868,880 (“the '880 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-15 of the '007 patent; claims 13-17 of the '068 patent; and claims 2-40 of the '880 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “smartwatches with active matrix OLED displays, laptops with active matrix OLED displays, televisions and monitors with active matrix OLED displays, and mobile phones and tablets with active matrix OLED displays”;
(3) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(3), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision, within 100 days of institution except for good cause shown, as to whether the complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Notwithstanding any Commission Rules to the contrary, which are hereby waived, any such decision should be issued in the form of an initial determination (ID) under Commission Rule 210.42(a)(3), 19 CFR 210.42(a)(3). The ID will become the Commission's final determination 30 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any such review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The issuance of an early ID finding that the complainant does not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement shall stay the investigation unless the Commission orders otherwise; any other decision shall not stay the investigation or delay the issuance of a final ID covering the other issues of the investigation;
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic class(es) of controlled substances listed in schedule I. DEA intends to evaluate this and other pending applications according to proposed regulations that, if finalized, would govern the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before December 28, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference Docket No—DEA-735 in all correspondence, including attachments.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If the application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a). DEA proposes to conduct this evaluation in the manner described in the rule proposed at 85 FR 16292, published on March 23, 2020, if finalized.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on August 21, 2020, Contract Pharmacal Corp., 165 Oser Avenue, Hauppaugh, New York 11788, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substances:
The applicants notice above applied to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as a bulk manufacturer subsequent to a 2020 DEA notice of proposed rulemaking that provided information on how DEA intends to expand the number of registrations and described the way it would oversee those additional growers. If finalized, the proposed rule would govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as a bulk manufacturer, consistent with applicable law. The notice of proposed rulemaking is available at 85 FR 16292.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendants Bobby Wolford Trucking & Salvage, Inc. and Karl Frederick Klock Pacific Bison, LLC, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 309, 33 U.S.C. 1319, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas, perform mitigation, and pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Kent E. Hanson, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Missouri.
The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
• Missouri's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the week ending September 19, 2020, was 4.97 percent, falling below the 5.00 percent threshold necessary to remain “on” EB. Therefore, the EB period for Missouri will end on October 10, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.
The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing claims for EB of the forthcoming termination of the EB period and its effect on the individual's right to EB (20 CFR 615.13 (c)).
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-4524, Attn: Thomas Stengle, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202)-693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
Signed in Washington, DC.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Delaware.
The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 18, 2020, the seasonally-adjusted total unemployment rate (TUR) for Delaware rose to exceed the 8.0% threshold necessary to trigger “on” to a high unemployment period in EB. Delaware enacted emergency legislation mandating that there would be a state “on” indicator for weeks after September 19, 2020, if the average TUR met the necessary criteria. As
The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at:
The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-4524, Attn: Thomas Stengle, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
Signed in Washington, DC.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by December 28, 2020.
Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The collection of information contained in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard are necessary to reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that employers maintain the mechanical power presses used by the workers in safe operating condition.
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it.
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires employers to establish and follow a program of periodic and regular inspections of power presses to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards are in safe operating condition and adjustment. Employers must maintain a certification record of inspections that includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection, and the
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires employers to inspect and test each press no less than weekly to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism. Employers must perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair or both before the press is operated. In addition, employers must maintain a record of inspections, tests, and maintenance work. The record must include the date of the inspection, test, or maintenance; the signature of the person who performed the inspection, test, or maintenance; and the serial number, or other identifiers, of the press that was inspected, tested, or maintained.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting a burden hour adjustment decrease of 17,160 hours from 37,967 hours to 20,807 hours. This change in calculation methods accounts for the large decrease in the agency's estimate of mechanical power presses currently in service, still an overestimation.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Interim staff guidance; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), “Micro-Reactor License Application COL-ISG-029, ‘Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-Reactors.' ” The purpose of this ISG is to modify existing guidance and provide supplemental guidance to assist the NRC staff in determining the scope and scale of environmental reviews of micro-reactor applications.
This guidance is effective on November 27, 2020.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0051 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:
•
•
•
Jack Cushing, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-1424, email:
On February 26, 2020 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a
• Occupies only a small area of land and/or disturbs only previously disturbed lands.
• Uses zero or only small quantities of resources, such as water or fuel.
• Releases zero or only small quantities of emissions to the environment.
• Avoids environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains.
• Avoids areas with cultural, historic, or environmental justice significance.
• Avoids habitat for threatened or endangered species.
• Uses mitigation to reduce impacts.
• Involves only low levels of employment for both construction and operation.
• Uses simpler designs than those for large LWRs, with limited interfaces with the exterior environment.
While the ISG is designed to aid the NRC staff in developing a micro-reactor environmental impact statement, the staff recognizes the value of the guidance as a supplemental source of insight into the NRC's environmental review process that can inform the development of an applicant's environmental report. Applicants should scale their level of effort appropriately when preparing Environmental Reports, commensurate with the significance of the impact on the resource area being addressed.
The scope of this ISG is limited to environmental review considerations specific to micro-reactors, such as the following:
The NRC staff will continue to look for other opportunities to effectively streamline environmental reviews and work with prospective applicants to identify opportunities to streamline ERs while still meeting the NRC's regulations.
The guidance in this final ISG-029 clarifies how the NRC will approach environmental reviews for a micro-reactor application for combined license, early site permit, construction permit, operating license and/or limited work authorization. Issuance of this final ISG would not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
1. The final ISG positions, would not constitute backfitting or forward fitting or affect issue finality, inasmuch as the ISG would be internal guidance to NRC staff.
The ISG provides interim guidance to the staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance, without further NRC action, are not matters that meet the definition of backfitting or forward fitting or affect the issue finality of a part 52 approval.
2. Current or future applicants are not, with limited exceptions not applicable here, within the scope of the backfitting and issue finality regulations and forward fitting policy.
Applicants are not, with certain exceptions, covered by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.
The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
The Commission's forward fitting policy generally does not apply when an applicant files an initial licensing action for a new facility. Nevertheless, the staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the final ISG section in a manner that would constitute forward fitting.
This interim staff guidance 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.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for a license which authorizes possession and use of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) for analytical or scientific research and development. The license application request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by December 28, 2020. Any potential party, as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0232 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tyrone Naquin, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7352; email:
The NRC received a letter of intent to submit an application for a 10 CFR part 70 License for Special Nuclear Materials, by letter dated February 11, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20274A037), from the DTRA. By correspondence dated August 21, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20238B814), the NRC received an application to possess and use SNM in an amount less than the maximum amount described as a Category II quantity as defined in 10 CFR 70.4. If the NRC approves the application, DTRA will possess, store, and use SNM in sealed test objects for general use in detection training and scientific research and development. The application is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML20254A189.
An NRC administrative completeness review, dated September 24, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20258A275), found the application acceptable for a technical review. Prior to approving the application, the NRC will need to make the findings required, as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and an environmental assessment.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a petition is submitted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related
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
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 40 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as added by the SEC Small Business Advocate Act of 2016, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting by videoconference. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 9, 2020, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Written statements should be received on or before November 9, 2020.
The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference). Members of the public may attend the meeting by viewing the webcast on the Commission's website at
• Use the Commission's internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (ET). All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, at (202) 551-5407, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-3628.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons needing special accommodations because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX Options”) proposes to extend the pilot programs in connection with the listing and trading of P.M.-settled series on certain broad-based index options. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change extends the listing and trading of P.M.-settled series on certain broad-based index options on a pilot basis.
Rule 29.11(a)(6) permits the listing and trading, in addition to A.M.-settled XSP options, of P.M.-settled XSP options with third-Friday-of-the-month expiration dates on a pilot basis. The Exchange believes that continuing to permit the trading of XSP options on a P.M.-settled basis will continue to encourage greater trading in XSP options. Other than settlement and closing time on the last trading day (pursuant to Rule 29.10(a))
If the Exchange were to propose another extension of the XSPPM Pilot Program or should the Exchange propose to make the XSPPM Pilot Program permanent, the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the XSPPM Pilot Program. Further, any positions established under the XSPPM Pilot Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the XSPPM Pilot Program. For example, if the Exchange lists a P.M.-settled XSP option that expires after the XSPPM Pilot Program expires (and is not extended), then those positions would continue to exist. If the pilot were not extended, then the positions could continue to exist. However, any further trading in those series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
As part of the XSPPM Pilot Program, the Exchange submits a pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the pilot. This annual report contains an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. In proposing to extend the XSPPM Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to abide by the reporting requirements described in the Notice.
Rule 29.11(j)(1) permits the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates and is currently set to expire on November 2, 2020. The Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program permits both Weeklys and EOMs as discussed below. Contract terms for the Weekly and EOM expirations are similar to those of the A.M.-settled broad-based index options, except that the Weekly and EOM expirations are P.M.-settled.
In particular, Rule 29.11(j)(1) permits the Exchange to open for trading Weeklys on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM). Weeklys are subject to all provisions of Rule 29.11 and are treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, Weeklys are P.M.-settled, and new Weekly series may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly.
Rule 29.11(a)(2) permits the Exchange to open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on the last trading day of the month. EOMs are subject to all provisions of Rule 29.11 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, EOMs are P.M.-settled, and new series of EOMs may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
As stated above, this proposed rule change extends the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program for broad-based index options on a pilot basis, for a period of six months. If the Exchange were to propose an additional extension of the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program or should the Exchange propose to make it permanent, the Exchange would submit additional filings proposing such amendments. Further, any positions established under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, if the Exchange lists a Weekly or EOM that expires after the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program expires (and is not extended), then those positions would continue to exist. However, any further trading in those series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
As part of the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, the Exchange submits a pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the pilot. This annual report contains an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. In proposing to extend the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to abide by the reporting requirements described in the Notice.
The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the XSPPM and Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs to warrant their extension. The Exchange believes that the Programs have provided investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives. The proposed extensions will continue to offer investors the benefit of added transparency, price discovery, and stability, as well as the continued expanded trading opportunities in connection with different expiration times. The Exchange proposes the extension of the Pilot Programs in order to continue to give the Commission more time to consider the impact of the Pilot Programs. To this point, the Exchange believes that the Pilot Programs have been well-received by its Members and the investing public, and the Exchange would like to continue to provide investors with the ability to trade P.M.-settled XSP options and contracts with nonstandard expirations. All terms regarding the trading of the Pilot Products shall continue to operate as described in the XSPPM and Nonstandard Expirations Notice.
Furthermore, the Exchange has not experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the Programs. The Exchange will continue to monitor for any such disruptions or the development of any factors that would cause such disruptions. The Exchange represents it continues to have an adequate surveillance program in place for index options and that the proposed extension will not have an adverse impact on capacity.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Pilot Programs will continue to provide greater opportunities for investors. The Exchange believes that the Pilot Programs have been successful to date. The proposed rule change allows for an extension of the Program for the benefit of market participants. The Exchange believes that there is demand for the expirations offered under the Program and believes that P.M.-settled XSP, Weekly Expirations and EOMs will continue to provide the investing public and other market participants with the opportunities to trade desirable products and to better manage their risk exposure. The proposed extension will also provide the Commission further opportunity to observe such trading of the Pilot Products. Further, the Exchange has not encountered any problems with the Programs; it has not experienced any adverse effects or meaningful regulatory or capacity concerns from the operation of the Pilot Programs. Also, the Exchange believes that such trading pursuant to the XSPPM Pilot Program has not, and will not, adversely impact fair and orderly markets on Expiration Fridays for the underlying stocks comprising the S&P 500 index.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the continuation of the Pilot Program will impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition because it will continue to apply equally to all BZX Options market participants, and the Pilot Products will continue to be available to all BZX Options market participants. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the Pilot Programs to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the Pilot Programs has been in operation, it has provided investors with desirable products with which to trade. Furthermore, as stated above, the Exchange maintains that it has not experienced any adverse market effects or regulatory concerns with respect to the Pilot Programs. The Exchange further does not believe that the proposed extension of the Pilot Programs will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to trading on BZX Options. To the extent that the continued trading of the Pilot Products may make BZX Options a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants may elect to become BZX Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Options”) proposes to enhance its drill-through protections and make other clarifying changes. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to enhance its drill-through protections for simple and complex orders and make other clarifying changes. Currently, pursuant to Rule 21.17(a)(4) and (b)(6), the System will execute a marketable buy (sell) order or complex order,
The Exchange proposes to permit orders to rest in the EDGX Options Book or COB, as applicable, for multiple time periods and at more aggressive displayed prices during each time period.
For example, suppose the Exchange's market for a series in a class with a 0.05 minimum increment is 0.90-1.00, represented by a quote for 10 contracts on each side (the quote offer is Quote A). The following sell orders or quote offers for the series also rest in the EDGX Options Book:
• Order A: 10 contracts at 1.05;
• Quote B: 10 contracts at 1.10;
• Order B: 10 contracts at 1.15; and
• Order C: 20 contracts at 1.25.
Currently, Users may establish a higher or lower buffer amount than the default amount set by the Exchange with respect to complex orders subject to the drill-through protection.
The proposed rule change also makes certain clarifying and nonsubstantive changes, including movement of certain terms and provisions within Rule 21.17(a)(4) and (b)(6) due to the proposed rule changes described above. First, the proposed rule change combines the provisions in current subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 21.17(a)(4) into proposed subparagraph (A). The drill-through protection in the following subparagraphs of Rule 21.17(a)(4) (currently and as proposed) apply to orders that enter the EDGX Options Book at the conclusion of the opening auction and intraday in the same manner. Therefore, current (and proposed) subparagraph (a)(4)(B) apply to all orders that enter the EDGX Options Book as described in proposed subparagraph (a)(4)(A) (current subparagraphs (a)(4)(A) and (B)). The proposed rule change clarifies that the drill-through protection applies to all orders that would enter the EDGX Options Book at prices worse than the drill-through price, including orders not executed during the opening auction and orders entered intraday. This is consistent with and a clarification of current functionality.
Second, the proposed rule change adds clarifying language regarding how the System handles orders for which the limit price is equal to or less than (if a buy order) or greater than (if a sell order) the drill-through price. Current Rule 21.17(b)(6) contemplates that complex orders with limit prices equal to or less aggressive than the drill-through price will not be subject to the mechanism pursuant to which orders will rest in the COB for a time period and then be cancelled. Specifically, Rule 21.17(b)(6)(A) states if a buy (sell) complex order would execute or enter the COB at a price
The proposed rule change clarifies that notwithstanding the provisions described above regarding an order or complex order resting in the EDGX Options Book or COB, respectively, for brief time periods at drill-through prices, if a buy (sell) order's limit price equals or is less (greater) than the drill-through price at any time during application of the drill-through mechanism, the order rests in the EDGX Options Book or COB, as applicable, subject to a User's instructions,
Third, the proposed rule change clarifies in proposed Rule 21.17(b)(6)(B)(ii) that if the synthetic best bid or offer (“SBBO”) changes prior to the end of any time period but the complex order cannot leg into the simple book, and the new SBB or SBO, as applicable, crosses the drill-through price, the System changes the displayed price of the complex order to the new
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed enhancement to the drill-through mechanism removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change will permit orders (or unexecuted portions) to rest in the EDGX Options Book or COB, as applicable, at different displayed prices for a brief but overall longer period of time, which will provide market participants' orders with additional execution opportunities while continuing to protect them against execution at potentially erroneous prices. The proposed enhancement to the drill-through protection is similar to current drill-through functionality. The Exchange may determine the buffer amount for orders and the time period in which orders may rest in the EDGX Options Book or COB. The proposed rule change permits an order to rest at multiples of the buffer amount, which would have the same effect as the Exchange setting a larger buffer amount. For example, if the Exchange set a buffer amount of $0.75, that would allow orders to execute at any price no further than $0.75 away from the NBBO or SNBBO at the time of order entry (including at prices $0.25 and $0.50 away from the NBBO or SNBBO at the time of order entry). This allows for the same potential execution prices that would be possible if the Exchange set a buffer of $0.25 and three time periods under the proposed rule change. While the overall time period for which an order may rest in the EDGX Options Book or COB may be longer than the currently permissible time period, the longer time period will still be relatively brief (maximum of 15 seconds). The Exchange notes it may maintain the same buffer amounts that are in place today. However, rather than increase the buffer amount at one time, the proposed rule change adds the overall larger buffer amount incrementally over a potentially overall longer time period. While this may permit executions at prices farther away from the NBBO or SNBBO at the time of order entry, it will still never permit executions at prices through orders' limit prices. This will provide execution opportunities for orders at incremental amounts away from the NBBO or SNBBO, as applicable, over a slightly longer time period and thus against a potentially larger number of orders. Users also have the ability to cancel orders prior to the completion of the time periods if they do not want the orders resting for a longer period of time (and Users can set their own buffer for complex orders, which would cause those complex orders to rest for a single time period rather than multiple as proposed).
The Exchange believes the proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive changes to the drill-through protection rules protect investors by adding transparency to the rules regarding the drill-through functionality. These changes are consistent with current functionality and thus do not impact the applicability of the drill-through mechanism to orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the enhanced drill-through protection will apply to all marketable orders in the same manner. Users may cancel orders resting on the EDGX Options Book during the drill-through time periods or set their own buffer with respect to complex orders if they do not want their orders resting for a longer period of time as proposed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it relates solely to how and when marketable orders will rest on the EDGX Options Book or COB. The proposed enhancement to the drill-through protection is consistent with the current protection and provides orders subject to the protection with additional execution opportunities while providing continued protection against execution against potentially erroneous prices.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would ultimately provide all market participants with additional execution opportunities when appropriate while providing protection from erroneous execution. The Exchange believes the proposal will enhance risk protections, the individual firm benefits of which flow downstream to counterparties both at the Exchange and at other options exchanges, which increases systemic protections as well. The Exchange believes enhancing risk protections will allow Users to enter orders and quotes with further reduced fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which will benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their orders. Without adequate risk management tools, such as the one proposed to be enhanced in this
The proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive changes are consistent with current functionality and are intended to add clarity to the Rules, and thus the Exchange expects those changes to have no competitive impact.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot to permit the listing and trading of options based on
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the
ISE filed a proposed rule change to permit the listing and trading of index options on the Nasdaq 100 Reduced Value Index (“NQX”) on a twelve month pilot basis.
NQX options trade independently of and in addition to NDX options, and the NQX options are subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options based on the Nasdaq-100, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise limits. Similar to NDX, NQX options are European-style and cash-settled, and have a contract multiplier of 100. The contract specifications for NQX options mirror in all respects those of the NDX options contract listed on the Exchange, except that NQX options are based on
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Options 4A, Section 12(a)(6) to extend the current NQX pilot period to May 4, 2021. This pilot was previously extended with the last extension through November 2, 2020.
The Exchange currently makes public on its website the data and analysis previously submitted to the Commission on the Pilot Program and will continue to make public any data or analysis it submits under the Pilot Program in the future. The Exchange will be submitting a rule change to request that the pilot program become permanent. In lieu of submitting any additional annual reports, the Exchange would provide additional information requested by the Commission in connection with the permanency rule change for this pilot program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. NQX options would be available for trading to all market participants and therefore would not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as this rule change will continue to facilitate the listing and trading of a new option product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The continued listing of NQX will enhance competition by providing investors with an additional investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to the Nasdaq-100. Furthermore, this product could offer a competitive alternative to other existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain broad market exposure. Finally, it is possible for other exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or different index to compete with the Nasdaq-100 and seek Commission approval to list and trade options on such an index.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders; and Rule 519A, Risk Protection Monitor.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518 and Exchange Rule 519A to facilitate the use of Related Futures Cross (“RFC”) orders on the Exchange. The Exchange recently adopted the RFC order type for trading on the Exchange.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Policy .05(e)(1)(iii) of Rule 518, entitled, Wide Market Condition
Specifically, current Policy .05(e)(1)(iii) provides that a wide market condition shall have no impact on the trading of cPRIME Orders and processing of cPRIME Auctions (including the processing of cPRIME Auction responses) pursuant to Rule 515A, Interpretations and Policies .12, or on the trading of cC2C and cQCC Orders pursuant to Rules 515(h)(3) and (4). Such trading and processing will not be suspended and will continue during wide market conditions.
The Exchange is proposing to also exclude RFC orders from this current trade protection provision related to wide market conditions. The Exchange proposes to amend Policy .05(e)(1)(iii) of Rule 518 to rename the title of the provision to, Wide Market Condition and cPRIME, cC2C, cQCC and RFC Orders. The Exchange also proposes to amend the text of the provision to provide that a wide market condition shall have no impact on the trading of cPRIME Orders and processing of cPRIME Auctions (including the processing of cPRIME Auction responses) pursuant to Rule 515A, Policy .12, or on the trading of cC2C, cQCC, or RFC Orders pursuant to Rules 515(h)(3) and (4), and Policy .08 of this Rule respectively. Such trading and processing will not be suspended and will continue during wide market conditions.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Policy .02, .02(a), and .02(b) of Rule 519A, to make RFC orders eligible to participate in certain Risk Protection Monitor functionality. Currently, the MIAX System
Under current Policy .02 of Rule 519A, PRIME Orders,
The Exchange now proposes to amend Policy .02 to allow RFC orders to be included in the counting program by amending the text to provide that, PRIME Orders, cPRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders, cC2C Orders, RFC Orders, and GTC Orders participate in the Risk Protection Monitor as follows:
(a) The System includes PRIME Orders, cPRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders, cC2C Orders, RFC Orders, and GTC Orders in the counting program for purposes of this Rule;
(b) PRIME Orders, cPRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders, cC2C Orders, and RFC Orders will each be counted as two orders for the purpose of calculating the Allowable Order Rate.
The Exchange believes that treating RFC orders similarly to other paired order types for purposes of the counting program will instill confidence in Members that an unusually high number of orders submitted within a
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange's proposal to exclude RFC orders from the wide market condition trade protection promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and in general, protects investors and the public interest. Allowing RFC orders to continue to trade during wide market conditions is consistent with the Exchange's treatment of other paired order types such as cPRIME, cC2C, and cQCC orders. cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders are all received with either a paired Agency Order (in the case of a PRIME and cPRIME Orders) or a contra-side order or orders. cPRIME and cC2C orders are received with an execution price at least $0.01 better than (inside) the icMBBO
The Exchange's proposal to include RFC orders in the Exchange's Risk Protection Monitor promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by treating RFC orders similarly to other paired orders for purposes of the Risk Protection Monitor counting program.
The Exchange's proposal to add RFC orders to the list of order types to which Policy .02 and .02(a) of Rule 519A applies; and to the list of order types to be counted as two orders for purposes of calculating the Allowable Order Rate in Policy .02(b) of Rule 519A, perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by assisting investors in managing their acceptable risk levels respecting open orders. The submission of a single message into the System for the execution of a paired order type is a submission representing two orders, and the Risk Protection Monitor counts them as such for purposes of calculating the Allowable Order Rate. Participants thus will know that their single message for these order types represents two orders for purposes of the counting system and may determine their appropriate risk tolerance parameters accordingly.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to its trade protection rules should instill additional confidence in Members that submit orders to the Exchange that their risk tolerance levels are protected, and thus should encourage such Members to submit additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange with the understanding that they retain necessary protections and avoid unnecessary protections with respect to all orders they submit to the Exchange, including complex orders, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal will promote intra-market competition by ensuring that RFC orders are eligible to trade during wide market conditions, similar to other paired order types. Additionally, including RFC orders in certain trade protections available on the Exchange enables MIAX Options participants to submit more orders to the Exchange knowing that risk protection measures are in place. The proposal applies equally to all market participants and should benefit intra-market competition accordingly.
The Exchange's proposal is limited to transactions involving a Proprietary
For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the proposed change will in fact enhance competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Options”) proposes to extend the pilot programs in connection with the listing and trading of P.M.-settled series on certain broad-based index options. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
The proposed rule change extends the listing and trading of P.M.-settled series on certain broad-based index options on a pilot basis.
Rule 29.11(a)(6) permits the listing and trading, in addition to A.M.-settled XSP options, of P.M.-settled XSP options with third-Friday-of-the-month expiration dates on a pilot basis. The Exchange believes that continuing to permit the trading of XSP options on a P.M.-settled basis will continue to encourage greater trading in XSP options. Other than settlement and closing time on the last trading day (pursuant to Rule 29.10(a)),
If the Exchange were to propose another extension of the XSPPM Pilot Program or should the Exchange propose to make the XSPPM Pilot Program permanent, the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the XSPPM Pilot Program. Further, any positions established under the XSPPM Pilot Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the XSPPM Pilot Program. For example, if the Exchange lists a P.M.-settled XSP option that expires after the XSPPM Pilot Program expires (and is not extended), then those positions would continue to exist. If the pilot were not extended, then the positions could continue to exist. However, any further trading in those series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
As part of the XSPPM Pilot Program, the Exchange submits a pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the pilot. This annual report contains an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. In proposing to extend the XSPPM Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to abide by the reporting requirements described in the Notice.
Rule 29.11(j)(1) permits the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates and is currently set to expire on November 2, 2020. The Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program permits both Weeklys and EOMs as discussed below. Contract terms for the Weekly and EOM expirations are similar to those of the A.M.-settled broad-based index options, except that the Weekly and EOM expirations are P.M.-settled.
In particular, Rule 29.11(j)(1) permits the Exchange to open for trading Weeklys on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM). Weeklys are subject to all provisions of Rule 29.11 and are treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, Weeklys are P.M.-settled, and new Weekly series may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly.
Rule 29.11(a)(2) permits the Exchange to open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on the last trading day of the month. EOMs are subject to all provisions of Rule 29.11 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, EOMs are P.M.-settled, and new series of EOMs may be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
As stated above, this proposed rule change extends the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program for broad-based index options on a pilot basis, for a period of six months. If the Exchange were to propose an additional extension of the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program or should the Exchange propose to make it permanent, the Exchange would submit additional filings proposing such amendments. Further, any positions established under the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, if
As part of the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, the Exchange submits a pilot report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the pilot. This annual report contains an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. In proposing to extend the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program, the Exchange will continue to abide by the reporting requirements described in the Notice.
The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the XSPPM and Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs to warrant their extension. The Exchange believes that the Programs have provided investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives. The proposed extensions will continue to offer investors the benefit of added transparency, price discovery, and stability, as well as the continued expanded trading opportunities in connection with different expiration times. The Exchange proposes the extension of the Pilot Programs in order to continue to give the Commission more time to consider the impact of the Pilot Programs. To this point, the Exchange believes that the Pilot Programs have been well-received by its Members and the investing public, and the Exchange would like to continue to provide investors with the ability to trade P.M.-settled XSP options and contracts with nonstandard expirations. All terms regarding the trading of the Pilot Products shall continue to operate as described in the XSPPM and Nonstandard Expirations Notice.
Furthermore, the Exchange has not experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the Programs. The Exchange will continue to monitor for any such disruptions or the development of any factors that would cause such disruptions. The Exchange represents it continues to have an adequate surveillance program in place for index options and that the proposed extension will not have an adverse impact on capacity.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Pilot Programs will continue to provide greater opportunities for investors. The Exchange believes that the Pilot Programs have been successful to date. The proposed rule change allows for an extension of the Program for the benefit of market participants. The Exchange believes that there is demand for the expirations offered under the Program and believes that P.M.-settled XSP, Weekly Expirations and EOMs will continue to provide the investing public and other market participants with the opportunities to trade desirable products and to better manage their risk exposure. The proposed extension will also provide the Commission further opportunity to observe such trading of the Pilot Products. Further, the Exchange has not encountered any problems with the Programs; it has not experienced any adverse effects or meaningful regulatory or capacity concerns from the operation of the Pilot Programs. Also, the Exchange believes that such trading pursuant to the XSPPM Pilot Program has not, and will not, adversely impact fair and orderly markets on Expiration Fridays for the underlying stocks comprising the S&P 500 index.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Programs, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the continuation of the Pilot Program will impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition because it will continue to apply equally to all EDGX Options market participants, and the Pilot Products will continue to be available to all EDGX Options market participants. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the Pilot Programs to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the Pilot Programs has been in operation, it has provided investors with desirable products with which to trade. Furthermore, as stated above, the Exchange maintains that it has not experienced any adverse market effects or regulatory concerns with respect to the Pilot Programs. The Exchange further does not believe that the proposed extension of the Pilot Programs will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to trading on EDGX Options. To the extent that the continued trading of the Pilot Products may make EDGX Options a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants may elect to become EDGX Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
A proposal to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's nonstandard expirations pilot program, currently set to expire on November 2, 2020.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed
On December 15, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change for the listing and trading on the Exchange, on a twelve month pilot basis, of p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expirations dates.
Pursuant to Phlx Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5)(A) the Exchange may open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations are subject to all provisions of Options 4A, Section 12 and are treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. Unlike the standard monthly options, however, Weekly Expirations are p.m.-settled.
Similarly, pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5)(B) the Exchange may open for trading EOM expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on the last trading day of the month. EOM expirations are subject to all provisions of Options 4A, Section 12 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, the EOM expirations are p.m.-settled.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5)(C) so that the duration of the pilot program for these nonstandard expirations will be through May 4, 2021. The Exchange continues to have sufficient systems capacity to handle p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expirations dates and has not encountered any issues or adverse market effects as a result of listing them. Additionally, there is continued investor interest in these products. The Exchange will continue to make public on its website any data and analysis it submits to the Commission under the pilot program.
The Exchange will be submitting a rule change to request that the pilot program become permanent. In lieu of submitting any additional annual reports, the Exchange would provide additional information requested by the Commission in connection with the permanency rule change for this pilot program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Options with nonstandard expirations would be available for trading to all market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Form G-32 to clarify that brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers” and, individually, each a “dealer”) acting as underwriters in the primary offering of municipal securities are obligated to manually complete three data fields on amended Form G-32 when such fields are applicable to a primary offering (the “proposed rule change”). More specifically, the proposed rule change would clarify the method of completing amended Form G-32 for the following three data fields:
•
•
•
The proposed rule change is intended to clarify File No. SR-MSRB-2019-07,
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to more clearly define the compliance obligation of an underwriter when completing one of the Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32, and, thereby, would promote greater regulatory transparency in the municipal securities market, as further described below. If the proposed rule change is approved,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change is intended to put market participants on notice that, when applicable, the Amended Manual Fields will
Pursuant to Rule G-32, an “underwriter”
The Primary Offering Practices Amendments described each of the New Data Fields as falling into one of two
The three Amended Manual Fields that are the subject of this proposed rule change were originally categorized as part of the 57 Auto-Populated Fields, because the MSRB understood, at that time, that there was a corresponding data field match in NIIDS that would allow for the PAC Bond Data Field, the BQ Data Field, and the Put Date Field, respectively, to be auto-populated in EMMA Dataport when applicable. The MSRB now understands that, although DTCC's NIIDS system may allow for an underwriter to input information corresponding to the Amended Manual Fields, presently, this information is not data DTCC disseminates to the MSRB's EMMA Dataport. Consequently, under the current design of DTCC's system, the MSRB does not receive the electronic inputs necessary to auto-populate these three fields on Amended Form G-32.
The Primary Offering Practices Amendments did not amend the existing obligation of an underwriter to complete Form G-32 in a timely and accurate manner.
The SEC's approval of the Primary Offering Practices Amendments authorized the MSRB to include the three Amended Manual Fields (
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
The proposed rule change's clarification that underwriters are obligated to manually complete the three Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32 would (1) promote just and equitable principles of trade, (2) foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and processing information
The proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade by resolving potential regulatory ambiguities and making clear that, when applicable to a primary offering, an underwriter is effectively required to ensure that all applicable fields are complete and accurate, which may require manually completing these three fields on Amended Form G-32. In this way, the proposed rule change's clarifications would broadly benefit any dealer who acts, or may act, as an underwriter of a primary offering of municipal securities.
Similarly, the proposed rule change would also foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and processing information with respect to transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial products. The MSRB believes that the benefits of the proposed rule change will not only accrue to dealer firms, but also to regulated-entity examiners, other regulators, and data vendors by mitigating potential ambiguity and confusion. Just as it would be beneficial to dealer firms to have a uniform clarified understanding of the regulatory obligations associated with Amended Form G-32, the proposed rule change would similarly benefit these other market participants by ensuring that the data submitted for Amended Form G-32 is complete and accurate regardless of whether the dealer directly interfaces with NIIDS or utilizes the interface of a third-party vendor.
Lastly, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal financial products by promoting the successful completion of Amended Form G-32 by underwriters, which will allow the MSRB to more reliably collect information through the Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32. Specifically, and as indicated in the Primary Offering Practices Amendments,
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The proposed rule change would clarify that the three Amended Manual Fields effectively must be manually entered on Amended Form G-32. The Primary Offering Practices Amendments required the 57 Auto-Populated Fields that could be auto-populated from NIIDS on Form G-32 as well as the submission of nine additional data fields not previously in NIIDS on Form G-32, as applicable.
The proposed rule change is necessary because the Amended Manual Fields are not being disseminated by DTCC's NIIDS service. While at the time of the Primary Offering Practices Amendments, the MSRB believed the fields were part of NIIDS, they were later verified as not being processed by DTCC and therefore are not available for usage at this time. Therefore, the proposed rule change would clarify that an underwriter of a NIIDS-eligible primary offering of municipal securities is obligated to manually complete the Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32, but only when such fields are applicable to the new issue.
The MSRB evaluates the baseline for the benefits and costs analysis to be the current state with the implementation of the 2019 Primary Offering Practices Amendments.
The information collected from these three fields would immediately enhance regulatory transparency, facilitate the
In the context of this amendment, the relevant costs for underwriters are those associated with manually providing information on Amended Form G-32 for Amended Manual Fields that cannot be auto-populated from NIIDS, including, among other things, updating their policies, procedures, training, and supervisory systems to ensure the Amended Manual Fields are so completed, as well as the time and expense associated with completing these three fields when, respectively, applicable to a primary offering of municipal securities. The additional cost imposed on certain market participants to input information manually onto Form G-32, when available, should be limited, which may include, for example, additional time for data entry onto MSRB's portal and to review information for accuracy. It is useful to consider each of the below elements individually:
•
•
•
In addition, the MSRB believes that the costs associated with the proposed rule change are relatively minor, in that the three Amended Manual Fields will be applicable to a relatively small fraction of the overall number of primary offerings in the municipal securities market. This should limit the actual burdens on underwriting firms of completing the Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32. Moreover, given that firms are already updating policies and procedures related to the Primary Offering Practices Amendments, the MSRB believes that the costs of compliance associated with the proposed rule change can be mitigated by incorporating such costs into existing compliance efforts resulting from Amended Form G-32 and its New Data Fields.
Altogether, the MSRB believes that the benefits of the proposed rule change outweigh its costs, as underwriters and other market participants will benefit from the increased transparency and certainty regarding Amended Form G-32 and the MSRB regulatory efforts will benefit from the collection of accurate data from the Amended Manual Fields.
Since the proposed rule change would apply equally to all primary offerings and associated underwriters, it should not impose a burden on competition, efficiency, or capital formation. Moreover, since the proposed rule change is intended to increase regulatory transparency regarding the obligation of underwriters to manually complete the Amended Manual Fields, it may increase the efficiency of underwriters fulfilling their obligations under Rule G-32, as underwriters would be on notice of the lack of auto-population for these three fields on Amended Form G-32 and, thereby, avoid certain costs associated with resolving a potentially ambiguous regulatory obligation. In this way, the MSRB believes that underwriters are likely to avoid the potential for regulatory misinterpretation and confusion, which promotes a fairer and more efficient municipal securities market. The MSRB believes an efficient market would improve capital formation.
The MSRB has considered one alternative to collect this information from a third-party data vendor other than NIIDS, to the extent one exists. However, this would require the MSRB to negotiate with the third-party data vendor to obtain the information. In addition, reliance on third-party vendors could limit the MSRB's flexibility and latitude in its usage of the data, including potentially making the data available to the market in the future, thus hindering the goal of increased regulatory transparency.
Similarly, the MSRB considered filing alternatives to the proposed rule change that either eliminated the Amended Manual Fields from Amended Form G-32 or made the Amended Manual Fields on Amended Form G-32 optional. The MSRB decided the proposed rule change was superior to these alternatives because such alternatives would eliminate the benefit of the MSRB receiving this data. While such proposals would eliminate many of the regulatory burdens associated with the proposed rule change, the MSRB believes that the benefits of the proposed rule change outweigh the costs associated with receiving accurate data from an underwriter on whether a primary offering is bank qualified, composed of PAC Bonds, or puttable by a certain date.
The Board did not solicit nor receive written comments on the proposed rule change's clarification that underwriters are obligated to manually complete the
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to exclude special purpose acquisition companies from the requirement that at least 50% of a company's round lot holders each hold unrestricted securities with a market value of at least $2,500. This Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing in its entirety.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
Nasdaq proposes to exempt Acquisition Companies listed pursuant to IM-5101-2 whose business plan is to complete one or more acquisitions, prior to the completion of any such acquisitions (“SPACs”) from the requirement that 50% of a company's required minimum number of round lot holders need to hold $2,500 worth of securities at the time of initial listing.
Nasdaq's listing requirements include a number of criteria designed to ensure that a listed security has adequate liquidity and is thus suitable for listing and trading on a national securities exchange. These requirements are intended to ensure that there are sufficient shares available for trading to facilitate proper price discovery in the secondary market. Among these is the requirement for a company to have a minimum number of publicly held shares, market value of publicly held shares and round lot holders in order to list a security on the Exchange. These measures help assure that there will be sufficient investor interest and trading to support price discovery during the initial public offering (“IPO”) process and once a security is listed.
On July 5, 2019, the Commission approved Nasdaq's proposed changes to enhance its initial listing standards related to liquidity (“Initial Liquidity Amendments”).
Nasdaq imposed the Required Minimum Amount to help ensure that at least 50% of the required minimum number of shareholders hold a meaningful value of unrestricted securities and that a company has sufficient investor interest to support an exchange listing. It also serves to assure that investors purchasing shares in an IPO at the offering price are making a large enough investment that the price established in that offering is reliable. Prior to adopting the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq had noticed problems with companies listing where a large number of round lot holders held exactly 100 shares, which would be worth only $400 in the case of a stock that is trading at the minimum bid price of $4 per share, or as little as $200 in the case of a stock listing under alternative price criteria. In adopting the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq believed that the Required Minimum Amount is a more appropriate representation of genuine investor interest in the company and would make it more difficult to circumvent the round lot holder requirement through share transfers for no value.
Since implementing the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq has determined that the requirement for 50% of a company's required minimum number of round lot holders to hold $2,500 worth of securities is not appropriate for the listing of SPACs. SPACs are Special Purpose Acquisition Companies that raise capital in an initial public offering (“IPO”) to enter into future undetermined business combinations through mergers, capital stock exchanges, asset acquisitions, stock purchases, reorganizations or other similar business combinations with one or more operating businesses or assets. At least 90% of the gross proceeds raised in the IPO and any concurrent sale of equity securities must be deposited into a trust account.
In the offering of an operating company, the underwriters and investors determine a valuation of the company based on its revenues, future cash flow expectations, business activities and peer valuations, among other metrics. Nasdaq believes that imposing the Required Minimum Amount on operating companies helps to ensure that the price arrived at by the underwriters reflects demand from shareholders investing a meaningful amount in the securities. In contrast, in the Exchange's view, the value of a SPAC prior to a business combination is not based solely on investor demand for the security but is based primarily on the value of the cash held in the trust account.
As noted above, prior to adopting the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq noticed problems with companies listing with a large number of round lot holders holding exactly 100 shares. Such holders held shares in the company prior to its IPO, and Nasdaq believed that such amount was not a representation of genuine investor interest in the company sufficient to support an exchange listing. In contrast, typically the only investors holding shares in a SPAC prior to an IPO are its founders and all other round lot holders represent new investors in the SPAC's IPO. Nasdaq therefore believes that SPACs do not present a similar risk of circumventing the round lot holder requirement through share transfers for no value, and Nasdaq has not observed this problem with SPACs. Furthermore, SPAC shareholders are afforded the opportunity to redeem or tender their shares for a pro rata portion of the value of the IPO proceeds maintained in a trust account in connection with the SPAC's business combination, which must occur within 36 months of the
SPACs will also continue to remain subject to unique listing rules, which provide shareholders the right to redeem or convert their shares for a pro rata share of the trust in conjunction with the business combination. Following a business combination, in order to remain listed, the combined company must meet Nasdaq's initial listing requirements.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, as noted above, prior to adopting the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq noticed problems with companies listing with a large number of round lot holders holding exactly 100 shares. Such holders held shares in the company prior to its IPO, and Nasdaq believed that such amount was not a representation of genuine investor interest in the company to support an exchange listing. In contrast, typically the only investors holding shares in a SPAC prior to an IPO are its founders and all other round lot holders represent new investors in the SPAC's IPO. SPACs also offer alternative mechanisms to provide liquidity by affording shareholders the opportunity to redeem or tender their shares for a pro rata portion of the value of the IPO proceeds maintained in a trust account in connection with the SPAC's business combination. Nasdaq therefore believes that SPACs do not present a similar risk of circumventing the round lot holder requirement through share transfers for no value and that removing this requirement will not impact the protection of investors.
Further, the Exchange believes that excluding SPACs from the Required Minimum Amount avoids imposing an unnecessary impediment to the mechanism of a free and open market and is not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, SPACs provide their shareholders with an alternate mechanism for obtaining liquidity, through the ability to redeem or tender their shares, which other companies do not provide. As such, it is not unfairly discriminatory to treat SPACs differently than operating companies. Further, in an initial offering of an operating company, the underwriters and investors determine a valuation of the company based on its revenues, future cash flow expectations, business activities and peer valuations, among other metrics. Nasdaq believes that imposing the Required Minimum Amount on operating companies helps to ensure that the price arrived at by the underwriters reflects demand from shareholders investing a meaningful amount of unrestricted securities. In contrast, the Exchange has observed that SPACs generally have historically traded close to the value in the trust during the period between its public offering and the consummation of a business combination.
This proposed change will also align Nasdaq's treatment of SPACs with the treatment of warrants under this rule. In this regard, the valuation of a warrant is similar to the valuation of a share of a SPAC in that the warrant's value is derived from the value of the underlying security and the value of a SPAC share is derived from the value of the underlying trust account. SPACs are also similar to warrants in that warrants represent a right to purchase a share in a company in the future, and SPACs represent a right to convert shares of common stock into a pro rata share of the aggregate amount then in the trust account or into a share of the future post-business combination entity.
In adopting the Initial Liquidity Amendments, Nasdaq believed, and the Commission concurred,
The Exchange believes that other listing standards will help it to ensure adequate distribution, shareholder interest and a liquid trading market of a SPAC's security at the time of IPO and following a business combination. In both cases, a SPAC must satisfy Nasdaq's initial listing standards.
SPACs will also continue to remain subject to unique listing rules. Until the
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that NYSE Rule 802.01B(ii) requires SPACs to have a minimum number of 300 round lot holders (“public stockholders”),
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed MOU, request for comments.
The FHWA and the State of Arizona, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (State), propose a renewal of the State's participation in the State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical Exclusions. This program allows FHWA to assign to States its authority and responsibility for determining whether certain designated activities within the geographic boundaries of the State, as specified in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are
Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by DOT Document Management System (DMS) Docket Number [FHWA-2020-0022], by any of the methods described below. Electronic or facsimile comments are preferred because Federal offices experience intermittent mail delays from security screening.
For access to the docket to view a complete copy of the proposed MOU, or to read background documents or comments received, go to
Section 326 of Title 23 U.S. Code, creates a program that allows the Secretary of the DOT (Secretary), to assign, and a State to assume, responsibility for determining whether certain highway projects are included within classes of action that are categorically excluded (CE) from requirements for environmental assessments or environmental impact statements pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Stipulation I(B) of the MOU describes the types of actions for which the State would assume project-level responsibility for determining whether the criteria for a CE are met. Statewide decisionmaking responsibility would be assigned for all activities within the categories listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) and those listed as examples in 23 CFR 771.117(d). In addition to the NEPA CE determination responsibilities, the MOU would assign to the State the responsibility for conducting Federal environmental review, consultation, and other related activities for projects that are subject to the MOU with respect to the following Federal laws and Executive Orders:
(1) Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(2) Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901-4918; Compliance with the noise regulations in 23 CFR part 772 (except approval of the State noise requirements in accordance with 23 CFR 772.7).
(3) Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, and 1536.
(4) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.
(5) Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
(6) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306108.
(7) Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa,
(8) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303; 23 CFR part 774.
(9) Title 54, Chapter 3125—Preservation of Historical and Archeological Data, 54 U.S.C. 312501-312508.
(10) Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 18 U.S.C. 1170.
(11) American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996.
(12) Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C. 4201-4209.
(13) Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377.
(14) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-6.
(15) Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403.
(16) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287.
(17) Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931.
(18) Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128.
(19) FHWA wetland and natural habitat mitigation regulations, 23 CFR part 777.
(20) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303; and 23 CFR part 774.
(21) Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), Public Law 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 (known as Section 6(f)).
(22) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675.
(23) Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. 9671-9675.
(24) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k.
(25) Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers), 23 U.S.C. 319.
(26) E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
(27) E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management (except approving design standards and determinations that a significant encroachment is the only practicable alternative under 23 CFR 650.113 and 650.115).
(28) E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.
(29) E.O. 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources.
(30) E.O. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites.
(31) E.O. 13112, Invasive Species.
(32) Planning and Environmental Linkages, 23 U.S.C. 168, except for those FHWA responsibilities associated with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
(33) Programmatic Mitigation Plans, 23 U.S.C. 169 except for those FHWA responsibilities associated with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
The MOU allows the State to act in the place of the FHWA in carrying out the functions described above, except with respect to government-to-government consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes. The FHWA will retain responsibility for conducting formal government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes, which is required under some of the above-listed laws and executive orders. The State also may assist FHWA with formal consultations, with consent of a tribe, but FHWA remains responsible for the consultation. This assignment includes transfer to the State of Arizona the obligation to fulfill the assigned environmental responsibilities on any proposed projects meeting the criteria in Stipulation I(B) of the MOU that were determined to be CEs prior to the effective date of the proposed MOU but that have not been completed as of the effective date of the MOU. The FHWA may terminate the State's participation in this program if FHWA provides the State a notification of noncompliance, and a period of not less than 120 days to take corrective action as FHWA determines necessary, and if the State fails to take satisfactory corrective action as determined by FHWA.
The FHWA will consider the comments submitted on the proposed MOU when making its decision on whether to execute this renewal MOU. The FHWA will make the final, executed MOU publicly available.
23 U.S.C. 326; 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 23 CFR 771.117; 40 CFR 1507.3, 1508.4.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are applicable on November 15, 2020. The exemptions expire on November 15, 2022. Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0444, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0212, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0320, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0007, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0054 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-0320, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, or FMCSA-2018-0054), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The nine individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the nine applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The nine drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of November 15. 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-0320, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, and FMCSA-2018-0054. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 15, 2020, and will expire on November 15, 2022.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0051 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0051), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.
As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, “Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,” (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since that time, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Baggarley is a 49-year old CDL holder in Washington. He has a history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Baggarley receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hubbard is a 37-year old CDL holder in West Virginia. He has a history of seizures, and has been seizure free since May 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hubbard receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hunter is a 34-year old CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hunter receiving an exemption.
Mr. Roberts is a 25-year old Class D driver license holder in Kentucky. He has a history of seizures, and has been seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Roberts receiving an exemption.
Ms. Wesselman is a 66-year old operator license holder in Indiana. She has a history of epilepsy, and has been seizure free since April 2006. She takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since February 2018. Her physician states that she is supportive of Ms. Wesselman receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 36 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA received applications from 36 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with § 391.41(b)(10).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency.
The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with § 391.41(b)(10). Therefore, the 36 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in § 391.41(b)(10).
Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 19 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
The following six applicants did not have 3 years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following two applicants did not have 3 years of recent experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
Thomas E. Price (OH) and Joe R. Wells (PA)
The following four applicants did not have sufficient driving experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating conditions (gaps in driving record):
The following two applicants did not have an optometrist or ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they are able to operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint:
The following three applicants were denied for multiple reasons:
Jarrie L. King (Al); John Mulrooney (FL); and Brandon R. Stacey (MD).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant the Samsara Networks, Inc. (Samsara) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow its AI Dash Cam device to be mounted lower in the windshield on commercial motor vehicles (CMV) than is currently permitted. The Agency has determined that lower placement of the AI Dash Cam device would not have an adverse impact on safety and that adherence to the terms and conditions of the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety provided by the regulation.
This exemption is effective October 28, 2020 and ending October 28, 2025.
Mr. José R. Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5541, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Samsara applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow its AI Dash Cam device to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted by the Agency's regulations to utilize a mounting location that allows optimal functionality of the AI Dash Cam device. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and must be outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. However, § 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 393.5, that include “a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.” Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
In its application, Samsara states:
The Samsara AI Dash Cam analyzes the road and driver behavior in real time to detect and alert drivers to road signs, collisions, near-misses, distracted driving events and high-risk driving behavior, improving overall road and driver safety. This product is an integral part of Samsara's comprehensive safety platform for vehicle fleets. The device housing is approximately 4.2 inches wide (108 mm) by 2.4 inches tall (61 mm) and will be mounted in the approximate center of the windshield with the bottom edge of the device housing approximately 8 inches (204 mm) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers. The device is mounted outside of the driver's and passenger's normal sight lines to the road ahead, signs, signals, and mirrors. This location will allow for the optimal functionality of the advanced safety systems supported by the device while not obstructing the driver's or passenger's normal sightline views.
Samsara notes that as a result of driver and passenger pilot tests conducted internally and with customers, it has determined that there is no noticeable obstruction of normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs, signals or any mirrors from installation of the AI Dash Cam within approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers. Instead, Samsara contends that use of the AI Dash Cam enhances safety because of its ability to analyze road and driver behavior in real time to detect and alert drivers to road signs, collisions, near-misses, distracted driving events and high-risk driving behavior.
The exemption would apply to all CMVs equipped with Samsara AI Dash Cam device mounted on the windshield. Samsara states that “Without the exemption, Samsara customers may not be able to install their Samsara AI Dash Cams in an optimal location on the windshield to maximize the effectiveness of the safety features of the Samsara technology.” Samsara believes that mounting the system as described will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the
The Agency received no comments on the exemption application.
FMCSA has evaluated the Samsara exemption application. Samsara's AI Dash Cam device is mounted approximately 8 inches below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers. The device needs to be mounted in this location to ensure optimal functionality of the advanced safety systems supported by the device. The Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow placement of the AI Dash Cam device lower than currently permitted by Agency regulations will likely provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no indication that the multi-sensor device would obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs, and surrounding traffic; (2) generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of available sight lines would be minimal; and (3) the mounting location 8 inches below the upper edge of the windshield and out of the driver's normal sightline will be reasonable and enforceable at roadside. In addition, the Agency believes that the use of the AI Dash Cam device by fleets is likely to improve the overall level of safety to the motoring public.
This action is consistent with previous Agency action permitting the placement of similarly-sized devices on CMVs outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that the installation of other vehicle safety technologies mounted on the interior of the windshield has resulted in any degradation in safety.
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning October 28, 2020 and ending October 28, 2025. During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers will be allowed to operate CMVs equipped with Samsara's AI Dash Cam device in the approximate center of the top of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the AI Dash Cam device is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's and passenger's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors. The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that motor carriers operating CMVs equipped with Samsara's multi-sensor device are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
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 commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describe the nature of the information collection and their expected burdens.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On October 18, 2019, FTA published a 60-day notice (84 FR 56012) in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) are implemented in FTA's charter regulation (Charter Service Rule) at 49 CFR part 604. Amended in 2008, the Charter Service Rule now contains five (5) provisions that impose information collection requirements on FTA recipients of financial assistance from FTA under Federal Transit Law.
First, 49 CFR Section 604.4 requires all applicants for Federal financial assistance under Federal Transit Law, unless otherwise exempted under 49 CFR 604.2, to enter into a “Charter Service Agreement,” contained in the Certifications and Assurances for FTA Assistance Programs. The Certifications and Assurances become a part of the Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement for Federal financial assistance upon receipt of Federal funds. The rule requires each applicant to submit one Charter Service Agreement for each year that the applicant intends to apply for the Federal financial assistance specified above.
Second, 49 CFR 604.14(3) requires a recipient of Federal funds under Federal Transit Law, unless otherwise exempt, to provide email notification to all registered charter providers in the recipient's geographic service area each time the recipient receives a request for charter service that the recipient is interested in providing.
Third, 49 CFR 604.12(c) requires a recipient, unless otherwise exempt under 49 CFR 604.2, to submit on a quarterly basis records of all instances that the recipient provided charter service.
Fourth, 49 CFR 604.13 requires a private charter provider to register on FTA's Charter Registration website at
Lastly, 49 CFR 604.7 permits recipients to provide charter service to Qualified Human Service Organizations (QHSO) under limited circumstances. QHSOs that do not receive Federal funding under programs listed in Appendix A to Part 604 and seek to receive free or reduced rate services from recipients must register on FTA's Charter Registration website (49 CFR 604.15(a)).
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; or Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 22, 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.
1. BAYAN RASANEH GOSTAR INSTITUTE (a.k.a. BAYAN GOSTAR MEDIA INSTITUTE; a.k.a. BAYAN RASANE GOSTAR INSTITUTE), Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [ELECTION-E.O. 13848] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018, “Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election,” 83 FR 46843, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 869, (E.O. 13848) for having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election.
2. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF VIRTUAL MEDIA (a.k.a. IUVM), Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [ELECTION-E.O. 13848] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(iii) of E.O. 13848 for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, an entity whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13848.
3. ISLAMIC RADIO AND TELEVISION UNION (a.k.a. IRTVU), Iran; Beirut, Lebanon; Kabul, Afghanistan; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [ELECTION-E.O. 13848] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(iii) of E.O. 13848 for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, an entity whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13848.
4. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (a.k.a. AGIR; a.k.a. ARMY OF THE GUARDIANS OF THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION; a.k.a. IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS; a.k.a. IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS; a.k.a. IRG; a.k.a. IRGC; a.k.a. ISLAMIC REVOLUTION GUARDS CORPS; a.k.a. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY CORPS; a.k.a. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS; a.k.a. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS CORPS; a.k.a. PASDARAN; a.k.a. PASDARAN-E INQILAB; a.k.a. PASDARN-E ENGHELAB-E ISLAMI; a.k.a. REVOLUTIONARY GUARD; a.k.a. REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS; a.k.a. SEPAH; a.k.a. SEPAH PASDARAN; a.k.a. SEPAH-E PASDARAN ENGHELAB ISLAMI; a.k.a. SEPAH-E PASDARAN-E ENGHELAB-E ESLAMI; a.k.a. SEPAH-E PASDARAN-E ENQELAB-E ESLAMI; a.k.a. THE ARMY OF THE GUARDIANS OF THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION; a.k.a. THE IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS), Tehran, Iran; Syria; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [FTO] [SDGT] [NPWMD] [IRGC] [IFSR] [IRAN-HR] [HRIT-IR] [ELECTION-E.O. 13848].
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 13848 having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election.
5. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE (a.k.a. AL QODS; a.k.a. IRGC-QF; a.k.a. IRGC-QUDS FORCE; a.k.a. ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS-QODS FORCE; a.k.a. JERUSALEM FORCE; a.k.a. PASDARAN-E ENGHELAB-E ISLAMI (PASDARAN); a.k.a. QODS (JERUSALEM) FORCE OF THE IRGC; a.k.a. QODS FORCE; a.k.a. QUDS FORCE; a.k.a. SEPAH-E QODS; a.k.a. SEPAH-E QODS (JERUSALEM FORCE)), Tehran, Iran; Syria; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [FTO] [SDGT] [SYRIA] [IRGC] [IFSR] [IRAN-HR] [ELECTION-E.O. 13848].
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 13848 having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning interim final rules for group health plans and health insurance coverage relating to status as a grandfathered health plan under the patient protection and affordable care act.
Written comments should be received on or before December 28, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
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 November 27, 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
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 November 27, 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
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 November 27, 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
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 November 27, 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
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, inter alia, to require financial institutions to keep records and file reports that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities, to protect against international terrorism, and to implement anti-money laundering (AML) programs and compliance procedures. Regulations implementing Title II of the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X.
Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act added subsection (h) to 31 U.S.C. 5318 of the BSA. Section 352 mandates that financial institutions establish AML programs in order to guard against money laundering. Such AML programs must include, at a minimum, the following: (a) The development of internal policies, procedures, and controls, (b) the designation of a compliance officer, (c) an ongoing employee training program, and (d) an independent audit function to test programs. Pursuant to section 352, FinCEN issued regulations requiring money services businesses (MSBs) (31 CFR 1022.210), mutual funds (31 CFR 1024.210), insurance companies (31 CFR 1025.210), dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or jewels (31 CFR 1027.210), operators of credit card systems (31 CFR 1028.210), and loan or finance companies (31 CR 1029.210) to develop and implement written AML programs. This notice renews the OMB control numbers associated with these specific AML program regulations.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 28, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 615-9241.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
This collection of information is required to properly administer health benefits to eligible Veterans.
a. VA Form 10-10EZ, Application for Health Benefits, is used to collect Veteran information during the initial application process for VA medical care, nursing home, domiciliary, dental benefits, etc.
b. VA Form 10-10EZR, Health Benefits Update Form, is used to update a Veteran's personal information, such as marital status, address, health insurance and financial information, for renewal of health benefits.
c. VA Form 10-10HS, Request for Hardship Determination, is used to collect information from Veterans who are in a copay required status for hospital care and medical services, but due to a loss of income project their income for the current year will be substantially below the VA means test limits.
These forms collect information to enroll a Veteran for health benefits, establish basic eligibility, identify 3rd party health insurance coverage, identify prescription copayment, provide for income verification, and serve as a mechanism to make changes upon admission for benefits or yearly financial updates.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of new computer matching program.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to conduct a computer matching program with the Social Security Administration (SSA). Data from the proposed match will be used to verify the net earnings from self-employment and wages of nonservice-connected veterans, and those veterans who are zero percent service-connected (noncompensable), whose eligibility for VA medical care is based on their inability to defray the cost of medical care. These veterans supply household income information that includes their spouses and dependents at the time of application for VA health care benefits.
Comments on this matching program must be received no later than 30 days after publication of this Notice. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Dionne Dent-Lockett, Director, Health Eligibility Center, VHA Member Services (404) 828-5302 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department of Veterans Affairs has statutory authorization under 38 U.S.C. 5317, 38 U.S.C. 5106, 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii) and 5 U.S.C. 552a to establish matching agreements and request and use income information from other agencies for purposes of verification of income for determining eligibility for benefits. 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b) identify those veterans whose basic eligibility for medical care benefits is dependent upon their financial status. Eligibility for nonservice-connected and zero percent noncompensable service-connected veterans is determined based on the veteran's inability to defray the expenses for necessary care as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1722. This determination can affect their responsibility to participate in the cost of their care through copayments and their assignment to an enrollment priority group. The goal of this match is to obtain SSA earned income information data needed for the income verification process. The VA records involved in the match are “Income Verification Records—VA” (89VA10NB). The SSA records are from the Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications (Enumeration System). A copy of this notice has been sent to both Houses of Congress and OMB.
Legal authority for the disclosures under this agreement is 38 U.S.C. 5106 and 5317, and 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii). Under 38 U.S.C. 1710, VA/VHA has a statutory obligation to collect income information from certain applicants for medical care and to use that income data to
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. Joseph S. Stenaka, Executive Director for Information Security Operations and Chief Privacy Officer, approved this document on October 13, 2020 for publication.