International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2021, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action temporarily delays for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date of the final rule titled “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications,” published in the December 23, 2020,
The effective date of the final rule published in the December 23, 2020,
Jennifer Joseph, Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; by email at
The January 20, 2021 memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” instructed Federal agencies to delay the effective date of rules published in the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a series of teleconference meetings of the Montana Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Mountain Time) on Friday, January 29 and Thursday, February 11, 2021. The purpose of the meetings is to plan upcoming web hearings focused on Native American voting rights.
These meetings will be held on:
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-367-2403, conference ID number: 7677059. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or email Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the New York Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold meetings via WebEx on Friday, February 19, 2021; March 19, 2021; April 16, 2021, and May 21, 2021 from 1:00-2:15 p.m. ET for the purpose of discussing the New York Advisory Committee's project and upcoming briefings on eviction policies and enforcement in New York.
The meetings will be held on the following dates from 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m. ET.
To join by web conference:
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review, in part, of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand for the period of review, February 1, 2019, through January 31, 2020.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Benjamin Luberda, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2185.
On February 3, 2020, Commerce published in the
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all pending deadlines in this administrative review by 50 days.
In August 2020, all parties except Thai Union
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so. As noted above, Commerce extended all pending deadlines for administrative reviews by 50 days on April 24, 2020, including the deadline to withdraw requests for review. Because certain interested parties timely withdrew their requests for administrative review for certain companies by the extended 140-day deadline, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to those companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). For a list of the companies for which we are rescinding this review,
The instant review will continue only with respect to Thai Union.
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 751(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration Department of Commerce.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
John Hoffner, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3315.
On November 5, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), pursuant to section 702(h) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (the Act), published the quarterly update to the annual listing of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty covering the period April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020.
Pursuant to section 702(h) of the Act, we hereby provide Commerce's update
Commerce will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed. Commerce encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
This determination and notice are issued in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Moses Song or Tyler Weinhold, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7885 and (202) 482-1121, respectively.
On November 12, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cold-rolled steel from Korea.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the order is cold-rolled steel. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
For the companies not selected for individual review, because the rates calculated for Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel) and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) were above
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review, in part, of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails (nails) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Joshua Simonidis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0608.
On October 6, 2020, based on timely requests for review for 448 companies by Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner);
On October 20, 2020, the petitioner withdrew its request for administrative review on Oriental Cherry Hardware Group., Ltd., Youngwoo Fasteners Co., Ltd., China Staple Enterprise Co., Ltd., Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd., and Promising Way (Hong Kong) Ltd.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because all requests for an administrative review of Oriental Cherry Hardware Group., Ltd., Youngwoo Fasteners Co., Ltd., China Staple Enterprise Co., Ltd., Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd., and Promising Way (Hong Kong) Ltd. were withdrawn within 90 days of the date of publication of the
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil was sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.
On November 12, 2019, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this review is certain emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber from Brazil. For a full description of the scope
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the interested parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this review for all shipments of ESB rubber from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for ARLANXEO Brasil will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 19.61 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the producers/exporters of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from Mexico subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. We invite all interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
David Goldberger or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.
On November 12, 2019, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review on HWR pipes and tubes from Mexico.
On April 21, 2020, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce extended the time limit for issuing the preliminary results of this administrative review to September 29, 2020.
The products covered by the order are heavy walled rectangular welded steel
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for these companies using the calculated rates of the mandatory respondents, Maquilacero and Prolamsa, which are not zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
On February 19, 2020, Commerce received a request from the petitioners
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Maquilacero and Prolamsa reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the weighted average
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Maquilacero or Prolamsa for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers/exporters of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, that were
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075.
On November 12, 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review for the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
On October 23, 2019, Cayirova and its affiliated trading company, Yucel, notified Commerce that they had no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR, and requested Commerce to rescind the reviews of these companies.
It is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
According to the CBP import data, except for the mandatory respondent and its cross-owned companies, the companies subject to this review did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. Accordingly, in the absence of reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding the review with respect to Yucel and Cayirova as explained above, and we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to five additional companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
We preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018:
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If Borusan continues to have a
For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rate determined in the final results. If the rate calculated for Borusan in the final results remains
We will disclose to parties in this review the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of publication of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless this deadline is extended.
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the producers/exporters subject to this administrative review did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable January 26, 2021.
Alice Maldonado or Jacob Garten, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3342, respectively.
On November 12, 2019, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes
On April 20, 2020, Commerce extended the preliminary results of this review by 120 days, until September 29, 2020.
The products covered by the order are certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for DOSCO and HiSteel that are zero percent and we have assigned this rate to the non-selected company in this review (
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
On February 19, 2020, Commerce received a request from the petitioners to conduct verification of the responses in this administrative review.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the deadline for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporters listed above will be equal to the weighted- average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and therefore
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice—extension of time to issue a decision.
This announcement provides notice that the deadline for issuing a decision has been extended by 15 days in the administrative appeal filed with the Department of Commerce (Department) by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (collectively, “Appellants”) requesting that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) override an objection by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to a consistency certification for a proposed project to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas export terminal and a 229-mile natural gas pipeline and compressor station off the Pacific Coast.
The new deadline for issuing a decision on Appellants' Federal consistency appeal of DLCD's objection is extended to February 9, 2021.
NOAA has provided access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following website:
For questions about this Notice, contact Rachel Morris, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, Oceans and Coasts Section, and Patrick Carroll, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, Oceans and Coasts Section, at
On March 20, 2020, the Secretary received a “Notice of Appeal” filed by Appellants pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the DLCD's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA, or is necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Department must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the national interest furthered by the proposed activity outweighs the activity's adverse coastal effects, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the proposed activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the proposed activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.
On November 27, 2020, NOAA published a
This announcement provides notice that the deadline for issuing a decision on this appeal has been extended by 15 days. The additional time is needed to complete a review of the record and reach a decision. A decision on the Federal consistency appeal will be issued no later than February 9, 2021.
NOAA has provided access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following website:
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Braden Goetz, 202-245-7405.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the
This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection request.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces the 2021-22 award year deadline dates for the submission of requests and documents from postsecondary institutions for the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, Federal Work-Study (FWS), and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) programs (collectively, the “Campus-Based programs”), Assistance Listing Numbers 84.038, 84.033, and 84.007.
The deadline dates for each program are specified in the chart in the Deadline Dates section of this notice.
Shannon Mahan, Director, Grants & Campus-Based Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE, Union Center Plaza, Room 64C4, Washington, DC 20202-5453. Telephone: (202) 377-3019. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The authority to award new Federal Perkins Loans to students has expired. Institutions that continue to service their Perkins Loans (or contract with a third-party servicer for servicing) are required to report all Perkins Loan activity on the institution's Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP).
The FWS program encourages the part-time employment of needy undergraduate and graduate students to help pay for their education and to involve the students in community service activities.
The FSEOG program encourages institutions to provide grants to exceptionally needy undergraduate students to help pay for their education.
The Perkins Loan, FWS, and FSEOG programs are authorized by parts E and C, and part A, subpart 3, respectively, of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Throughout the year, in its “Electronic Announcements,” the Department will continue to provide additional information for the individual deadline dates listed in the table under the Deadline Dates section of this notice. You will also find the information on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals (IFAP) website at:
If you submit paper documents when permitted by mail or by hand delivery (or from a commercial courier), we accept as proof one of the following:
(1) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(2) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial courier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing or delivery acceptable to the Secretary.
If you mail your paper documents through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
All institutions are encouraged to use certified or at least first-class mail.
The Department accepts hand deliveries from you or a commercial courier between 8:00:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
A more detailed discussion of each request for funds or waiver is provided in specific “Electronic Announcements,” which are posted on the Department's IFAP website (
(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.
(2) General Provisions for the Federal Perkins Loan
Program, Federal Work-Study Program, and Federal
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 673.
(3) Federal Perkins Loan Program, 34 CFR part 674.
(4) Federal Work-Study Program, 34 CFR part 675.
(5) Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 676.
(6) Institutional Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600.
(7) Restrictions on Lobbying, 34 CFR part 82.
(8) Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), 34 CFR part 84.
(9) Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement), 2 CFR part 3485.
(10) Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, 34 CFR part 86.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting agenda.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Meeting to Vote on Adoption of VVSG 2.0.
Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Eastern.
Virtual via Zoom.
The official meeting is open to the public and will be livestreamed on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube Channel:
Kristen Muthig, Telephone: (202) 897-9285, Email:
The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website:
Throughout 2020, EAC staff worked with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the EAC's advisory boards, and gathered input from the public to advance the latest iteration of the VVSG.
The EAC submitted the proposed VVSG 2.0 Requirements to the Standards Board and Board of Advisors executive committees for review on March 11th. The virtual annual meeting for the EAC Board of Advisors was held on July 17th, and the virtual annual meeting for the EAC Standards Board on July 31st. Both meetings focused on VVSG 2.0. The Standards Board passed a resolution recommending adoption of the VVSG 2.0 Requirements.
VVSG 2.0 virtual hearings were held on March 27th, May 6th, and May 20th to accept feedback and testimony from stakeholders.
On March 24th, the EAC initiated a 90-day public comment period on the VVSG 2.0 Requirements which concluded on June 22nd. The EAC received 77 sets of comments and a total of 1,660 comments. The comments predominately focused on accessibility,
The EAC worked on numerous parallel paths in order to submit the VVSG 2.0 to the Commissioners for adoption. Throughout the summer and fall, the EAC's staff met twice per week with the NIST Voting Systems Program to evaluate and resolve public comments on the requirements. EAC staff updated the Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual and Testing and Certification Program Manual, and developed test assertions to support the VVSG 2.0.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Western Aeon Energy Trading LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 8, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of inquiry.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is inviting comments on what changes, if any, the Commission should make to its practices for requiring financial assurance measures in licenses and other authorizations for hydroelectric projects.
Comments are due March 29, 2021.
Comments, identified by Docket No. RM21-9-000, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comments on whether, and if so, how the Commission should require additional financial assurance
1. Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) authorizes the Commission to issue licenses “for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient . . . for the development, transmission, and utilization of power.”
2. Section 10(c) of the FPA also requires licensees to “maintain the project works in a condition of repair adequate for the purposes of navigation and for the efficient operation of said works in the development and transmission of power, . . . make all necessary renewals and replacements, . . . establish and maintain adequate depreciation reserves for such purposes, . . . so maintain and operate said works as not to impair navigation, and . . . conform to such rules and regulations as the Commission may from time to time prescribe for the protection of life, health, and property.”
3. In making its public interest determination under section 10(a), the Commission considers a number of factors, including the economic benefits of project power. The basic purpose of the Commission's economic analysis is to provide a general estimate of the potential power benefits and the costs of a project, and reasonable alternatives to project power. As articulated in
4. The Commission has taken steps to protect against the failure of a project sponsor's financial planning. For example, to reduce the risk that a project under construction could be abandoned before completion of construction because of inadequate funds, the Commission has required the licensee to file a financing plan prior to beginning construction.
5. In rare cases, the Commission has also included a requirement to file a financial assurance plan.
6. However, the vast majority of existing licenses do not include requirements addressing whether a licensee can afford ongoing operation and maintenance expenses, required environmental or safety measures, or measures required to ensure the facility can meet future dam safety requirements.
7. Non-operational or non-compliant projects can pose public safety hazards
8. While significant dam failures have fortunately been very rare, the Commission has seen increasing numbers of projects that are non-operational or out of compliance with their license conditions, where licensees have stated that they cannot afford to operate or maintain the projects or implement required environmental or safety measures. Commission staff regularly works with these licensees to bring these projects back into operation or compliance, but only with mixed success.
9. As of December 2020, Commission staff is aware of approximately 88 projects that are non-operational and is working with licensees of non-operating projects to restore operations. A licensee's lack of financial resources is often a key factor in a project becoming non-operational. For those licensees that cannot restore operation, some licensees apply to surrender their licenses. However, for those where operating the project or bringing the project into compliance is too financially burdensome, the surrender process may also be economically infeasible. Where licensees show the inability or unwillingness to maintain their projects and do not voluntarily seek surrender, the Commission has terminated licenses by implied surrender.
10. Based on the concern that inadequate financing may result in threats to public safety and environmental resources, the Commission is considering whether additional measures should be taken to ensure licensees have the financial resources to operate and maintain their projects for the life of the project, including under unforeseen circumstances. We recognize that imposing additional financial requirements may pose difficulties for licensees, particularly those operating small projects, but are also cognizant of our responsibilities to the public. Therefore, the Commission is soliciting public comment on potential mechanisms to ensure that licensees can afford required safety measures, ongoing project operation and maintenance expenses, and license compliance to prevent future safety and environmental hazards.
11. The Commission seeks comments on whether, and, if so, how the Commission should revise its practices for requiring financial assurance mechanisms in the licenses and other authorizations it issues for hydroelectric projects. First, we solicit comments regarding how and when the Commission should require financial assurance from licensees. Specifically, should a financial assurance requirement be included in original licenses and/or on relicense? If on relicense, should such a requirement be included in both new licenses for major projects and subsequent licenses for minor projects? Should the Commission also require financial assurance requirements in other authorizations, such as all exemptions, amendment requests, and transfers? Should the Commission reopen licenses to impose financial assurance measures? Should the Commission require licensees to reaffirm or recertify that they have adequate financial assurance instruments every few years during their license term? If so, how often during a license term should the Commission require licensees to demonstrate that they still have adequate finances? Should the Commission require licensees to notify the Commission if the circumstances underlying their financial assurance instruments have changed?
12. Below we outline three potential options that Commission staff has identified for establishing financial assurance mechanisms in hydroelectric licenses: (1) Requiring licensees to obtain bonds to cover the costs of safety measures and project operation and maintenance; (2) establishing an industry-wide trust or remediation fund or requiring licensees to maintain an individual trust, escrow, or remediation fund; or (3) requiring licensees to obtain insurance policies for unforeseen safety hazards or dam failures. We encourage comments on these options as well as the suggestion of any other alternatives. While the Commission will consider all comments filed, the Commission may not, and is not required to, take further action.
13. The Commission could require licensees to obtain bonds to ensure they have sufficient funds to pay for operation, maintenance, environmental, and safety measures throughout the duration of the license. The Commission seeks comment on this option and the following questions:
i. Should the Commission require licensees to obtain bonds as a financial assurance mechanism?
ii. If so, how should the Commission determine the amount of the bond or what factors should the Commission consider when determining the bond amount?
iii. Are bonds within the resources of all licensees, including those of small hydroelectric projects. Could the Commission mitigate these expenses?
iv. What other challenges would bond requirements pose to individual licensees, municipal licensees, the public, or the Commission?
14. The Commission could establish an industry-wide trust or remediation fund to pay for necessary repairs and remediation, similar to the Environmental Protection Agency's superfund program, or could require
i. Should the Commission establish an industry-wide trust or fund as a financial assurance mechanism?
ii. If so, how should the Commission generate funds for the trust? Should the Commission consider using its annual charge authority to fund an industry-wide trust?
iii. How should the Commission determine the appropriate level of funds for an industry-wide trust?
iv. How should the Commission determine how funds are distributed?
v. Should the Commission require licensees to maintain an individual trust or escrow fund as a financial assurance mechanism?
vi. For individual trusts, how should the Commission determine the appropriate level of the trust and what factors should the Commission consider in determining amounts?
vii. For individual escrows, should the Commission require licensees to retain a certain percentage of generation receipts in an escrow account?
viii. What other challenges would an industry-wide or individual trust pose on individual licensees, small hydroelectric project licensees, municipal licensees, the public, or the Commission?
15. The Commission could require licensees to obtain insurance policies to cover costs in the event of a safety hazard or dam failure. The Commission seeks comment on this option and the following questions:
i. Should the Commission require licensees to obtain insurance policies as a financial assurance mechanism for project maintenance?
ii. How should the Commission determine the amount of required coverage of an insurance policy or what factors should the Commission consider when determining the amount of coverage?
iii. What other challenges would a requirement to obtain an insurance policy pose on individual licensees, small hydroelectric project licensees, municipal licensees, the public, or the Commission?
16. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments and other information on the matters, issues, and specific questions identified in this notice, and any alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 29, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM21-9-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
17. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
18. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the 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 RM21-9-000.
19. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
20. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
21. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
22. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Take notice that on January 6, 2021, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to Section 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act and the blanket certificate issued to Columbia by the Commission in Docket No. CP83-76-000,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Dave Hammel, Director, Commercial & Regulatory Law, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone (832) 320-5861, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before March 15, 2021. 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.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-21-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of inquiry.
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comments on the accounting and reporting treatment of certain renewable energy generating assets and renewable energy credits. In addition, the Commission seeks comments on the ratemaking implications of these accounting and reporting changes.
Initial Comments are due March 29, 2021, and Reply Comments are due April 26, 2021.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
•
1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comments on the appropriate accounting treatment for certain renewable energy assets. First, the Commission seeks comments on whether to create new accounts within the Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) for non-hydro renewable energy generating assets,
2. The USofA contains discrete accounts for steam production, nuclear production, hydraulic production, and other production.
3. Recently, parties have expressed disagreement regarding which Other Production accounts should be used to book non-hydro renewable assets. In Docket No. AC20-103, the Commission received a request for confirmation that the costs of certain wind and solar generating equipment are properly booked to the Other Production Accounts 343 (Prime Movers), 344 (Generators), and 345 (Accessory Electric Equipment). In that proceeding, commenters argued that the proposal booked an inappropriate amount of costs to Account 345, which are included in reactive power rates pursuant to the
4. In addition, the existing USofA accounts do not explicitly address the accounting treatment of the purchase, generation, or use of RECs. However, the Commission has stated that RECs are analogous to the sulfur dioxide emission allowances created by Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which the Commission addressed in Order No. 552.
5. Currently, electric utilities record non-hydro renewable assets, and associated operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, in the “Other Production” function within the USofA.
6. For instance, there is no account that clearly captures solar panels. Solar panels are not fuel holders (Account 342), prime movers (Account 343) or generators (Account 344).
Solar panels do not store sunlight, and they have no moving parts; instead, solar energy is captured passively as radiation and is then converted electrochemically into electricity. Therefore, solar panels are not fuel holders. Similarly, Account 343 “include[s] the cost installed of Diesel or other prime movers devoted to the generation of electric energy, together with their auxiliaries,” while Account 344 “include[s] the cost installed of Diesel or other power driven main generators.”
7. Photovoltaic (PV) inverters also do not fit within any of the definitions of the Other Production accounts. Inverters convert the direct current output of a PV solar panel into alternating current. None of the existing Other Production accounts accommodate such a component in their current form.
8. Similarly, there is no account that includes wind generation towers. Such towers do not meet the definition of structures and improvements (Account 341), miscellaneous power plant equipment (Account 346) or accessory electric equipment (Account 345).
9. Additionally, there are no accounts for computer hardware and software required to operate wind and solar generation remotely. Also, Account 553, major maintenance of generating and electric plant, which only includes costs associated with Accounts 343, 344, and 345, does not accommodate costs to record maintenance of solar panels, wind turbine blades, or wind generation towers.
10. Because the Commission's USofA does not include accounts that clearly accommodate non-hydro renewable generating plants and associated O&M expenses, we seek input from interested entities on whether to create new accounts to accommodate these resources. If the Commission determines that non-hydro renewables should be recorded as separate generating functions, then plant and O&M accounts for each new generation function will need to be developed where appropriate. This is necessary both for the correct categorization and correct cost causation attributes of the accounts.
11. Within each item below, interested entities should specify whether the response applies to wind, solar, other, or some combination of these technologies.
(Q1) Interested entities should comment on whether the Commission should establish separate plant and O&M expense accounts for each major type of non-hydro renewable plant, including separate accounts for solar, wind, and other non-hydro renewable technologies.
(Q2) Interested entities should provide examples of proposed new accounts related to non-hydro renewable plant and related O&M expenses for the Commission to consider. Interested entities should also include proposed examples of the corresponding account instructions.
(Q3) Creating new accounts related to non-hydro renewable plant would require reclassification of assets from existing accounts to newly created plant asset accounts. This would also require
12. Adding new non-hydro renewable plant and related O&M expenses to the USofA would require changes to the FERC Form No. 1 to report these accounts in an organized and transparent manner. Thus, we seek input from interested entities on how the Commission could modify FERC Form No. 1 to accommodate any such changes.
(Q4) We invite interested entities to submit comments regarding proposals for reporting the new accounts for non-hydro renewable plant and related O&M expenses in FERC Form No. 1 and whether new reporting schedules and footnote disclosures would be required. Interested entities should provide examples of any new reporting schedules and footnote disclosures.
(Q5) We encourage interested entities to address the type of non-accounting information related to non-hydro renewable plant and related O&M expenses that could be included in the modified FERC Form No. 1 to support rate development and to provide useful information to parties who utilize the financial reports.
13. The USofA does not provide instructions for recording the purchase, generation or use of RECs. However, for accounting purposes, RECs are analogous to sulfur dioxide emission allowances, for which the Commission has developed accounting guidance. In Order No. 552, the Commission concluded that the sulfur dioxide emission allowances are appropriately classified as inventoriable items.
14. More recently, the Commission found it appropriate to apply the Order No. 552 accounting construct to the costs of RECs.
15. We are considering updating the instructions for allowances recorded in Accounts 158.1 and 158.2 (Allowance Withheld), and associated revenues and expenses recorded in Accounts 456 (Other Electric Revenues) and 509 to explicitly include activities related to RECs.
(Q6) We are considering modifying Accounts 158.1, 158.2, and 509 to include the cost of RECs and modifying Account 456 to include revenues from the sale of RECs.
16. It is possible that the proposed additions and modifications to the USofA and the corresponding changes to the FERC Form No. 1 could have a significant and measurable impact on rates for existing utilities. In addition to changes to the accounting and reporting systems, entities may have corresponding changes to their existing cost-of-service schedules for ratemaking purposes. For instance, entities that reclassify assets into the new non-hydro renewable accounts may need to include or exclude certain account balances from their rates to remain consistent with Commission approved rate schedules. For this reason, we seek input from interested entities.
(Q7) We would like to receive input from interested entities as to how electric utilities with formula rates would be impacted if the Commission creates new plant and O&M expense accounts related to non-hydro renewables. We invite interested persons to submit comments regarding how affected utilities would address any such changes.
17. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 29, 2021, and Reply Comments are due April 26, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM21-11-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
18. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
19. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
20. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
21. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
22. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
23. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the
24. Room at
By direction of the Commission.
Take notice that, on January 11, 2021, Athens Utilities Board, Gibson Electric Membership Corporation, Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporation, and Volunteer Energy Cooperative (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or Respondent), pursuant to sections 211A, 306, 307, 308, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), and 18 CFR 386.206, requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) exercise its authority under FPA section 211A to order TVA to provide unbundled transmission service at rates and on terms and conditions that are comparable to those under which TVA provides transmission services to itself and that are not unduly discriminatory or preferential. Complainants further request that the Commission exercise its authority under FPA section 210 to formalize the interconnection arrangements between Complainants and TVA in order to facilitate the provision of transmission service ordered under FPA section 211A, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Northern States filed its request to use the TLP on November 17, 2020. Northern States provided public notice of its request on November 13, 2020. In a letter dated January 19, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing denied Northern States' request to use the TLP and instead requires the use of the ILP to prepare the license application for the Gile Project.
k.
l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
m. With this notice, we are designating Northern States as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
n. Northern States filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
o. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
p. Register online at
q. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 17, 2021.
r.
Due to restrictions on mass gatherings related to COVID-19, we are waiving section 5.8(b)(viii) of the Commission's regulations and do not intend to conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit in this case. Instead, we are soliciting written comments, recommendations, and information, on SD1. Any individual or entity interested in submitting scoping comments must do so by the date specified in item q. SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's official mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Port Arthur LNG Expansion Project, proposed by Port Arthur LNG Phase II, LLC and PALNG Common Facilities Company, LLC (collectively referred to as Applicant) in the above-referenced docket. The Applicant requests authorization to expand the previously certificated Port Arthur Liquefaction Terminal in Jefferson County, Texas by siting, constructing, and operating additional liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities to increase the terminal's capability to liquefy natural gas for export by 13.46 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). The Port Arthur LNG Expansion Project would increase the terminal's total liquefaction capacity from 13.46 MTPA to 26.92 MTPA.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Port Arthur LNG Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S. Coast Guard participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
The proposed Port Arthur LNG Expansion Project includes the following facilities:
• Two liquefaction trains (Trains 3 and 4) each with a maximum LNG production capacity of 6.73 MTPA
• one new low-pressure ground flare;
• new flare knockout drums;
• one new boil-off gas (BOG) compressor unit to compress BOG and deliver as fuel to gas turbine;
• two new utility and instrument air compressor packages to deliver air to two new air drier packages;
• one new 3.675 megawatt capacity diesel powered standby generator; and
• shifting location of some equipment from Base Project, including LNG storage tanks, and modifications and additions to approved utilities, fire and gas detection systems, control system, firewater system, spill containment, tertiary berm, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the two additional liquefaction trains.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 15, 2021.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-55-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the 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.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
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. Go to
Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Virtual hearing.
This hearing will be open to the public. To access the virtual hearing, go to the commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
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 February 25, 2021.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) (0920-0728, Exp. 4/30/23)—Revision—Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 241) authorizes CDC to disseminate nationally notifiable condition information. The National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) is based on data collected at the state, territorial and local levels as a result of legislation and regulations in those jurisdictions that require health care providers, medical laboratories, and other entities to submit health-related data on reportable conditions to public health departments. These reportable conditions, which include infectious and non-infectious diseases, vary by jurisdiction depending upon each jurisdiction's health priorities and needs. Each year, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), supported by CDC, determines which reportable conditions should be designated nationally notifiable or under standardized surveillance.
CDC requests a three-year approval for a Revision for the NNDSS, (OMB Control No. 0920-0728, Expiration Date 04/30/2023). This Revision includes requests for approval to: (1) Receive case notification data for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19); (2) receive new disease-specific data elements for Anthrax, Brucellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Cholera, Cryptosporidiosis, Hansen's Disease, Leptospirosis, Melioidosis, MIS associated with COVID-19, COVID-19, S. Paratyphi Infection, S. Typhi Infection, Salmonellosis, STEC, Shigellosis, and Vibriosis; and (3) Receive new vaccine-related data elements for all conditions.
The NNDSS currently facilitates the submission and aggregation of case notification data voluntarily submitted to CDC from 60 jurisdictions: Public health departments in every U.S. state, New York City, Washington DC, five
Approximately 90% of case notifications are encrypted and submitted to NNDSS electronically from already existing databases by automated electronic messages. When automated transmission is not possible, case notifications are faxed, emailed, uploaded to a secure network or entered into a secure website. All case notifications that are faxed or emailed are done so in the form of an aggregate weekly or annual report, not individual cases. These different mechanisms used to send case notifications to CDC vary by the jurisdiction and the disease or condition. Jurisdictions remove most personally identifiable information (PII) before data are submitted to CDC, but some data elements (
The burden estimates include the number of hours that the public health department uses to process and send case notification data from their jurisdiction to CDC. Specifically, the burden estimates include separate burden hours incurred for automated and non-automated transmissions, separate weekly burden hours incurred for modernizing surveillance systems as part of NNDSS Modernization Initiative (NMI) implementation, separate burden hours incurred for annual data reconciliation and submission, and separate one-time burden hours incurred for the addition of new diseases and data elements. The burden estimates for the one-time burden for reporting jurisdictions are for the addition of case notification data for MIS associated with COVID-19; disease-specific data elements for Anthrax, Brucellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Cholera, Cryptosporidiosis, Hansen's Disease, Leptospirosis, Melioidosis, MIS associated with COVID-19, COVID-19, S. Paratyphi Infection, S. Typhi Infection, Salmonellosis, STEC, Shigellosis, and Vibriosis; and vaccine data elements for all diseases. The estimated annual burden for the 257 respondents is 18,954 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder Study” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 28, 2020, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder Study (OMB Control No. 0920-1218, Exp. 02/28/2021)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC seeks a one-year OMB approval to continue collecting data for Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid use disorder. About 2.4 million people aged 18 or older have opioid use disorders (OUDs) in the United States. At any given time, only half of these people receive some form of treatment, which may include medication-assisted treatment (MAT) or abstinence-based psychotherapy or self-help treatments (
The purpose of this study is to conduct an epidemiologic, mixed-methods evaluation of OUD treatment in real-world outpatient settings. Client recruitment for this study was originally scheduled to take place between 5/1/2018 and 8/31/2019, however patient recruitment levels were lower than originally anticipated. The recruitment period was extended to 11/30/2019 to recruit additional patients. Because the follow-up period for this study is 18 months, patients recruited during the extended recruitment period (8/31/2019 to 11/30/2019) will need to complete their final 18-month Patient Questionnaire between 2/28/2021 and 5/31/2021, which is after the current OMB expiration date. The extended time period is only needed for one of the data collections instruments, thus there is a reduction in burden of 2,793 hours.
The study uses a mixed-method approach using quantitative methods such as multilevel latent growth models, propensity score matching, latent class analysis and advance mediation analysis and qualitative methods such as interactive coding and analysis for common themes. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden will be 300 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled A Longitudinal Examination of Mental and Physical Health among Police Associated with COVID-19. The aim of this project is to evaluate the longitudinal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental and physical health of police officers.
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0004 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
A Longitudinal Examination of Mental and Physical Health among Police Associated with COVID-19—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Police officers are exposed to several stressors during their working lives, including traumatic events (
Previously, in collaboration with NIOSH, the University of New York at Buffalo (UB) conducted a cross-sectional research project to evaluate the mental, physical, and subclinical measures of health in Buffalo, NY police officers as part of the Buffalo Cardio-Metabolic Occupational Police Stress (BCOPS) study. The BCOPs study itself includes a baseline examination and four follow-up examinations. For this reason, NIOSH has mental and physical health data on police officers collected
To meet the aims of the current study NIOSH has contracted with UB to recruit 200 police officers who previously participated in a BCOPS study. Priority will be placed on recruiting officers who participated in the last BCOPS study (n=240). If 200 of the 240 officers cannot be recruited, then UB will try to recruit any officer who has previously participated in a BCOPS study. A subset of the surveys and biological data collected as part of the BCOPS studies will be repeated for this study. By comparing the responses of the surveys and physical data collected as part of BCOPS, prior to COVID-19, to those obtained during this study, NIOSH can evaluate the longitudinal physical and psychological
To meet the aims of this study there will be two rounds of data collection. The first round will consist of collecting both the mental and physical health data. The second round, approximately 6-8 months later, will consist of collecting the mental health and medical history surveys only.
During the first round, letters will be sent to officers who participated in the previous BCOPS study asking them to voluntarily participate in this study. Once they agree, a letter of introduction will be sent. If an officer hasn't responded after two letters have been sent, UB will contact the officers by phone. If the officer declines to participate they will no longer be contacted. For officers who agree to participate, UB will coordinate the scheduling of officers with the police department and will not schedule officers more than one month in advance. Scheduling will be flexible.
At their designated appointment, all participants will complete the paper and pencil questionnaires then complete the clinical exam, which will entail a fasting blood draw (approximately four tablespoons), measuring the participants' height, weight, abdominal height, waist circumference and neck circumference, and taking their blood pressure. Cortisol saliva testing will be done outside of the clinic at the participant's residence by the participant. Participants will be provided with Salivettes (Sarstedt, USA), a commercially available collection device consisting of dental rolls and centrifuge tubes, to take with them when the leave the clinic for the collection of saliva samples. Participants will be given instructions on how to collect the samples to be taken the day after they leave the clinic—four samples in the morning when they awaken, one at lunchtime, one at dinner, and one when the go to sleep. The participant will be asked to return the saliva samples to the clinic when completed either in person or via paid postage. This ends the clinic visit. UB will advise the participant upon departing during round one that they would like to contact them again in about 6-8 months to complete the same surveys they did in the clinic.
For the second round, UB will conduct a follow-up survey approximately 6-8 months after the clinic visit. Each officer who participated in the first round and who agreed to participate in the second round, will be sent the same set of psychological surveys, the medical history questionnaire, and a follow-up COVID questionnaire. The psychological surveys will be the same surveys they did during the first round, while the COVID questionnaire asks additional questions related to their experience with COVID since the clinic visit. They will not be asked to complete the personal history questionnaire the second time. This second set of questionnaires allows NIOSH to meet the study aims.
The burden table lists the estimated population size of 200 police officers who will respond to 16 psychosocial questionnaires, serological (blood) collection, and salivary cortisol at the first round. All officers who participate in the first round and who have agreed, will be mailed the medical history questionnaire and psychosocial questionnaires 6-8 months later (second round). Biological samples will not be collected during the second round. We anticipate that up to 10% of the participants may not present for testing during either the first round or second round of questionnaires. Therefore, we estimate that 180 officers will complete both rounds of the data collection. The total burden hours for all surveys, serological sample collection, and salivary cortisol is 547. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Serological Assay Development:
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0005 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Serological Assay Development:
Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease caused by
The proposed data collection will help to understand the frequency of exposures to rough strain
CDC will collect specimens and medical/surveillance record abstractions from individuals exposed to rough strains of
CDC requests approval for three years. The estimated annualized burden hours are 55. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a request for emergency clearance of the information collection titled Requirement for Proof of Negative Covid-19 Test Result for All Airline Passengers Arriving into The United States from The United Kingdom. This collection accompanies a CDC Order of the same name, and is designed to ensure public health authorities in the United States can confirm that individuals have received a negative test result for COVID-19 prior to departing the United Kingdom and arriving in the United States.
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0006 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, of the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Requirement for Proof of Negative COVID-19 test result for all airline passengers arriving into the United States from the United Kingdom—New—National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This information collection accompanies the Notice and Order named above. Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.20 and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order prohibit the introduction into the United States of any airline passenger departing from the UK unless the passenger has a negative pre-departure test result for COVID-19. The test must be a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected during the three calendar days preceding the flight's departure (Qualifying Test). Passengers must retain written or electronic documentation reflecting the negative Qualifying Test result presented to the airline and produce such results upon request to any U.S. government official or a cooperating state or local public health authority.
Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.31(b) and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order constitutes a controlled free pratique to any airline with an aircraft arriving into the United States from the UK. Pursuant to the controlled free pratique, the airline must comply with the following conditions in order to receive permission for the aircraft to enter and disembark passengers in the United States:
• Airline must verify that every passenger—two years of age or older—onboard the flight has attested to having received a negative Qualifying Test result.
• Airline must confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation reflecting a negative Qualifying Test result.
CDC is requiring that individuals retain copies of their negative tests. CDC anticipates this will result in no significant costs or burden in either hard copy or electronic form. CDC is also requiring that the airlines retain the attestation of negative test provided by the passenger. As long as the attestation conforms to Attachment A of the Order, either electronic or hard copy retention is acceptable. CDC anticipates that any hard copy attestation would be digitized and result in negligible storage costs. Estimated annual burden hours requested are 266,667.
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
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
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.
Division of Program Innovation; Office of Child Support Enforcement; Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Division of Program Innovation (DPI), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the Access and Visitation Survey: Annual Report (OMB #0970-0204, expiration 10/31/2021). There are no changes requested to the form.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by emailing
Sec. 469B [42 U.S.C.669b]; 45 CFR part 303.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, January 26, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to January 26, 2021, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the date of this one-day meeting to February 24, 2021. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, February 05, 2021, 11:00 a.m. to February 05, 2021, 02:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
This meeting date has been changed to 2/17/2021. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) will meet virtually on Wednesday, March 10, 2021. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the Board has completed its business.
Members of the public who wish to participate in the virtual meeting should contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
•
•
The Board will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, March 10, 2020. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021, there will be four sessions, with deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:
1. The Board will discuss USFA Data, Research, Prevention and Response.
2. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
3. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy program activities to include developments, deliveries, staffing, and admissions.
4. There will also be an update on the Board of Visitors Subcommittee Groups for the Professional Development Initiative Update and the National Fire Incident Report System.
There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note that the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 18, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Amphenol Corp. of Wallingford, Connecticut. Supplements to the complaint were filed on December 22, 2020 and January 6, 2021. The complaint, as supplemented, 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 electrical connectors and cages, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,371,117 (“the '117 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,371,875 (“the '875 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,864,521 (“the '521 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,705,255 (“the '255 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,381,767 (“the '767 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, 2, 9, 11, 24-27, and 29 of the '117 patent; claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of the '875 patent; claims 33-35, 38-40, 45, 46, and 48-50 of the '521 patent; claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-14, and 16-18 of the '255 patent; claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-23, 24-27, and 28-30 of the '767 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 “high speed electrical connectors, components thereof, electrical connectors disposed within metal cages, and products containing the same, including electrical connectors mounted to printed circuit boards, such as test boards, test fixtures, or mated compliance boards;”
(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: Amphenol Corp. 358 Hall Ave. Wallingford, CT 06492.
(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 participate as a party in 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 the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has determined to institute an advisory opinion proceeding, as requested by respondents Nortek Security & Control, LLC of Carlsbad, California; Nortek, Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island; and GTO Access Systems, LLC of Tallahassee, Florida (collectively, “Nortek”). The Commission has further determined to set a target date of six months from the date of institution for completion of this proceeding, and to refer this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) for assignment to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) for appropriate proceedings and a recommendation, to be completed within four months from the date of institution.
Carl P. Bretscher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket system (“EDIS”) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 11, 2018, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“CGI”) of Oak Brook, Illinois. 83 FR 27020-21 (June 11, 2018). The complaint alleges that Nortek violated section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”) by importing, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after importation certain movable barrier operator (“MBO”) systems, including garage door openers (“GDOs”), that allegedly infringe one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,755,223 (“the '223 patent”), 8,587,404 (“the '404 patent”), and 6,741,052 (“the '052 patent”).
On December 12, 2018, CGI filed an opposed motion for summary determination that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. On June 6, 2019, the presiding ALJ issued a notice advising the parties that the motion would be granted and a formal written order would follow. Order No. 26 (June 6, 2019).
On November 25, 2019, the ALJ issued Order No. 38, granting CGI's motion for summary determination that its investments in labor and capital were “significant” and satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B). Order No. 38 (Nov. 25, 2019). Order No. 38 denied summary determination with respect to CGI's investments in plant and equipment under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A).
On the same date, the ALJ issued the final Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 (“Final ID”) and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”), finding no violation of Section 337 because the asserted claims of the '223 and '404 patents are not infringed and the asserted claim of the '052 patent is invalid.
On February 19, 2020, the Commission issued a notice of its determination to review Order No. 38 and to partially review the Final ID with respect to certain issues relating to each of the three asserted patents. 85 FR 10723-26 (Feb. 25, 2020).
On April 22, 2020, the Commission affirmed there is no violation with respect to the '404 and '052 patents. Comm'n Notice at 3 (April 22, 2020). The Commission also vacated Order No. 38 and remanded the economic prong issue to the presiding ALJ for further proceedings, while the Commission continued to review issues relating to the '223 patent.
On July 10, 2020, the ALJ issued a Remand Initial Determination (“Remand ID”), finding that CGI made significant investments in plant and equipment and labor and capital sufficient to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under both Sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A), (B)), respectively. Remand ID (July 10, 2020). On September 9, 2020, the Commission determined to review the Remand ID. 85 FR 57249-51 (Sept. 15, 2020).
On December 3, 2020, the Commission determined that Nortek violated Section 337 by way of infringing claims 1 and 21 of the '223 patent. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Nortek and imposed a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review.
On December 18, 2020, Nortek filed the subject request for an advisory opinion that GDOs that allegedly operate their obstacle detectors at a constant energy level do not infringe asserted claims 1 or 21 of the '223 patent, and thus are not covered by the remedial orders. CGI filed its opposition to Nortek's request on December 30, 2020.
On January 7, 2021, Nortek filed a motion seeking leave to file a reply to CGI's opposition. On January 11, 2021, CGI opposed Nortek's motion. The Commission has determined to deny Nortek's motion.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions in view of the record below, the Commission has determined to institute an advisory opinion proceeding, per Nortek's request, to ascertain whether GDOs that allegedly operate their obstacle detectors at a constant energy level infringe asserted claims 1 or 21 of the '223 patent and are covered by the remedial orders issued in this investigation. The Commission has determined to refer the matter to the CALJ for assignment to an ALJ for appropriate proceedings and a recommendation. The ALJ shall conduct any appropriate proceedings and issue an initial advisory opinion within four months from the date that the Commission's notice to conduct the proceeding is published in the
The Commission voted to approve these determinations on January 19, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determinations is contained in Section
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, notice of open meeting.
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a meeting on June 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
June 22, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern).
Shelly Cox, Management Analyst, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,
28 U.S.C. 2073.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, FirearmsC and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), will submit 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. The proposed information collection (IC) is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 29, 2021.
If you have additional comments, regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact: Roderic Spencer, ATF/NCETR/EETD either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Huntsville, AL 35898, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
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 Defendant Roger J. LaPant, Jr., pursuant to Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendant 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 Defendant to pay a civil penalty, effectuate compensatory mitigation, and be subject to other injunctive relief.
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 Andrew Doyle, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044,
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained from the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Room 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. However, the Clerk's Office continues to restrict public access due to the ongoing Coronavirus/COVID-19 emergency. Please visit
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 Thomas E. Lipar, LGI Land, LLC, LGI Group, LLC, and LGI Development, Inc., pursuant to Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, to obtain remedies against them 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 effectuate compensatory mitigation, conduct best management practices work, and be subject to other injunctive relief.
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 Michele Walter and Andrew Doyle, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044,
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution
On January 19, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
If entered, the Consent Decree would resolve the Plaintiffs' claims against American Zinc Recycling Corp. (“AZR” or “Defendant”) related to AZR's zinc reclamation and processing facility located in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff United States' federal claims are based on a number of statutory provisions, including the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b); the Solid Waste Disposal Act (commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or “RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6928(a) and (g); the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and 1321(b)(7)(c); and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11045(c). Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has alleged claims under several state statutes and regulations, including the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (“APCA”), 35 P.S. §§ 4004 and 4006.1; the Pennsylvania Title V Program, 25 Pa. Code §§ 127.401-464 and 127.501-127.543; the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA:), 35 P.S. §§ 6018.104 and 6018.503; and the Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. §§ 691.5 and 691.307.
The Consent Decree requires AZR to perform a number of actions to address its violations of the various environmental statutes. With regard to its Clean Air Act, APCA, and Title V violations, AZR will install a new bag leak detection system in the product collectors at each of its four kilns at the facility, and a new emergency generator at one kiln. In addition, the company will continuously monitor various pollutant parameters at its kilns and product collectors, and will implement new air emission stack tests. To redress its RCRA and SWMA violations, AZR will ensure that only compliant wastes are placed into its waelzing and calcining kilns, and will implement various measures to ensure that it remains in compliance with RCRA lead storage requirements. It will also implement a number of new operating procedures and hazardous waste management and storage plans. In connection with its Clean Water Act and Clean Streams Law violations, the Consent Decree requires AZR to perform investigations of stormwater, process water, and non-contact cooling water systems at the Palmerton Facility. AZR will implement the facility's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and other stormwater control measures. AZR must also revise and/or correct the Palmerton facility's Integrated Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan as well.
As a further remedy, the Consent Decree requires AZR to pay a civil penalty of $3,300,000, which will be evenly split between the United States and the Commonwealth. As the Palmerton facility is currently under an existing environmental consent decree that the proposed Consent Decree is intended to replace, a motion to terminate the existing consent decree will be filed when the Plaintiffs move to enter the proposed Consent Decree after the required public comment period.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $60.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy of the Consent Decree without the appendices, the cost is $34.00.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monthly notice.
Pursuant to section 189.a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from December 11, 2020, to January 7, 2021. The last monthly notice was published on December 29, 2020.
Comments must be filed by February 25, 2021. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by March 29, 2021.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-2242, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0030, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject 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:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown below, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that 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 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 intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
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.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of NSHC, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of NSHC. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves NSHC, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. 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
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 in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
The table in this notice provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers
The following notice was previously published as a separate individual notice. It was published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this monthly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the monthly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving NSHC.
For details, including the applicable notice period, see the individual notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 25, February 1, 8, 15, 22, March 1, 2021.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 25, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 1, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 22, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 1, 2021.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Section 5(b) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) (45 U.S.C. 355), requires that effective January 1, 1990, when a claim for benefits is filed with the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), the RRB shall provide notice of the claim to the claimant's base year employer(s) to provide them an opportunity to submit information relevant to the claim before making an initial determination. If the RRB determines to pay benefits to the claimant under the RUIA, the RRB shall notify the base-year employer(s).
The purpose of the RUIA Claims Notification and Verification System is to provide two notices, pre-payment Form ID-4K, Prepayment Notice of Employees' Applications and Claims for Benefits Under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and post-payment Form ID-4E, Notice of RUIA Claim Determination. Prepayment Form ID-4K provides notice to a claimant's base-year employer(s), of each unemployment application and unemployment and sickness claim filed for benefits under the RUIA and provides the employer an opportunity to convey information relevant to the proper adjudication of the claim.
The railroad employer can elect to receive Form ID-4K by one of three options: A computer-generated paper notice, by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), or online via the RRB's Employer Reporting System (ERS). The railroad employer can respond to the ID-4K notice by telephone, manually by mailing a completed ID-4K back to the RRB, or electronically via EDI or ERS. Completion is voluntary. The RRB proposes to replace using EDI with the use of secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP), which is the standard network protocol used for transferring files between a railroad employer and the RRB. The RRB proposes no changes to the other versions of the ID-4K.
Once the RRB determines to pay a claim post-payment Form Letter ID-4E, Notice of RUIA Claim Determination, is used to notify the base-year employer(s). This gives the employer a second opportunity to challenge the claim for benefits.
The ID-4E mainframe-generated paper notice, EDI, and internet versions are transmitted on a daily basis, generally on the same day that the claims are approved for payment. Railroad employers who are mailed Form ID-4E are instructed to write if they want a reconsideration of the RRB's determination to pay. Employers who receive the ID-4E electronically, may file a reconsideration request by completing the ID-4E by either EDI or ERS. Completion is voluntary. The RRB proposes to replace using EDI with the use of secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP). The RRB proposes no changes to form ID-4K, ID-4K (Internet), ID-4E, and ID-4E (Internet).
Completion is voluntary, however, the RRB will be unable to provide a PRC or allow a requestor to establish a PIN/Password (thereby denying system access), if the requests are not completed.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's schedule of fees, effective January 21, 2021, to implement a change in the maximum contingent Operational Loss Fee in accordance with OCC's Capital Management Policy. Proposed changes to OCC's schedule of fees are attached as Exhibit 5 to File Number SR-OCC-2021-001. Material proposed to be added to OCC's schedule of fees as currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's schedule of fees, effective January 21, 2021, to update the maximum aggregate Operational Loss Fee that OCC would charge Clearing Members in equal shares in the unlikely event that OCC's shareholders' equity (“Equity”) falls below certain thresholds defined in OCC's Capital Management Policy. The proposed fee change is designed to enable OCC to replenish capital to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act, which requires OCC, in pertinent part, to “hold[ ] liquid net assets funded by equity to the greater of either (x) six months . . . current operating expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and service”
In January 2020, the SEC approved OCC's Capital Management Policy, which includes OCC's replenishment plan.
In the unlikely event those thresholds are breached, OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee in an amount to raise Equity to 110% of OCC's Target Capital Requirement, up to the maximum Operational Loss Fee identified in OCC's schedule of fees less the amount of any Operational Loss Fees previously charged and not refunded.
The RWD Amount and, in turn, the Adjusted RWD Amount are determined annually based on OCC's corporate budget, the assumptions articulated in the RWD Plan,
Since the allocation of the Operational Loss Fee is a function of the number of Clearing Members at the time of the charge, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member is subject to fluctuation during the course of the year. However, if the proposed Operational Loss Fee were charged to 107 Clearing Members, the number of Clearing Members as of December 31, 2020 for example, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member would be $1,337,072.
OCC would also update the schedule of fees to reflect the levels of Equity at which OCC would charge the Operational Loss Fee according to the thresholds defined in the Capital Management Policy, as well as the level of Equity at which OCC would limit the Operational Loss Fee charged, based on OCC's current Target Capital Requirement.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
OCC also believes that the proposed Operational Loss Fee would result in an equitable allocation of fees among its participants because it would be equally applicable to all Clearing Members. As the Commission has recognized, OCC's designation as a SIFMU and its role as the sole covered clearing agency for all listed options contracts in the U.S. makes it an integral part of the national system for clearance and settlement, through which “Clearing Members, their customers, investors, and the markets as a whole derive significant benefit . . . regardless of their specific utilization of that system.”
In addition, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii), which requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage OCC's general business risk, including by
OCC also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2021-001 and should be submitted on or before February 16, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-17f-1 (17 CFR 274.219) is entitled “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities Exchanges.” The form serves as a cover sheet to the accountant's certificate that is required to be filed periodically with the Commission pursuant to rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Act, entitled “Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities Exchanges,” which sets forth the conditions under which a fund may place its assets in the custody of a member of a national securities exchange. Rule 17f-1 requires, among other things, that an independent public accountant verify the fund's assets at the end of every annual and semi-annual fiscal period, and at least one other time during the fiscal year as chosen by the independent accountant. Requiring an independent accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of a member of a national securities exchange assists Commission staff in its inspection program and helps to ensure that the fund assets are subject to proper auditing procedures. The accountant's certificate stating that it has made an examination, and describing the nature and the extent of the examination, must be attached to Form N-17f-1 and filed with the Commission promptly after each examination. The form facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificates, and increases the accessibility of the certificates to both Commission staff and interested investors.
Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) 1 hour of clerical time to prepare and file Form N-17f-1; and (ii) 0.5 hour for the fund's chief compliance officer to review Form N-17f-1 prior to filing with the Commission, for a total of 1.5 hours. Each fund is required to make 3 filings annually, for a total annual burden per fund of approximately 4.5 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX Equities”) proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a fee in connection with a Member's Market Participant Identifier(s) (“MPID”). 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 amend its Fee Schedule to adopt a monthly fee assessed on Members' MPIDs.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
By way of background, an MPID is a four-character unique identifier that is approved by the Exchange and assigned to a Member for use on the Exchange to identify the Member firm on the orders sent to the Exchange and resulting executions. Members may choose to request more than one MPID as a unique identifier(s) for their transactions on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that a Member may have multiple MPIDs for use by separate business units and trading desks or to support Sponsored Participant
The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee applicable to Members that use multiple MPIDs to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. Specifically, as proposed, the Exchange would assess a monthly MPID Fee of $350 per MPID per Member, with a Member's first MPID provided free of charge. The Exchange believes the proposed assessment of an MPID Fee aligns with the additional value and benefits provided to Members that choose to utilize more than one MPID to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that assessing a fee on additional MPIDs will be beneficial because such fee will promote efficiency in MPID use.
The MPID Fee will be assessed on a pro-rated basis for new MPIDs by charging a Member based on the trading day in the month during which an additional MPID becomes effective for use. If a Member cancels an additional MPID on or after the first business day of the month, the Member will be required to pay the entire MPID Fee for that month. The Exchange believes that this practice is appropriate to balance the administrative costs associated with disabling MPIDs.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed MPID Fee is consistent with the Act in that it is reasonable,
The Exchange also believes that assessing a modest fee on additional MPIDs is reasonably designed to promote efficiency in MPID use. The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), had previously implemented an MPID Fee,
The Exchange further believes the proposed MPID Fee is reasonable because the amount assessed is less than the analogous fees charged by at least one other market; namely, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed MPID Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Members that choose to employ two or more MPIDs based on the number of additional MPIDs that they use to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. As stated, additional MPIDs beyond a Member's first MPID are optional, and Members may choose to trade using such additional MPIDs to achieve additional benefits and added value to support their individual business needs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is proportional to the potential value or benefit received by Members with a greater number of MPIDs. That is, those Members that choose to employ a greater number of additional MPIDs have the opportunity to more effectively manage firm-wide trading activity and client-level administration, as well as potentially appeal to customers through the use of separate MPIDs, which may result in increased order flow through a Sponsoring Member. A Member may request at any time that the Exchange terminate an MPID, including MPIDs that may be under-used or superfluous, or that do not contribute additional value to a Member's participation on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed MPID Fee will apply equally to all Members that choose to employ additional MPIDs and equally to each additional MPID. As stated, additional MPIDs are optional and Members may choose to utilize additional MPIDs, or not, based on their view of the additional benefits and added value provided by utilizing the single MPID necessary to participate on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed fee will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Members with a greater number of MPIDs and notes that a Member may request at any time that the Exchange terminate any MPID, including those that may be under-used or superfluous, or that do not contribute additional value to a Member's participation on the Exchange.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, including competition for exchange memberships. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 15 other equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, including over 50 alternative trading systems.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (“BOX”) facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX. First, the Exchange proposes to revise certain qualification thresholds and fees in Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Tiers 2 and 3 of the Primary Improvement Order fee structure. The Exchange then proposes to amend the percentage threshold for Tier 1 from 0.000%-0.049% to 0.000% to 0.449%. The Exchange also proposes to decrease the fee for Tier 1 from $0.25 to $0.05. The Exchange next proposes to change current Tier 4 to new Tier 2. The percentage threshold and fee for proposed Tier 2 will remain unchanged.
Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Section III
Currently, under Section III.A, a Public Customer PIP or COPIP Order receives the “removal” credit ($0.34 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes), while the corresponding Primary Improvement Order and any Improvement Orders are charged the “add” fee ($0.34 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes). First, the Exchange proposes to amend PIP and COPIP Improvement Order fees within Section 1.B to include the liquidity “add” fees that are being deleted in Section III. As such, the Exchange proposes to increase Public Customer Improvement Orders fees in Penny Interval Classes to $0.49 from $0.15 and in Non-Penny Interval Classes to $0.96 from $015.
The Exchange next proposes to increase Professional Customer, Broker Dealer and Market Maker Improvement Order fees. Currently, if a Non-Public Customer PIP or COPIP Order does not trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order shall receive the “removal” credit ($0.34 for Penny Interval Classes or $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes) and any corresponding Improvement Order responses will be charged the “add” fee ($0.34 for Penny Interval Classes or $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes). Similar to the changes discussed above, the Exchange now proposes to increase Non-Public Customer Improvement Order fees in Penny Interval Classes to $0.50 from $0.16 and to $1.15 from $0.34 in Non-Penny Interval Classes. Further, the Exchange proposes to increase non-Public Customer SPY Improvement Orders to $0.50 from $0.05.
Next, the Exchange proposes to establish PIP and COPIP Break-Up Credits in Section I.B. First, the Exchange proposes to establish PIP and COPIP Break-Up Credits of $0.34 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes for Public Customer PIP and COPIP Transactions. The Exchange notes that this is how the Exchange currently assesses the $0.34 or $0.81 “removal” credits for Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders executed through the PIP and COPIP mechanisms detailed in BOX's current Fee Schedule. The Exchange is simply seeking to relocate the credits into the PIP and COPIP fee structure. Next, the Exchange proposes to establish a SPY Break-Up Credit of $0.45 for Public Customer SPY PIP and COPIP Orders submitted to the PIP or COPIP mechanisms. As discussed herein, the same $0.45 “removal” credit is assessed for these Public Customer SPY PIP and COPIP transactions under Section III in BOX's current Fee Schedule. Further, the Exchange proposes to add text which details that the Public Customer SPY PIP or COPIP Order submitted to the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary Improvement Order shall receive the Break-Up Credit. The Exchange again notes that this is how the “removal” credit is currently assessed for these transactions under Section III.A in BOX's current Fee Schedule.
Next, the Exchange proposes to establish PIP and COPIP Break-Up Credits of $0.34 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes for Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, and Market Maker PIP and COPIP Transactions. The Exchange also proposes to add text which details who receives the Break-Up Credit for these orders. Specifically, if a Non-Public Customer PIP or COPIP Order does not trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the Primary Improvement Order shall receive the Break-Up Credit of $0.34 for Penny Interval Classes or $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes. The Exchange notes that this is how the “removal” credit is assessed for these transactions in BOX's current Fee Schedule. The Exchange simply seeks to relocate the credit for these transactions into the PIP and COPIP fee structure.
Next, the Exchange proposes to establish a SPY Break-Up Credit of $0.45 for Non-Public Customer SPY PIP and COPIP Orders submitted to the PIP or COPIP mechanisms. The Exchange also proposes to add text which details who receives the Break-Up Credit for these orders. Specifically, SPY PIP and COPIP Orders submitted to the PIP and COPIP mechanisms that do not trade with their Primary Improvement Order shall receive the $0.45 Break-Up Credit. The Exchange notes that this is how the “removal” credit is assessed for these transactions in BOX's current Fee
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to relocate and revise the Fee Schedule language regarding PIP and COPIP Orders executing against Unrelated Orders.
Currently, under Section III.B of the BOX Fee Schedule, Agency Orders submitted to the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms that do not trade with their contra order receive the “removal” credit ($0.25 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.75 for Non-Penny Interval Classes). Responses to Facilitation and Solicitation Orders executed in these mechanisms are charged the “add” fee ($0.25 for Penny Interval Classes and $0.75 for Non-Penny Interval Classes). First, the Exchange proposes to increase the Response Fees (within Section 1.C) in the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms for all account types to $0.50 from $0.25 for Penny Interval Classes and to $1.15 from $0.40 for Non-Penny Interval Classes.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I.C.2 (Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions). Currently, Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions in Section I.C.2 are exempt from the liquidity fees and credits detailed Section III.B of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange now proposes to remove the exemption and assess these transactions fees and credits similar to those detailed in current Section III.B. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase Response fees in the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms to $0.50 from $0.25 for Penny Interval Classes and to $1.15 from $0.40 for Non-Penny Interval Classes. The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable as identical fees exist for regular Facilitation or Solicitation transactions on BOX.
Next, the Exchange proposes to establish Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Credits in the fee structure detailed in Section I.C.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish a $0.25 Break-Up Credit for Penny Interval Classes and $0.75 Break-Up Credit for Non-Penny Interval Classes for all account types. The Exchange also proposes to add text which details who receives the Break-Up Credit for these orders. Specifically, Agency Orders submitted to the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms that do not trade with their contra order shall receive the Break-Up Credit. The Exchange notes that this is how the “removal” credit is currently assessed for regular Facilitation and Solicitation transactions in Section III of BOX's current Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that mirroring the fees and credits in place for regular Facilitation and Solicitation transactions is reasonable and appropriate.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to relocate Section III.C.1., which details transactions which occur on the opening or re-opening, to Section I.A.2. of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also proposes to make a number of non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule which include renumbering Sections and eliminating obsolete text due to the proposed changes discussed herein.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
First, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes in Section I.B.1 (Primary Improvement Orders) of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The proposed changes to the thresholds are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they are available to all BOX Participants that initiate Auction Transactions, and Participants may choose whether or not to take advantage of the percentage thresholds and their applicable discounted fees. Further, the Exchange believes that the change to the threshold in proposed Tier 1 is reasonable and competitive as it is intended to allow more Participants to qualify for the discounted fee, which the Exchange believes will incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange, in turn benefiting all market participants on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to decrease the fee assessed in Tier 1 from $0.25 to $0.05 is reasonable and appropriate, as this tiered fee schedule is in place to provide incentives to BOX Participants to submit their Public Customer Orders into the PIP for potential price improvement. This reduced fee, combined with the amended percentage thresholds discussed above, are meant to incentivize more Participant to submit Price Improvement Orders to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will further incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange, in turn benefiting all market participants on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the fee structure detailed in Section I.B. are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes to Improvement Orders in the PIP and COPIP Transaction fee structure are reasonable as they reflect the current fees charged for these transactions on the Exchange. As noted herein, the Exchange simply seeks to relocate the liquidity fees detailed in Section III to be included in the PIP and COPIP Improvement Order fees in the PIP and COPIP Transaction fee structure. The Exchange believes that the proposed change will increase overall readability of the BOX Fee Schedule and reduce
Under this proposal and as discussed above, the corresponding Primary Improvement Orders to Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders will no longer be assessed the $0.34 “add” fee for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 for Non-Penny Interval Classes; however, Improvement Orders will continue to be charged the $0.34 “add” fee for Penny Interval Classes and $0.81 “add” fee for Non-Penny Interval Classes. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders in the PIP and COPIP mechanisms than for initiators of these orders and the contra orders. The Exchange believes it is reasonable when compared to a similar practice for fees at a competing venue.
The Exchange also believes the proposed change to establish PIP and COPIP Break-Up Credits is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange again notes that these credits are already assessed in current Section III of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange simply seeks to relocate the credits to the appropriate fee structure in order to increase overall readability and reduce investor confusion. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the fee structure detailed in Section I.C. are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes to Responses in the Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms are reasonable as they reflect the current fees charged for these transactions on the Exchange. As noted herein, the Exchange seeks to relocate the liquidity fees detailed in Section III to be included in the Facilitation and Solicitation Transaction fee structure. The Exchange believes that the proposed change will increase overall readability of the BOX Fee Schedule and reduce investor confusion.
The Exchange also believes the proposed change to establish Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Credits is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange again notes that these credits are already assessed in current Section III of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange seeks to relocate the credits to the appropriate fee structure in order to increase overall readability and reduce investor confusion. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the fee structure detailed in Section I.C.2 are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the Exchange believes that increasing the Response fees for Strategy Facilitation and Solicitation Orders in Penny and Non-Penny Interval Classes is reasonable as, under this proposal, identical fees will exist for regular order Responses in the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms as detailed in proposed Section I.C. The Exchange believes that mirroring these fees is appropriate as both regular orders and Strategy Orders are submitted through the same Facilitation or Solicitation mechanism. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable and appropriate as it will streamline the fees assessed for all Responses submitted through the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms and thereby reduce investor confusion with respect to how much Responses are charged in these mechanisms. Further, the Exchange believes that the fees are reasonable and competitive when compared to similar fees at competing venues.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders in the Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms than for initiators of these orders and the contra orders. The Exchange believes it is reasonable when compared to a similar practice for fees at a competing venue.
The Exchange believes the proposed Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation Break-Up Credits are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Currently, in the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms, the Agency Order is a block sized order typically composed of Public Customer orders and represented by an Order Flow Provider who then guarantees the execution by submitting a matching Facilitation and Solicitation Order. Responders in the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms are always non-Public Customers and more typically are Market Makers. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to give the Agency Orders the proposed Break-Up Credit when their orders execute against a non-Public Customer because the Exchange seeks to attract additional Public Customer order flow which may ultimately benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange notes that the same behavior currently exists for regular orders submitted through the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed Break-Up Credits for Strategy Order Facilitation and Solicitation Orders is reasonable and appropriate. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all Participants, regardless of account type.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule to reflect the changes discussed herein are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as the changes will increase readability and reduce investor confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Primary Improvement Order fees will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. The Exchange is simply proposing to amend certain percentage thresholds and fees for Primary Improvement Orders in the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all Participants by providing more trading opportunities and improves competition on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to the PIP and COPIP Transactions fee structure will burden competition by creating such a disparity between the fees an initiating Participant in the PIP and COPIP auction pay and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain Participants being unable to compete with initiators. In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in PIP and COPIP auction transactions. The Exchange believes it will help promote competition by providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for customers to receive additional price improvement and access greater liquidity. Further, as discussed above, the Exchange is simply seeking to relocate certain fees and credits already applied to these transactions on BOX. As such, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to Section I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Similarly, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to the Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions fee structure will burden competition by creating such a disparity between the fees an initiating Participant in the Facilitation and Solicitation auction pay and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain Participants being unable to compete with initiators. In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in Facilitation and Solicitation auction transactions and will help promote competition by providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for customers to receive additional price improvement. Further, as discussed above, the Exchange is simply seeking to relocate certain fees and credits already applied to these transactions on BOX. As such, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to Section I.C. and Section I.C.2. of the BOX Fee Schedule will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comment letters.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to (1) eliminate credits
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (1) eliminate credits and fees associated with Self Trade Prevention (“STP”) Modifiers, and (2) eliminate the Market Data Revenue Sharing Credits. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 13, 2021.
The Exchange currently provides STP Modifiers that allow ETP Holders entering orders to elect to prevent those orders from executing against other orders entered on the Exchange by the same ETP Holder.
In 2018, the Exchange modified the credit from $0.0029 per share to $0.0030 per share for an ETP Holder's resting order that is returned to the ETP Holder.
As a result of the standardization of the credits and fees associated with the STPC and STPD Modifiers, ETP Holders no longer pay a fee or receive a credit for this activity. Coupled with the zero credits and fees associated with the STPN and STPO Modifiers, there is currently no revenue generated by the Exchange when ETP Holders utilize the STP Modifiers when entering their orders on the Exchange. As a result, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the credits and fees associated with STP Modifiers and remove them from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also proposes to renumber footnotes through the Fee Schedule in conjunction to the changes discussed herein.
Additionally, the Fee Schedule currently provides for Market Data Revenue Sharing Credits for Cross Orders in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities. Due to a lack of demand, the Exchange eliminated Cross Orders in 2019.
The proposed rule changes are intended to streamline the Fee Schedule by eliminating credits and fees that have become obsolete.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate credits and fees associated with STP Modifiers and Market Data Revenue Sharing Credits when such fees and credits become obsolete. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate the credits and fees associated with STP Modifiers is reasonable because this activity has become revenue neutral since the Exchange standardized the credits and fees associated with the STPC and STPD Modifiers in 2018. While ETP Holders may continue to utilize this functionality, they are no longer subject to any fees or credits for doing so. The Exchange notes that no other market provides for fees and credits associated with the use of STP Modifiers and this proposed rule change would align the Exchange's billing practice with those of its competitors. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate the Market Data Revenue Sharing Credits program applicable to Cross Orders is reasonable because, with the elimination of Cross Orders, the Exchange no longer generates revenue to share with ETP Holders under the program.
The Exchange believes that amending the Fee Schedule to remove credits and fees associated with STP Modifiers and to remove the Market Data Revenue Sharing Credits for Cross Orders that are no longer functional would promote the protection of investors and the public interest because it would promote clarity and transparency in the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are reasonable because they would also streamline the Fee Schedule by deleting obsolete rule text. The Exchange believes deleting
The Exchange believes that deleting obsolete fees and credits from the Fee Schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the resulting streamlined Fee Schedule would continue to apply to ETP Holders as it does currently because the Exchange is not adopting any new fees or credits or removing any current fees or credits from the Fee Schedule that impact ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would continue to be subject to the same fees and credits that currently apply to them.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“Paperwork Reduction Act”) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 30b1-8 under the Act [17 CFR 270.30b1-8], entitled “Current Report for Money Market Funds,” provides that every registered open-end management investment company, or series thereof, that is regulated as a money market fund under rule 2a-7 [17 CFR 270.2a-7], that experiences any of the events specified on Form N-CR [17 CFR 274.222], must file with the Commission a current report on Form N-CR within the time period specified in that form. The information collection requirements for rule 30b1-8 and Form N-CR are designed to assist Commission staff in its oversight of money market funds and its ability to respond to market events. It also provides investors with better and timelier disclosure of potentially important events. Finally, the Commission is able to use the information provided on Form N-CR in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles. The rule imposes a burden per report of approximately 8.5 hours and $1018.5, so that the total annual burden for the estimated 6 reports filed per year on Form N-CR is 51 hours and $19,839.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
The collection of information on Form N-CR is mandatory for any fund that holds itself out as a money market fund in reliance on rule 2a-7. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Friday, January 29, 2021, via videoconference.
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference) and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
On January 11, 2021, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10919), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging businesses and their investors under the federal securities laws.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) provide an alternative way to qualify for the adding tier for MPL orders; (2) eliminate current Adding Tier 4 and Step Up Tier 3; (3) introduce a new Step Up Adding Tier 4; (4) restrict Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLP”) National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) Setter pricing tier credits to member organizations that are SLPs; and (5) eliminate the optional monthly per security credit payable to Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) and make related non-substantive conforming changes. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 4, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) provide an alternative way to qualify for the adding tier for MPL orders; (2) eliminate current Adding Tier 4 and Step Up Tier 3; (3) introduce a new Step Up Adding Tier 4; (4) restrict SLP NBBO setter pricing tier credits to member organizations that are SLPs; and (5) eliminate the optional monthly per security credit payable to DMMs and make related non-substantive conforming changes.
The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering further incentives for member organizations to send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 4, 2021.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange, member organizations can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
In response to the competitive environment described above, the Exchange has established incentives for its member organizations who submit orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed fee change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange by incentivizing member organizations to submit additional displayed liquidity to, and quote aggressively in support of the price discovery process on, the Exchange.
Currently, a member organization that has an average daily trading volume (“ADV”) that adds liquidity to the Exchange during the billing month (“Adding ADV”) in MPL orders
The Exchange proposes an alternative way for member organizations to qualify for this adding tier credit in MPL orders. As proposed, a member organization that has an Adding ADV in MPL orders of at least 7.25 million shares would also be eligible for a $0.00275 credit for MPL Orders that add liquidity under this tier. The Exchange believes that the alternative method would enable more member organizations to qualify for the tier, especially in high volume months. The purpose of the proposed change is to incentivize member organizations to trade on the Exchange in MPL orders in Tapes A, B and C securities. Providing an alternative way for member organizations to qualify for the $0.00275 credit would increase liquidity providing MPL orders in Tapes A, B and C securities, which would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional price improvement opportunities for incoming orders that take liquidity. The Exchange believes that by correlating the amount of credits to the level of MPL orders sent by a member organization that add liquidity, the Exchange's fee structure would incentivize member organizations to submit more MPL orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby increasing the potential for price improvement and execution opportunities to incoming marketable orders submitted to the Exchange.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive and fragmented market environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. Based on the profile of liquidity-adding firms generally, the Exchange believes that additional member organizations could
Currently, a member organization qualifies for Tier 4 Adding Credit of $0.0015 if the member organization
• has Adding ADV in MPL orders that is at least 4 million shares ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, and
• executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.10% of NYSE CADV, or
• has an Adding ADV that is at least 0.175% of NYSE CADV,
• ADV of the Member Organization's total close activity (MOC/LOC and other executions at the close) on the NYSE of at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV, and
• an Adding ADV 25,000 shares in Orders designated as “retail” (
In addition, member organizations that meet the above requirements and add liquidity, excluding liquidity added as an SLP, in securities traded pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges (Tapes B and C) on the Pillar Trading Platform of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, are eligible for an additional $0.0001 per share.
Similarly, the current Step Up Tier 3 Adding Credit offers a credit to member organizations providing displayed liquidity to the Exchange in Tape A securities. As proposed, a member organization that has Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV over that member organization's Fourth Quarter 2019 adding liquidity taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV (the “Baseline Tape A Share”) would receive a credit of $0.0015 for adding liquidity, except MPL and Non-Displayed Limit Orders, if the increase in Adding ADV over the Baseline Tape A Share is at least 0.05% and less than 0.10%. If the increase in Adding ADV over the Baseline Tape A Share is at least 0.10% or more, a member organization meeting the above requirements would receive a credit of $0.0018 for adding liquidity, except MPL and Non-Displayed Limit Orders.
In addition, member organizations that meet these requirements and qualify for the $0.0015 or $0.0018 credit in Tape A securities would be eligible to receive an additional $0.0001 per share for adding liquidity in Tape A securities if trades in Tapes B and C securities against the member organization's orders that add liquidity, excluding orders as an SLP, equal to at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Adding Tier 4 and Step Up Tier 3 pricing tiers in their entirety and to remove both from the Price List because each pricing tier has been underutilized by member organizations insofar as no member organization has qualified for either tier. As such, Exchange does not anticipate any member organization in the near future would qualify for either tier that is the subject of this proposed rule change.
With the proposed elimination of the Step Up Tier 3 Adding Credit, the Exchange proposes to rename the current Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit as Step Up Tier 3 Adding Credit. The Exchange also proposes a new Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit, as discussed below.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new “Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit” that would offer an incremental credit for providing displayed liquidity to the Exchange in Tapes A, B and C securities.
As proposed, the Exchange would provide a $0.0015 credit in Tape A securities for all orders, other than MPL and Non-Displayed Limit Orders, if the member organization:
• Has an Adding ADV that is at least 0.20% of NYSE CADV, and
• has an Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV over that Member Organization's November 2020 adding liquidity taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV.
In addition, member organizations that meet the above requirements and add liquidity, excluding liquidity added as an SLP, in Tapes B and C Securities of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined would be eligible to receive an additional $0.0001 per share.
For example, assume a Member Organization A has an adding ADV of 0.16% of NYSE CADV in the baseline month of November 2020. Further assume that Member Organization A has an adding ADV of 0.21% of US CADV in the billing month. Member Organization A would meet both the requirement of Adding ADV of at least 0.20% of NYSE CADV and the requirement of an Adding ADV that is at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV over that member organization's November 2020 adding liquidity taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV.
The purpose of this proposed change is to incentivize member organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in the Tape A securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. Because the proposed tier requires a member organization to increase the volume of its trades in orders that add liquidity over that member organization's November 2020 baseline, the Exchange believes that the proposed credit would provide an incentive for all member organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to qualify for it. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Based on the profile of liquidity-adding firms generally, the Exchange believes that additional member organizations could qualify for the tiered rate under the new qualification criteria if they choose to direct order flow to, and increase quoting on, the Exchange. However, without having a view of member organization's activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any member organization directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the new tier.
In September 2020, the Exchange adopted the SLP NBBO Setter Tier for securities with a per share price of $1.00 or above that offers four sets of tiered credits for orders that set the NBBO or provide other displayed liquidity in Tape A, B and C Securities, on a monthly basis, from SLPs and member organizations affiliated with SLPs in addition to the tiered or non-tiered SLP credit for adding displayed liquidity.
The purpose of this proposed change is to restrict the incentives to increase aggressively priced liquidity-providing orders that improve the market by setting the NBBO to member organizations that are SLPs. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which add liquidity to the Exchange. The SLP NBBO Setter Tier is designed to encourage higher levels of liquidity, which support the quality of price discovery on the Exchange and is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. By limiting eligibility for the SLP setter credits to SLPs, the Exchange brings these credits in line with other SLP credits that are only credited to the SLP, and not the affiliated member organizations.
Currently, the Exchange offers an optional monthly rebate per security (“Rebate Per Security”) to DMMs with 100 or more assigned securities, up to a maximum credit of $100,000 per month across all DMM assigned securities, that elect to receive a lower monthly rebate per share credit (“Optional Credit”) for all assigned securities. DMMs electing the Rebate per Security and corresponding Optional Credit for all assigned securities are required to notify the Exchange prior to the start of a calendar quarter to be effective for that and subsequent quarters. Similarly, DMMs electing to suspend the Rebate per Security and corresponding Optional Credit for that suspension to be effective for that and subsequent quarters are required to notify the Exchange prior to the start of that calendar quarter. The Rebate Per Security is currently available for the start of a calendar quarter for assigned securities that meet the following quoting requirements:
First, in More Active Securities,
• $100.00 Rebate per Security if the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security 30% of the time or more in the applicable month;
• $75.00 Rebate Per Security if the DMM quotes at least 20% and up to 30% of the time in the applicable month; and
• $50.00 if the DMM quotes at least 10% and up to 20% of the time in the applicable month.
Second, in Less Active Securities,
• $200.00 Rebate per Security if the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security 60% of the time or more in the applicable month;
• $125.00 if the DMM quotes at least 40% and up to 60% of the time in the applicable month; and
• $100.00 if the DMM quotes at least 15% and up to 40% of the time in the applicable month.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the monthly Rebate Per Security and the associated Optional Credits in their entirety and remove them from the Price List because the credits have been underutilized by DMMs. As noted, the definitions of More Active Securities, More Active Securities Requirement, Less Active Securities and Less Active Securities Requirement would be relocated with no substantive changes to the section of the Price List describing DMM rebates where these terms are also utilized.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The proposed alternative way to qualify for the Adding Tier for MPL orders is reasonable because an additional way to qualify for the tier would make it easier for member organizations to qualify for the credit, thereby encouraging the submission of additional liquidity by more member
The new proposed Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit is reasonable. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit would provide an incentive for member organizations to send additional liquidity providing orders to the Exchange in Tape A securities. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly for attracting non-marketable order flow that provides liquidity on an exchange.
The Exchange believes that requiring member organizations to have adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.20% of NYSE CADV and to add liquidity to the NYSE if the member organization has Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.05% of NYSE CADV over that member organization's November 2020 adding liquidity taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV in order to qualify for the proposed Step Up Tier 4 Adding Credit is reasonable because it would encourage additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange and because market participants benefit from the greater amounts of displayed liquidity present on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to provide an additional $0.0001 per share for adding liquidity in Tape A securities for member organizations meet the proposed tier requirements and qualify for the $0.0015 credit in Tape A securities if trades in Tapes B and C securities against the member organization's orders that add liquidity, excluding orders as an SLP, equal to at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, is reasonable as this same incentive is offered in the NYSE`s other adding tiers (Tier 1-3 Adding Credits).
Since the proposed Step Up Tier 4 would be new with a step up requirement, no member organization currently qualifies for the proposed pricing tier. As previously noted, without a view of member organization activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether the proposed rule change would result in any member organization qualifying for the tier. The Exchange believes the proposed credit is reasonable as it would provide an additional incentive for member organizations to direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the higher credit, thereby contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange.
Clarifying that the SLP NBBO Setter Tier credits are not available for member organizations that are affiliated with SLPs is also reasonable as it brings those credits in line with other SLP tiers and credits. It is also reasonable to limit the higher credits available under this tier to SLP adding ADV given the SLP's additional quoting requirements, which non-SLP member organizations do not have.
The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the Adding Tier 4 and Step Up Tier 3 pricing tiers is reasonable because each of these pricing tiers have been underutilized and have generally not incentivized member organizations to bring liquidity and increase trading on the Exchange. The Exchange does not anticipate any member organization in the near future to qualify for any of the tiers that are the subject of this proposed rule change. Similarly, the Exchange believes eliminating the option for DMMs to receive lower per share transaction credits in exchange for monthly rebates per assigned security is reasonable because DMMs have underutilized these incentives. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate requirements and credits, and even entire pricing tiers, when such incentives become underutilized. The Exchange believes eliminating underutilized incentive programs would also simplify the Price List. The Exchange further believes that removing reference to the pricing tiers and the optional DMM rebates and credits from the Price List would also add clarity and transparency to the Price List.
The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an alternative way for member organizations to qualify for the Adding Tier for MPL orders equitably allocates its fees among its market participants. The Exchange is not proposing to adjust the amount of the Adding Tier Credit for MPL orders that add liquidity, which will remain at the current level for all market participants. Rather, by providing an alternative way for member organizations to qualify for the adding credit, the proposal would continue to encourage member organizations to send orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants, and promoting price discovery and transparency. The proposal would also enhance order execution opportunities for member organizations from the substantial amounts of liquidity present on the Exchange. All member organizations would benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that will be present on the Exchange, which would provide greater execution opportunities. The Exchange believes that offering an alternate way for member organizations to qualify for a tiered credit, more member organizations will be able to choose to route their liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange to qualify for the credit. As previously noted, based on the profile of liquidity-providing member organizations generally, the Exchange believes additional member organizations could qualify for the adding credit if they choose to direct order flow to, and increase quoting on, the Exchange. Additional liquidity-providing orders benefits all market participants because it provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Step Up Tier 4 is equitable because the magnitude of the additional credit is less than the current Step Up Tier 2 credit in Tape A securities. Moreover, the proposed credit is not unreasonable relative with the other non-SLP adding tier credits, which as range from $0.0015 to $0.0031, in comparison to the credits paid by other exchanges for orders that provide additional step up liquidity.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange, thereby improving market wide quality and
The Exchange believes that limiting the incentives available under the SLP NBBO Tier only to SLPS is not unfairly discriminatory because the tier will continue to allocate the credits fairly among market participants. The tier will continue to allow SLPs to qualify for a credit by adding liquidity and setting the NBBO on the Exchange, thereby continuing to improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. It is equitable for the Exchange to limit additional incentives to SLPs to receive a credit when their orders add liquidity to the Exchange as a means of incentivizing increased liquidity adding activity by SLPs, given the SLP's additional quoting requirements, which non-SLP member organizations do not have. An increase in overall liquidity on the Exchange will improve the quality of the Exchange's market and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective participants.
The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits, and even entire pricing tiers, from the Price List when such incentives become ineffective is equitable because the two pricing tiers and DMM rebate and credits the Exchange proposes to eliminate would be eliminated in their entirety, and would no longer be available to any member organization in any form.
The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an alternative way for member organizations to qualify for the MPL Adding Tier is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal would be provided on an equal basis to all member organizations that add liquidity by meeting the new proposed alternative requirements, who would all be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no member organization already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this allocation of fees. Further, as noted, the Exchange believes the proposal would provide an incentive for member organizations to continue to send orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide an additional per share step up credit, as the proposed credit would be provided on an equal basis to all member organizations that add liquidity by meeting the new proposed Step Up Tier 4's requirements and would equally encourage all member organizations to provide additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange. As noted, the Exchange believes that the proposed credit would provide an incentive for member organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to qualify for the additional credits. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume. Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for member organizations in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that modifying the tiers in that member organizations affiliated with SLPs are not eligible for the incentives under the SLP NBBO Setter Tier is not unfairly discriminatory because the requirements to achieve the fees would be applied to all similarly situated member organizations, who would all be eligible for the same credit based on the revised requirement on an equal basis. Limiting the credits to SLPs is reasonable given the SLP's additional quoting requirements, which non-SLP member organizations do not have. The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the existing qualification criteria would be applied to all similarly situated member organizations, who would all be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed elimination of two pricing tiers and optional DMM rebate and credits would affect all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits, and even entire pricing tiers, from the Price List when such incentives become ineffective is not unfairly discriminatory because the pricing tiers the Exchange proposes to eliminate would no longer be available to any member organization on an equal basis. Similarly, eliminating optional DMM rebate and credits that are underutilized and ineffective would no longer be available to any DMM on an equal basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18f-3 (17 CFR 270.18f-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles information relevant to the fairness of the separate arrangement and expense allocation for each class, and that directors review and approve the information. Without a blueprint that highlights material differences among classes, directors might not perceive potential conflicts of interests when they determine whether the plan is in the best interests of each class and the fund. In addition, the plan may be useful to Commission staff in reviewing the fund's compliance with the rule.
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 7,293 multiple class funds offered by 990 registrants. The Commission estimates that each of the 990 registrants will make an average of 0.5 responses annually to prepare and approve a written 18f-3 plan.
Estimates of the average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 18f-3 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 18f-3 will not be kept confidential. 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 public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 24f-2 (17 CFR 270.24f-2) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) requires any open-end management companies (“mutual funds”), unit investment trusts (“UITs”), registered closed-end investment companies that make periodic repurchase offers under rule 23c-3 under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.23c-3] (“interval funds”), or face-amount certificate companies (collectively, “funds”) deemed to have registered an indefinite amount of securities to file, not later than 90 days after the end of any fiscal year in which it has publicly offered such securities, Form 24F-2 (17 CFR 274.24) with the Commission. Form 24F-2 is the annual notice of securities sold by funds that accompanies the payment of registration fees with respect to the securities sold during the fiscal year.
The Commission estimates that 6,794 funds file Form 24F-2 on the required annual basis. The average annual burden per respondent for Form 24F-2 is estimated to be four hours. The total annual burden for all respondents to Form 24F-2 is estimated to be 27,176 hours. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Compliance with the collection of information required by Form 24F-2 is mandatory. The Form 24F-2 filing that must be made to the Commission is available to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX Equities”) proposes to amend its fee schedule to establish a fee in connection with a Member's Market Participant Identifier(s) (“MPID”). 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 amend its Fee Schedule to adopt a monthly fee assessed on Members' MPIDs.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
By way of background, an MPID is a four-character unique identifier that is approved by the Exchange and assigned to a Member for use on the Exchange to identify the Member firm on the orders sent to the Exchange and resulting executions. Members may choose to request more than one MPID as a unique identifier(s) for their transactions on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that a Member may have multiple MPIDs for use by separate business units and trading desks or to support Sponsored Participant
The Exchange proposes to adopt a fee applicable to Members that use multiple MPIDs to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. Specifically, as proposed, the Exchange would assess a monthly MPID Fee of $150 per MPID per Member, with a Member's first MPID provided free of charge. The Exchange believes the proposed assessment of an MPID Fee aligns with the additional value and benefits provided to Members that choose to utilize more than one MPID to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that assessing a fee on additional MPIDs will be beneficial because such fee will promote efficiency in MPID use.
The MPID Fee will be assessed on a pro-rated basis for new MPIDs by charging a Member based on the trading day in the month during which an additional MPID becomes effective for use. If a Member cancels an additional MPID on or after the first business day of the month, the Member will be required to pay the entire MPID Fee for that month. The Exchange believes that this practice is appropriate to balance the administrative costs associated with disabling MPIDs.
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
The Exchange believes that the proposed MPID Fee is consistent with the Act in that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is reasonable because it is reasonably aligned with the benefits provided to Members that choose to utilize multiple MPIDs to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. While each Member must have an MPID to participate on the Exchange, additional MPIDs are optional and will be assessed the proposed fee. Additional MPIDs currently allow for Members to realize certain benefits from and added value to their participation on the Exchange but also require the Exchange to allocate additional administrative resources to manage each MPID that a Member chooses to use for its trading activity. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess a modest fee on any additional MPIDs that Members choose to use to facilitate their trading. The Exchange again notes that it is optional for a Member to request and employ additional MPIDs, and a large portion (approximately 39%) of the Exchange's Members currently utilize just the one MPID necessary to participate on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that assessing a modest fee on additional MPIDs is reasonably designed to promote efficiency in MPID use. The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), had previously implemented an MPID Fee,
The Exchange further believes the proposed MPID Fee is reasonable because the amount assessed is less than the analogous fees charged by at least one other market; namely, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed MPID Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Members that choose to employ two or more MPIDs based on the number of additional MPIDs that they use to facilitate their trading on the Exchange. As stated, additional MPIDs beyond a Member's first MPID are optional, and Members may choose to trade using such additional MPIDs to achieve additional benefits and added value to support their individual business needs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is proportional to the potential value or benefit received by Members with a greater number of MPIDs. That is, those Members that choose to employ a greater number of additional MPIDs have the opportunity to more effectively manage firm-wide trading activity and client-level administration, as well as potentially appeal to customers through the use of separate MPIDs, which may result in increased order flow through a Sponsoring Member. A Member may request at any time that the Exchange terminate an MPID, including MPIDs that may be under-used or superfluous, or that do not contribute additional value to a Member's participation on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed MPID Fee will apply equally to all Members that choose to employ additional MPIDs and equally to each additional MPID. As stated, additional MPIDs are optional and Members may choose to utilize additional MPIDs, or not, based on their view of the additional benefits and added value provided by utilizing the single MPID necessary to participate on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed fee will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Members with a greater number of MPIDs and notes that a Member may request at any time that the Exchange terminate any MPID, including those that may be under-used or superfluous, or that do not contribute additional value to a Member's participation on the Exchange.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, including competition for exchange memberships. Members have numerous
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comment letters.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits at Equity 7, Section 118, as described further below.
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 its schedule of credits at Equity 7, Section 118, to add a new credit for executing orders in securities in all three Tapes.
Presently, the Exchange offers a member a credit of $0.0030 per share of displayed orders/quotes (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) to the extent such member has shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.30% or more of Consolidated Volume
The Exchange now proposes to add a new, lower credit for members that meet similar criteria, albeit with less stringent volume requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide a new credit of $0.00295 per share of displayed orders/quotes (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 0.90% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month, which includes shares of liquidity provided with respect to securities that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE that represent 0.25% or more of Consolidated Volume.
By proposing to add this new tier, the Exchange will provide a new means for its members to qualify for a credit for adding significant liquidity to the Exchange in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE. This new credit will be lower than the existing credit for such activity, but members will also qualify for it by satisfying less stringent criteria. By providing an additional incentive for members to add liquidity to the Exchange in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, the Exchange intends to improve the
Those participants that act as significant providers of liquidity to the Exchange, and who provide significant volumes of liquidity in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, will benefit directly from the proposed addition of the new credit. Other participants will also benefit from the new credit insofar as any increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will improve the overall quality of the market, to the benefit of all members.
The Exchange notes that its proposals are not otherwise targeted at or expected to be limited in their applicability to a specific segment of market participants nor will they apply differently to different types of market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange has designed its proposed new credit to provide an additional incentive to members to increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, and in particular, their liquidity adding activity in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE. An increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will, in turn, improve the quality of the Nasdaq market and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective participants.
The Exchange notes that those market participants that are dissatisfied with the new credit are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that offer them lower charges or higher credits.
The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its credits fairly among its market participants. It is equitable for the Exchange to establish the proposed new credit as a means of incentivizing members to provide meaningful amounts of liquidity to the Exchange, including in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing liquidity on the Exchange, including liquidity adding activity in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, then the Exchange would experience improvements in its market quality, which would benefit all market participants.
Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credit is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various industries—from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular telephone data plans—that use it to reward the loyalty of their best customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that its new proposed credit is not unfairly discriminatory because it stands to improve the overall market quality of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants, by incentivizing members to provide meaningful amounts of liquidity, including in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE.
Finally, any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credit is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. To the contrary, the proposed change will provide an opportunity for members that do not qualify for the $0.0030 per share executed credit to receive a lower credit based upon achieving similar, albeit lower thresholds of liquidity adding activity. Any member may elect to provide the levels of market activity required in order to receive the new credit. Furthermore, all members of the Exchange will benefit from any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates.
Moreover, members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the proposed credit is too low or the qualification criteria are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other industries, as described above.
The Exchange believes that its proposal will not burden competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from the multitude of other live exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee and credit changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed new credit is reflective of this competition because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume, the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which comprises upwards of 40% of industry volume.
The Exchange's proposal is pro-competitive in that the Exchange intends for it to increase liquidity adding activity on the Exchange and thereby render the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to market participants.
In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the 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)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding the Limit of Fees on Options Strategy Executions. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 13, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the Limit of Fees on Options Strategy Executions (“Strategy Cap”), effective January 13, 2021.
Currently, the Fee Schedule provides that transaction fees for OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, “OTP Holders”) are limited or capped at $1,000 for certain options strategy executions “on the same trading day,” meaning it is a daily fee cap.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Strategy Cap to offer a lower cap of $200 for those OTP Holders that trade at least 25,000 monthly billable contract sides in Strategy Executions.
For example, assume an OTP Holder executes the following Strategy Executions against interest in the Trading Crowd on the third business day of the month on behalf of a non-Customer that is not a Lead Market Maker, which participants are subject to a $0.25 per Manual transaction fee. Under the current Fee Schedule, an OTP Holder would be charged a total of $1,000 in options fees, per the daily fee cap:
•
•
However, if, in addition to the two trades above, the OTP Holder executes a “jelly roll” consisting of 5,000 October puts and 5,000 October calls against 5,000 November calls and 5,000 November puts on the fifteenth business day of the month, the total fees for these qualifying Strategy Executions under the proposed Fee Schedule would be capped at $200 for this trading day, given that the total number of contracts on day three and day fifteen is above the minimum 25,000 billable contract sides threshold. Similarly, having met this threshold, the fees charged on Trades 1 and 2 that were executed on the third business day would likewise be capped at $200. Thus, the fees for each of the third and fifteenth trading days would be capped at $200 each, for a monthly total of $400 for Strategy Executions.
The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as OTP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options exchanges, including another exchange that provides a cap on fees for strategy executions.
The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any, or how many, OTP Holders would avail themselves of this proposed fee change. The Exchange believes that OTP Holders that execute Strategy Executions on the Exchange can achieve the proposed 25,000 minimum contract sides threshold to qualify for the proposed (reduced) Strategy Cap and that this proposal may encourage OTP Holders to execute (and aggregate) Strategy Executions on the
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, modifications to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the Strategy Cap is reasonable because it is designed to incent OTP Holders to increase their Strategy Executions submitted to and executed on the Exchange's Trading Floor. The Exchange offers a hybrid market system and aims to balance incentives for its OTP Holders to continue to contribute to deep liquid markets for investors on both its electronic and open outcry platforms. The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to benefit from any increase in volume transacted on the Trading Floor, which promotes market depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
To the extent that the proposed change attracts more Strategy Executions to the Exchange, this increased (open outcry) order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution, which, in turn, promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Finally, to the extent the proposed change continues to attract greater volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its market share relative to its competitors. The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as OTP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options exchanges, including another exchange that provides a cap on fees for strategy executions.
The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any, or how many, OTP Holders would avail themselves of this proposed fee change. The Exchange believes that OTP Holders that execute Strategy Executions on the Exchange can achieve the proposed 25,000 minimum contract sides threshold to qualify for the proposed (reduced) Strategy Cap and that this proposal may encourage OTP Holders to execute (and aggregate) Strategy Executions on the Exchange, which order flow would enhance price discovery.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and OTP Holders can opt to avail themselves of the Strategy Cap or not. The proposed Strategy Cap, as modified, applies to all qualifying Strategy Executions transacted on the Trading Floor. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would facilitate the execution of orders via open outcry, thus enhancing price discovery as a result of increased liquidity. Moreover, the proposal is designed to encourage OTP Holders to aggregate all Strategy Executions at the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change attracts more Strategy Executions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to modify the Strategy Cap because the proposed modification would be available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and OTP Holders are not obligated to try to achieve the modified Strategy Cap, nor are they obligated to
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner designed to encourage OTP Holders to direct trading interest (particularly Strategy Executions) to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar Strategy Caps, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 proposes to modify and expand the package of complimentary services provided to eligible companies and update the values of certain complimentary.
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.
Nasdaq offers complimentary services under IM-5900-7 to companies listing on the Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets in connection with an initial public offering in the United States, including American Depository Receipts (other than a company listed under IM-5101-2), upon emerging from bankruptcy, in connection with a spin-off or carve-out from another company, in connection with a direct listing as defined in IM-5315-1 (including the listing of American Depository Receipts), or in conjunction with a business combination that satisfies the conditions in Nasdaq IM-5101-2(b) (“Eligible New Listings”) and to companies (other than a company listed under IM-5101-2) switching their listing from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) to the Global or Global Select Markets, or that have switched its listing from the NYSE and listed on Nasdaq under IM-5101-2 after the company publicly announced that it entered into a binding agreement for a business combination and that subsequently satisfies the conditions in IM-5101-2(b) and lists on the Global or Global Select Market in conjunction with that business combination (“Eligible Switches”).
Currently, Nasdaq provides complimentary services from the Service Package to the Eligible New Listings based on the following tiers:
Nasdaq also provides certain complimentary services from the Service Package to the Eligible Switches based on the following tiers:
Based on Nasdaq's experience with offering the Service Package to the Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches, as well as in response to changes in the competitive landscape, Nasdaq proposes to simplify the structure of the Service Package by eliminating Tier 3 for Eligible New Listings, extending the complimentary services period for the Eligible New Listings from two to three years and including Media Monitoring/Social Listening service, Virtual Event service, and certain ESG services, as described in more detail below, in the complimentary service package for Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches.
To improve transparency and ease the application of the rules, Nasdaq proposes to adopt Listing Rule IM 5900-7A to describe the current Service Package, applicable to eligible companies that list before the effective date of this proposed rule change. Listing Rule IM 5900-7 is intended to be substantively identical to Listing Rule IM 5900-7A, except as modified by this proposal (the “New Service Package”). Accordingly, Listing Rule IM 5900-7 will describe the service package for eligible companies listing on or after the effective date of this SR-NASDAQ-2021-002, whereas Listing Rule IM 5900-7A will describe the service package for eligible companies that listed before the effective date of this SR-NASDAQ-2021-002. To that end, Nasdaq proposes to update the title of Listing Rule IM-5700-7.
Under the proposal, the New Service Package will include the Media Monitoring/Social Listening service. This service tracks coverage of company mentions, news and events across online and social media and has a retail value of approximately $12,000 per year. The New Service Package will also include a Virtual Event service. Through this service a company will receive access to a virtual event platform for one investor or capital market day presentation event. A company is eligible to receive this service once in the period during which the company is eligible to receive services from the New Service Package. This service has a retail value of approximately $20,400.
Given the increased attention from shareholders and other stakeholders to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, Nasdaq proposes to offer Eligible Switches and Eligible New Listings an ESG Core service. Through this service, companies will receive access to a software solution that will simplify the gathering, tracking, approving, managing and disclosing of ESG data, including the most universal and useful ESG metrics to provide insight into the sustainability performance of the company. This service has a retail value of approximately $20,000 per year. In addition, one-time development fees of approximately $1,000 to establish the product in the first year will be waived.
Nasdaq also proposes to offer Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches that have a market capitalization of $750 million or more an ESG Education & Sector Benchmarking Services, whereby companies will receive access to ESG education, insight and sector benchmarks to help them understand the ESG landscape. The education provided will include insight into capital invested in ESG strategies, overview of ESG frameworks, insight into ESG rating providers and other ESG information. The sector benchmarks will provide transparency into aggregated ESG disclosure practices for the company's specified sector. This service has a retail value of approximately $30,000 per year.
As such, under the proposal, Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches that have a market capitalization less than $750 million will be eligible to receive the ESG Core Service. Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches that have a market capitalization of $750 million or more will be eligible to receive the ESG Core Service and the ESG Education & Sector Benchmarking Service.
The Exchange believes that offering the Media Monitoring/Social Listening service, the Virtual Event service, and the ESG services, as described above, to newly public companies will help them fulfill their responsibilities as public companies and provide information important for communicating with their investors. However, no company is required to use these services as a condition of listing. As is the case with other complimentary services, at the end of the package term, companies may
Finally, Nasdaq proposes to update the values of the services contained in Listing Rules IM-5900-7, IM-5900-8, and proposed IM-5900-7A to their current values. Depending on a company's market capitalization and whether it is an Eligible New Listing or an Eligible Switch, the total revised value of the services provided in the New Service Package ranges from $238,200 to $1,118,000, and one-time development fees of approximately $6,000 are waived.
Nasdaq notes that no other company will be required to pay higher fees as a result of the proposed amendments and represents that providing this service will have no impact on the resources available for its regulatory programs.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Nasdaq faces competition in the market for listing services,
Nasdaq believes offering the ESG Core service and the ESG Education & Sector Benchmarking service which, in part, provide access to ESG education and promote disclosure of ESG data, including the most universal and useful ESG metrics to provide insight into the sustainability performance of companies promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest by allowing Nasdaq listed companies to enhance ESG disclosure relevant to shareholders investment decisions. Nasdaq believes that by making this service available more companies will seek to enhance their ESG disclosure to achieve these benefits. However, no company is required to use this service.
Nasdaq believes that offering different ESG services based on a company's market capitalization is not unfairly discriminatory because larger companies generally will need more and different ESG services. The distinction based on market capitalization is also clear and transparent.
Nasdaq believes that it is appropriate to eliminate the third tier for Eligible New Listings that have a market capitalization of $5 billion or more because it simplifies the structure of the New Service Package by removing one level of discrimination among the Eligible New Listings.
Similarly, Nasdaq believes that offering Media Monitoring/Social Listening service and Virtual Event service, as described above, to newly public companies promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the public interest by helping Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches fulfill their responsibilities as public companies through enhanced stakeholder engagement. However, no company is required to use this service.
Nasdaq believes that it is appropriate to offer complimentary services for a longer period to Eligible New Listings that list after approval of this proposal than the period for which such services are provided to companies already listed on Nasdaq. The purpose of the proposal is to attract future listings and this competitive purpose would not be served by providing the complimentary services for an extended period to companies that are already listed.
In addition, the Exchange expects that companies that consider listing on Nasdaq after the proposal is approved will take the enhanced offering into account when choosing their listing market and budgeting for their needs that are met by the complimentary services, whereas existing listed companies will have made their market choice and undertaken their financial planning on the basis of the current services offering and will not in any way be harmed by the proposed change. Based on the above, the Exchange believes that, upon approval of this proposal, the complimentary services will be equitably allocated among issuers as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and the proposal does not unfairly discriminate among issuers as required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
As a result of extending the complimentary services period for the Eligible New Listings from two to three years, an Eligible New Listing that has a market capitalization less than $750 million will receive the complimentary services for three years, whereas an Eligible Switch that has a market capitalization less than $750 million will continue to receive the complimentary services for two years. Nasdaq believes that this distinction is not unfairly discriminatory because an Eligible Switch that has a market capitalization less than $750 million, generally, already received certain complimentary services while listed on the NYSE. In addition, the NYSE recently extended the period for the complimentary services provided to eligible new listings and eligible transfer
The Commission has previously indicated pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
Finally, Nasdaq notes that the proposed change to update the title in IM-5900-7 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act because it will clarify the rule without making any substantive change.
Nasdaq represents, and this proposed rule change will help ensure, that individual listed companies are not given specially negotiated packages of products or services to list, or remain listed, which the Commission has previously stated would raise unfair discrimination issues under the Exchange 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. As noted above, Nasdaq faces competition in the market for listing services, and competes, in part, by offering valuable services to companies. The proposed rule changes reflect that competition, but do not impose any burden on the competition with other exchanges. Other exchanges can also offer similar services to companies, thereby increasing competition to the benefit of those companies and their shareholders. Accordingly, Nasdaq does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act, as amended.
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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
On February 12, 1935, the Commission adopted Rule 12d2-2
Form 25 is useful because it informs the Commission that a security previously traded on an exchange is no longer traded. In addition, Form 25 enables the Commission to verify that the delisting and/or deregistration has occurred in accordance with the rules of the exchange. Further, Form 25 helps to focus the attention of delisting issuers to make sure that they abide by the proper procedural and notice requirements associated with a delisting and/or deregistration. Without Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25, as applicable, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
There are 24 national securities exchanges that could possibly be respondents complying with the requirements of the Rule and Form 25.
The collection of information obligations imposed by Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 are mandatory. The response will be available to the public and will not be kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
On November 19, 2020, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FICC, through its Government Securities Division (“GSD”), serves as a central counterparty (“CCP”) and provider of clearance and settlement services for cash-settled U.S. Treasury securities.
DVP repos involve a pair of transactions between two parties. The first transaction (the “Start Leg”) consists of the sale of securities, in which one party delivers securities in exchange for the other party's delivery of cash. The second transaction (the “End Leg”) occurs on a date after that of the Start Leg and consists of the repurchase of securities, in which the obligations to deliver cash and securities are the reverse of the Start Leg. The parties agree to the terms of the trade, including the specific securities, principal amount, interest rate, haircut, and date of maturity (
A DVP repo that is scheduled to start one or more business days after the submission of trade details to FICC is a “forward starting” repo. A DVP repo that is scheduled to start on the same business day as trade details are submitted to FICC is a “same-day starting” repo. For forward starting repos, FICC acts as CCP for both the Start Leg and the End Leg. However, since the inception of the DVP Service, for same-day starting repos, FICC generally has acted as CCP for the End Leg only.
The first step in the clearance and settlement process of a DVP repo is for the parties to submit the trade details to FICC.
FICC generally novates and guarantees settlement of a trade upon Trade Comparison.
Trades that settle bilaterally outside of FICC do not have the benefit of FICC's CCP services, and therefore, such trades can be subject to greater risk of settlement fails.
FICC states that its members have expressed an interest in FICC acting as CCP for the Start Leg of same-day starting repos.
FICC believes that the Same-Day Starting Service could increase settlement efficiencies and decrease settlement risk because it would eliminate the movement of securities between members by centralizing the settlement of the Start Leg of same-day starting repos with FICC.
FICC proposes to make participation in the proposed Same-Day Settling Service voluntary for Repo Brokers. Repo Brokers often provide a suite of services to their clients, including facilitating the bilateral settlement of the Start Leg of same-day starting repos. FICC states that a requirement on Repo Brokers to participate in the Same-Day Settling Service could disrupt the current service offerings from Repo Brokers to their clients.
For FICC's members that are not Repo Brokers, participation in the Same-Day Settling Service would be mandatory. Unlike Repo Brokers, FICC's individual members submit trade details with respect to their own side of a trade only, such that Trade Comparison only occurs after FICC validates the trade details submitted by both parties to the trade.
For purposes of the Proposed Rule Change, same-day starting repos would include As-Of Trades,
Currently, the Start Leg of an As-Of Trade settles outside of FICC. An End Leg scheduled to settle on the current business day also settles outside of FICC. However, an End Leg scheduled to settle on a date after the current business day settles with FICC acting as CCP. FICC proposes to act as CCP with respect to both the Start and End Legs of a same-day starting repo, regardless of the timing of the respective scheduled settlement dates.
As mentioned above, netting in the DVP Service occurs the night before the scheduled settlement date. Because settlement of Start Legs within the Same-Day Settling Service would occur on the same business day as Trade Comparison, such transactions would generally not be netted.
FICC states that members occasionally execute same-day starting repos after the close of the Fedwire Securities Service (“Fedwire”), which is the service that members generally use for settling bilateral securities obligations.
Specifically, for members that clear at FICC's clearing bank, FICC would attempt to settle any same-day starting repos that are compared between 3:01 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., provided that (1) FICC is able to contact the parties to the trade and FICC's clearing bank, and (2) the parties and FICC's clearing bank agree to settle the trade. For members that do not clear at FICC's clearing bank, FICC proposes to attempt to settle, on a reasonable efforts basis, same-day starting repos that are compared during the Fedwire reversal period between 3:01 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., provided that (1) FICC is able to contact FICC's clearing bank and the parties to the trade, (2) FICC's clearing bank and the parties to the trade confirm agreement to settle the trade, and (3) FICC's clearing bank, the member's clearing bank, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York each permit settlement of the trade.
FICC proposes changes to several Rule provisions to ensure the relevant applicability of such provisions to the Same-Day Settling Service. FICC proposes to add a newly defined term “Same-Day Settling Trade” to capture the universe of DVP repos that would be covered by the Same-Day Settling Service. FICC proposes to modify the definitions of “Deliver Obligation” and “Receive Obligation” to include references to Same-Day Settling Trades. FICC proposes to modify the definitions of “Settlement Value” and “System Value” to contemplate that Same-Day Settling Trades could settle at Contract Value or System Value, depending on the circumstances of the trade, as described above.
FICC proposes to incorporate Same-Day Settling Trades into the existing Rule provisions governing the Comparison System and Netting System. FICC proposes to add Rule provisions addressing eligibility requirements for Same-Day Settling Trades to qualify for FICC's novation and settlement guarantee. FICC proposes to incorporate Same-Day Settling Trades into the Rule provisions governing how parties satisfy their obligations to FICC, including trades that become uncompared or canceled. FICC proposes to incorporate Same-Day Settling Trades into the Rule provisions dealing with settlement fails. Finally, FICC proposes to include appropriate cross-references to ensure that various Rule provisions related to general securities settlement apply to Same-Day Settling Trades.
Settlement fails occur because one party does not have inventory to settle with the other party on the scheduled settlement date. Currently, a member's obligations that remain unsettled when the Fedwire closes go through FICC's overnight netting system for settlement the following business day, and the member is subject to FICC's fails charge.
FICC proposes an optional service for members whereby FICC would pair-off a member's offsetting failed securities settlement obligations each day, beginning at 3:32 p.m. (shortly after the Fedwire closes) until 4:00 p.m. (the “Pair-Off Service”). Additionally, the member would receive either a debit or credit, as applicable, to account for any difference in the settlement value of its deliver and receive obligations as part of FICC's intraday funds-only settlement (“FOS”) process. Therefore, the proposed Pair-Off Service would enable participating members to settle their obligations on the day they arise, rather than continuing to the next day as unsettled failed obligations, as they would under the current practice. Failed obligations that remain unsettled overnight present market risk exposure to both FICC and the parties to such trades. FICC believes that by enabling the earlier settlement of a member's offsetting obligations, the proposed Pair-Off Service could reduce such overnight market risk.
FICC proposes to start the Pair-Off Service at approximately 3:32 p.m., and provide FOS banks with their intraday net FOS figures by 4:00 p.m. for acknowledgement by 4:30 p.m. Accordingly, FICC proposes to change the timing of FOS processing from the current time of 3:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. to enable FICC to settle any net money differences that would arise from the proposed Pair-Off Service.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
As described above in Section I.A., FICC currently acts as CCP for only the End Leg of a same-day starting DVP repo transaction. The Start Leg currently settles bilaterally outside of FICC
Additionally, as discussed above in Section I.A., trades facilitated by a Repo Broker that settle outside of FICC require multiple bilateral securities movements between the parties to the trade and the Repo Broker. The greater the number of bilateral securities movements involved in trade settlement, the greater the potential for operational risk resulting in settlement fails. FICC currently manages the risk of a failed Start Leg for a brokered repo by assuming responsibility for trade settlement on the evening of the original scheduled settlement date. While this approach decreases further settlement risk, it neither prevents the original settlement fail nor does it eliminate the multiple bilateral securities movements for settling the Start Leg until after a settlement fail. For participating Repo Brokers, the Same-Day Settling Service would eliminate the bilateral securities movements and the associated risk of settlement fails because FICC would novate and guarantee settlement of the Start Leg upon Trade Comparison. As a result, the Commission believes that the Same-Day Settling Service is designed to improve efficiency in the settlement process for brokered DVP repos and thereby reduce the risk of settlement fails.
The Commission believes that the proposed Same-Day Settling Service should increase efficiency in FICC's settlement process for DVP repos and reduce the operational risk associated with bilateral settlement that can lead to settlement fails. Streamlining the settlement process for DVP repos and reducing the operational risk that can lead to settlement fails should, in turn, (i) promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and (ii) remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed Same-Day Settling Service is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Finally, as discussed above in Section I.C., the proposed Pair-Off Service would enable participating members to settle their offsetting failed securities settlement obligations each day after the Fedwire closes. FICC's current process is for such failed obligations to go through the evening netting system, with settlement rescheduled for the following business day. The Commission believes that the proposed Pair-Off Service represents a more efficient process for resolving failed settlement obligations because settlement would occur on the day they arise, rather than continuing as settlement fails to the next business day. Streamlining the process for resolving failed securities settlement obligations to enable earlier settlement and minimize settlement fails should, in turn, (i) promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and (ii) remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed Pair-Off Service is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
When a CCP novates a trade and takes offsetting and guaranteed positions between the two original parties to the trade, the length of time from novation to trade settlement may affect the CCP's exposure to credit, market, and liquidity risk.
As described above, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to reduce settlement fails in the DVP repo market. Specifically, as described above in Section I.A., FICC currently acts as CCP for only the End Leg of a same-day starting DVP repo. Trades that settle bilaterally outside of FICC are generally exposed to more operational risk and consequently may result in more settlement fails than trades which are novated and risk-managed by FICC in its role as CCP.
Finally, as discussed above in Section I.C., the proposed Pair-Off Service would enable participating members to settle their offsetting failed securities settlement obligations each day after the Fedwire closes as opposed to allowing such failed obligations to go through the evening netting system, with settlement rescheduled for the following business day. Failed obligations that remain unsettled overnight present market risk exposure to both FICC and the parties to such trades. By enabling the earlier settlement of a member's offsetting obligations, the proposed Pair-Off Service could reduce such overnight market risk.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that FICC designed the proposed Same-Day Settling Service and Pair-Off Service to limit the occurrence and effects of settlement fails, and thereby, reduce FICC's exposure to the associated credit, market, and liquidity risks. Reducing such risks would help FICC assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control. Accordingly, the Commision believes the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, and have the covered clearing agency's management regularly review the efficiency and effectiveness of its (i) clearing and settlement arrangements, (ii) operating structure, including risk management policies, procedures and systems, and (iii) scope of products cleared or settled.
As discussed above in Section I.B, the proposed Same-Day Settling Service would eliminate bilateral settlements between the parties to the Start Leg of a DVP repo and allow FICC to settle both the Start and End Legs of a DVP Repo. In that regard, the proposed Same-Day Settling Service represents a more efficient and effective settlement process than FICC's current process, which generally includes bilateral settlement of the Start Leg. FICC designed the Same-Day Settling Service in response to requests from its members, to mitigate the operational risk that can result in settlement fails. As discussed above, if not contained, settlement fails can spread to other market participants and undermine the liquidity of a well-functioning market.
Moreover, as discussed above in Section I.C, the proposed Pair-Off Service would enable participating members to settle their offsetting failed securities settlement obligations each day, shortly after the Fedwire closes. Under FICC's current process, such failed obligations go through the evening netting system, with settlement rescheduled for the following business day. The proposed Pair-Off Service represents a more efficient process for resolving failed settlement obligations because settlement would occur on the day the obligations arise, rather than continuing as settlement fails to the next business day. As discussed above, failed obligations that remain unsettled overnight present market risk exposure to both FICC and the parties to such trades. By enabling earlier settlement of a member's offsetting obligations, the proposed Pair-Off Service could reduce such overnight market risk. Accordingly, the Commission believes that adopting the proposed Pair-Off Service would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice; request for comment.
The Small Business Administration has submitted the following information collection: Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Submit comments on or before: February 25, 2021.
Submit comments by the deadline stated in the
•
• Amber Chaudhry, Customer Experience Lead,
Submit requests for additional information, including requests for copies of the collection instrument and supporting documents to Amber Chaudhry, Customer Experience Lead,
This proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving customer service delivery as discussed in Section 280 of OMB Circular A-11 at
These results will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on
As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
• The collections are voluntary.
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes.
Upon agreement between OMB and the agency all or a subset of information may be released as part of A-11, Section 280 requirements only on
These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency, its customers, stakeholders, and OMB as it monitors agency compliance on Section 280. These responses will inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on services will be unavailable.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by February 25, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Ashley Awwad by email at:
HAI believes this collection is a valuable opportunity and will be an effective source of information to inform FAA. NAAA commented that it is vital that a safe, low-altitude airspace exist for all users and advocates for pilots of UAS operations to hold a pilot certificate. NAAA added that the proposed collection would support establishing the minimum knowledge, skills, abilities, testing, and staffing procedures required for operating UAS. Similarly, the Small UAV Coalition supports the proposed collection recognizing the benefits of establishing minimum requirements in terms of aeronautical knowledge and in-flight practical training and testing for remote pilots conducting air carrier operations and suggests adjustments are necessary from existing remote pilot certificate requirements for operations conducted under 14 CFR part 107.
Three of these commenters included recommendations for who should be eligible to respond to the survey. HAI suggested the FAA seek responses from the broadest possible cross-section of operations. HAI noted that many legacy rotorcraft organizations conducting a wide variety of operations have integrated UAS into their operations with more expected to follow. Data gathered from persons with experience in both manned and unmanned operations could be valuable. NAAA recommended that respondents include pilots with manned aircraft experience in operating around UAS, specifically those that normally conduct operations in low-altitude environments, though not necessarily experienced in flying unmanned aircraft.
The FAA agrees that information from a broad cross-section of the aviation industry is important in gathering the data it seeks with this collection. The survey is designed such that respondents can indicate which area of the industry they represent. This will aid in understanding the more specific information gathered in the survey regarding knowledge, skill, training, testing, and fatigue-related policies and procedures. The FAA has specifically included some of the recommended industries of agriculture, infrastructure, and emergency response. If a respondent's industry is not part of the generated listed, they will have the opportunity to write it in. Because of the UAS-specific information and experience we are seeking, we are requiring that the respondents have some kind of work-related experience with unmanned aircraft or that their organization currently operates or plans to operate unmanned aircraft commercially.
The Small UAV Coalition noted in its comments that the FAA did not explain how it arrived at the estimate of 180 respondents. The Small UAV Coalition believes the survey should include Part 107 waiver holders because of the experience they have in complex UAS operations, particularly those beyond the line of sight of the remote pilot.
The FAA arrived at the estimate of 180 respondents due to both statistical reasons and prior experience with survey data collections. The requirement for 180 respondents represents a sufficient amount needed to draw reliable and valid conclusions from the data while reducing the American public's paperwork burden as much as possible. Exceeding this number will not be problematic from a statistical viewpoint, and given that the survey is being distributed electronically, should not be a problem from a paperwork burden viewpoint as well. The FAA has generated a list of potential respondents to invite for participation, which helped to estimate the potential number. However, the number of respondents is not limited to only those on that list. The survey link can be forwarded or made available to others. Acknowledging the comments received regarding distribution and who it should include, the FAA will provide the survey link to NAAA, HAI, and the Small UAV Coalition by means of an invitational email. Enclosed in the invitational email is a survey link that states, “You may forward this survey to your colleagues and peers who meet this criteria, even if you do not.” Thus, these organizations can then email the survey invitation to their membership as they deem appropriate given the information the FAA has provided. Due to privacy concerns, the FAA will neither share nor accept participant contact lists but will encourage the organization to share the survey link with individuals who meet the survey criteria.
The Small UAV Coalition also suggested that the academic experts should include those “who have examined how fatigue may occur while a human operates a machine with increasing levels of autonomy as well as complexity in tasks” noting that these experts may not have experience with UAS operations, but their information may be valuable.
The FAA appreciates the suggestion and agrees that the fatigue information recommended would be valuable but such information exceeds the scope of the survey. The FAA has other research tasks that better capture this type of fatigue information. This particular survey is seeking operation-specific details and policies that organizations may have concerning time on duty in relationship to tasks, and other fatigue-related policies. As noted previously, this survey would not prevent someone with that kind of expertise from responding, but the questions are not designed to capture other research that is available.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F,
Stacey Zee, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation
The FAA is the lead agency. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Space Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service are cooperating agencies for the PEA due to their special expertise and jurisdictions.
The FAA has prepared the Final PEA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the FAA issuing a Reentry Site Operator License to Space Florida for the operation of a commercial space reentry site at the SLF located at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport, which includes the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (formerly called the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station). Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a Reentry Site Operator License to Space Florida, which would authorize Space Florida to offer the SLF as a horizontal reentry and landing site to prospective commercial space reentry vehicle operators.
A programmatic document is a type of general, broad environmental review from which subsequent NEPA documents can be tiered, focusing on the issues specific to the subsequent action (40 CFR 1502.20). If a commercial space operator applies to the FAA for a reentry license to conduct reentry operations at the SLF, that operator would develop a separate environmental document, tiering off the PEA, to support their application. The tiered environmental document would be a more detailed analysis based on vehicle specific operations.
The Final PEA evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a Reentry Site Operator License to Space Florida for operating a commercial space reentry site at the SLF.
The FAA published a Draft PEA for public comment on October 30, 2020 and held a virtual public meeting on December 2, 2020. The public comment period closed on December 7, 2020. The FAA received 3 public comments. The FAA considered all public comments when preparing the Final PEA.
The FAA has posted the Final PEA and FONSI on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The collection involves operators and owners of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) issued an airworthiness certificate under Part 21, and mandates that these entities must retain records of all maintenance performed on their aircraft and records documenting the status of life-limited parts, compliance with airworthiness directives, and inspection status of the aircraft. These records are used to validate that aircraft are maintained in a manner that ensures the reliability associated with having an airworthiness certificate and that the operations-over-people privileges afforded to category 4 operations continue to be appropriate. The owner or operator may keep these records electronically or by paper.
Written comments should be submitted by March 29, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Michael Machnik by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 16, 2021.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-1127 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Linda Lane, (202) 267-7280, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before February 25, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2021-0002 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Russell Haynes, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-3157, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel Euphoria is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2021-0002 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
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, to
By Order of the Associate Administrator for Strategic Sealift in lieu of the Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before February 25, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2021-0003 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Russell Haynes, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-461, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-3157, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PA860 is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2021-0003 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
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, to
By Order of the Associate Administrator for Strategic Sealift in lieu of the Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of petition.
On July 10, 2017, Takata Corporation (“Takata”) filed a defect information report (“DIR”) in which it determined that a safety-related defect exists in phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate (“PSAN”) driver-side air bag inflators that it manufactured with a calcium sulfate desiccant and supplied to Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Mazda North American Operations (“Mazda”), and Nissan North America Inc. (“Nissan”) for use in certain vehicles. Mazda's vehicles identified by Takata's DIR were designed by Ford and were built on the same platform and using the same air bag inflators as one of the affected Ford vehicles. Mazda petitioned the Agency for a decision that the equipment defect determined to exist by Takata is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety in the Mazda vehicles affected by Takata's DIR, and that Mazda should therefore be relieved of its notification and remedy obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and its applicable regulations. After reviewing the petition, NHTSA has concluded that Mazda has not met its burden of establishing that the defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and denies the petition.
For further information about this decision, contact Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W41-229, Washington, DC 20590 (Tel. 202.366.2262).
For general information about NHTSA's investigation into Takata air bag inflator ruptures and the related recalls, visit
The Takata air bag inflator recalls (“Takata recalls”) are the largest and most complex vehicle recalls in U.S. history. These recalls currently involve 19 vehicle manufacturers and approximately 67 million Takata air bag inflators in tens of millions of vehicles in the United States alone. The recalls are due to a design defect, whereby the propellant used in Takata's air bag inflators degrades after long-term exposure to high humidity and temperature cycling. During air bag deployment, this propellant degradation can cause the inflator to over-pressurize, causing sharp metal fragments (like shrapnel) to penetrate the air bag and enter the vehicle compartment. To date, these rupturing Takata inflators have resulted in the deaths of 18 people across the United States
In May 2015, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, a Consent Order,
The Coordinated Remedy Order, which established the Coordinated Remedy, is available at:
Under the Coordinated Remedy, vehicles are prioritized for repair parts based on various factors relevant to the safety risk—primarily on vehicle model year (MY), as a proxy for inflator age, and geographic region. In the early stages of the Takata inflator recalls, affected vehicles were categorized as belonging to one of two regions: The High Absolute Humidity (“HAH”) region (largely inclusive of Gulf Coast states and tropical island states and territories), or the non-HAH region (inclusive of the remaining states and the District of Columbia). On May 4, 2016, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, an amendment to the November 3, 2015 Consent Order (“ACO”), wherein these geographic regions were refined based on improved understanding of the risk, and were then categorized as Zones A, B, and C. Zone A encompasses the higher risk HAH region as well as certain other states,
While the Takata recalls to date have been limited almost entirely to Takata PSAN inflators that do not contain a desiccant (a drying agent)—
In February 2016, NHTSA requested Ford's assistance in evaluating Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators, to which Ford agreed.
Takata analyzed 423 such inflators from the Ford program—as well as 895 such inflators from the Nissan program.
Takata's DIR filing triggered Mazda's obligation to file a DIR for its affected vehicles.
In a Notice published in the
Two individual commenters expressed general opposition to granting the Petition. The third commenter, the Center for Auto Safety (“CAS”), emphasized the dangers that Takata air bag inflators can pose, including the PSDI-5 inflators at issue in Mazda's Petition. CAS also stated a concern that granting Mazda's Petition “would effectively serve as a decision that these inflators are exempt from future recall should additional PSAN testing prove a danger.”
On October 26, 2018, at an in-person meeting with NHTSA, Ford shared additional information in support of its own separate petition for the covered Ford inflators,
Mazda's Petition involves 5,848 vehicles that contain the covered Mazda inflators.
The defect is present in Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the “Safety Act”), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, defines “motor vehicle safety” as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
“Inconsequential” is not defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's regulations, and so must be interpreted based on its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.”
The House Conference Report indicates that the Department of Transportation planned to define “inconsequentiality” through a regulation; however, it did not do so.
The statutory context is also relevant to the meaning of “inconsequential.”
On application of a manufacturer, the Secretary shall exempt the manufacturer from this section if the Secretary decides a defect or noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Secretary may take action under this subsection only after notice in the
As described above, the statute defines “motor vehicle safety” to mean “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents . . . and
The statute explicitly allows a manufacturer to seek an exemption from carrying out a recall on the basis that either a defect or a noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Given this statutory context, a manufacturer bears a heavy burden in petitioning NHTSA to determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety (which necessarily involves an unreasonable risk of an accident, or death or injury in an accident) is nevertheless inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In accordance with the plain meaning of “inconsequential,” the manufacturer must show that a risk posed by a defect is not important or is capable of being ignored. This appropriately describes the actual consequence of granting a petition as well. The manufacturer would be relieved of its statutory obligations to notify vehicle owners and to remedy the defect, and effectively to ignore the defect as unimportant from a safety perspective. Accordingly, the threshold of evidence necessary for a manufacturer to carry its burden of persuasion that a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety is difficult to satisfy. This is particularly true where the defect involves a potential failure of safety-critical equipment, as is the case here.
The Agency necessarily determines whether a defect or noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the specific facts before it. The scarcity of defect-related inconsequentiality petitions over the course of the Agency's history reflects the heavy burden of persuasion, as well as the general understanding among regulated entities that the grant of such relief would be quite rare. The Agency has recognized this explicitly in the past. For example, in 2002, NHTSA stated that “[a]lthough NHTSA's empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual.”
Of the four known occasions in which the Agency has previously considered
On the other hand, NHTSA denied another petition concerning a vehicle's weight label where there was a potential safety impact. NHTSA denied that petition from National Coach Corporation on the basis that the rear gross axle weight rating (RGAWR) for its buses was too low and could lead to overloading of the rear axle if the buses were fully loaded with passengers.
NHTSA also denied a petition asserting that a defect was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety where the defect involved premature corrosion of critical structure components (the vehicle's undercarriage), which could result in a crash or loss of vehicle control.
Most recently, the Agency denied a petition asserting that a defect in non-desiccated Takata PSAN air bag inflators was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, where the defect involved the degradation of inflator propellant that could cause the inflator to over-pressurize during air bag deployment—causing metal fragments to penetrate the air bag and enter the vehicle compartment toward vehicle occupants.
Agency practice over several decades therefore shows that inconsequentiality petitions are rarely filed in the defect context, and virtually never granted. Nonetheless, in light of the importance of the issues here, and the fact that Mazda's defect notification was filed in response to the notification provided by Mazda's supplier, the Agency also considered the potential usefulness of the Agency's precedent on noncompliance. The same legal standard—“inconsequential to motor vehicle safety”—applies to both defects and noncompliances.
In the noncompliance context, in some instances, NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of demonstrating that a noncompliance was inconsequential to safety. For example, labels intended to provide safety advice to an occupant that may have a misspelled word, or that may be printed in the wrong format or the wrong type size, have been deemed inconsequential where they should not cause any misunderstanding, especially where other sources of correct information are available.
However, the burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise protect.
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality petition.
Mazda contends that “[Ford] Ranger data is representative of B-Series”: The “2007-2011 Ford Ranger and 2007-2009 Mazda B-Series vehicles are built on identical platforms and use identical airbag inflators” and, therefore, “Ford's discussion of Takata's testing and analysis on 2007-2008 MY Ford Ranger vehicles should apply with equal force to 2007-2009 MY Mazda B-Series.”
Taking into account Mazda's Petition and the information presented by Ford to the Agency in October 2018 and November 2020,
Ford undertook a statistical analysis of data in the Master Engineering Analysis File (“MEAF”),
The first chart is of box plots of primary-chamber pressures of covered Ford inflators by age, for which it is asserted that there is “[n]o significant trend of primary pressure increase with inflator age.”
According to Ford and Mazda, Takata analyzed 1,992 calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators returned from the field from Ford vehicles, which included 1,008 inflators from Ford Ranger vehicles
The nature or results of this ballistic testing and live dissection were not much further explained in the October 2018 or the November 2020 Presentations. The Petition does, however, further describe such analyses with respect to the approximately 423 inflators from Ford Rangers that Takata had analyzed at that point.
When Mazda filed its Petition, Takata had analyzed over 1,300 of its calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators: the approximately 423 inflators from Ford Rangers, and the remainder from Nissan Versa vehicles.
The Petition asserts that about 360 live dissections of the Ford Ranger inflators demonstrated “consistent inflator output performance”—specifically, that measurements of ignition-tablet discoloration, “generate” density,
The Petition contends that the conclusions therein are further supported by forty-seven ballistic deployment tests that showed no inflator exceeding the production primary-chamber pressure performance specifications.
The Petition contends that “[t]here are significant design differences” in the covered Ford inflators when compared to the covered Nissan inflators, and that such differences may explain differences observed between the inflator variants in generate properties and during testing.
Northrop Grumman (“NG”) analyzed covered Ford inflators, results of which were presented to the Agency
Specifically, NG undertook 58 dissections, 138 tank tests, MEAF analysis, design comparisons, CT scans, and ballistic modeling. The inflators subject to dissection and tank tests included inflators from Ford Rangers (2006-2007, prefix ZN) and Fusions (2006-2008, prefix ZQ) in South Florida; Edges (2006-2008, prefix ZQ) in South Florida and Georgia; Rangers (2006-2007, prefix ZN) in Arizona, Rangers in Michigan (2006-2008, prefix ZN); and virgin inflators (prefixes ZN and ZQ).
NG also completed probability-of-failure projections for the covered Ford inflators under its inflator aging model, on which Ford and Mazda updated the Agency in November 2020.
According to Ford and Mazda, NG performed various assessments related to live dissections of inflators:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NG developed ballistic models “to investigate the observed performance behavior of Ford PSDI-5 ZN and ZQ inflators and to evaluate the potential sensitivity of the inflators to certain design deviations.”
NG analyzed MEAF data up to February 2018 to determine whether covered Ford inflators had energetic deployment (“ED”) rates were dependent on platform, inflator age, climate zone, or other factors.
In the November 2020 Presentation to the Agency, Ford and Mazda cite NG's PSAN Inflator Test Program and Predictive Aging Model Final Report from October 2019 (“NG Model”),
Ford and Mazda then assert that the earliest Fusion/Milan/MKZ vehicles equipped with the covered Ford inflators were built in 2005, and that if those vehicles perform as T3 vehicles, the earliest calendar year for a 1 in 10,000 probability of failure is 2031 for a 1% usage vehicle.
Ford and Mazda build on these assertions by stating that “for a rupture to occur the vehicle must be in service and experience a crash resulting in airbag deployment,” and that based on vehicle attrition and crash statistics, Ford and Mazda do not project a field event at twenty-six years of service.
Ford and Mazda therefore state that the earliest a vehicle in a Miami-type environment may reach a .01% probability of failure is over a decade in the future for a 1%-usage T3 vehicle and that, in other words, “the predictive model suggests that no inflator ruptures are expected to occur for at least 26 years of cumulative exposure in the worst case environment, worst case vehicle configuration, and worst case customer usage” (
Ford and Mazda also make several other observations, including that:
• “[s]tudying parts prior to approximately 16-18 years in service would not identify meaningful inflator aging information” (
• the ITC, in coordination with NG, is conducting a surveillance program for desiccated Takata PSAN inflators, and data gathered from that program can validate the NG models;
• “[w]ith newer inflators that have not yet shown signs of aging, there is a significant opportunity for improving the fidelity and accuracy of the model with enhanced anchoring data”; and
• there is time for a separate surveillance program for the covered Ford inflators “well before any potential risk is projected” after the results of NG's surveillance program that are expected in 2021.
Ford and Mazda conclude that they “believe[] that the current data indicates that the subject inflators do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that it supports granting the petition.”
According to Ford and Mazda, an additional Third Party found that no pressure excursions were detected in the covered Ford inflators analyzed to date.
Mazda's seeks through its Petition and supporting analysis to show that the covered Mazda inflators are not at risk of rupture such that the defect is inconsequential to safety. First, as noted above, when taking into consideration the Agency's noncompliance precedent, an important factor is also the severity of the consequence of the defect were it to occur—
Second, as a general matter, at various points Mazda's Petition implicitly appears to adopt the covered Nissan inflators as a standard for
Relatedly, the argument regarding “design differences” between the covered Ford and covered Nissan inflators appears to be more of an identification of areas for further study or potential explanation—not a standalone argument in support of an inconsequentiality determination. Design differences are identified “that
In addition to these issues, signs of aging were observed in the covered Ford inflators; the sample sizes used for the analyses were limited; and there are shortcomings regarding various analyses that undermine their conclusions—including some information that was missing or unclear. The probability-of-failure projections are also unpersuasive, and notably belied by the limited evidence available from ballistic testing and analysis on real-world field returns of the covered Ford inflators. These additional issues are discussed below.
Ford and Mazda admit that signs of aging were observed in the covered Ford inflators. While this is indirectly dismissed as a non-issue—with the conclusion that there is no degradation “that would signal either an imminent or developing risk to safety”—aging leads to degradation, which leads to risk of inflator rupture. Further, the 2004 propellant that is present in the covered Mazda inflators degrades until, at some point, it no longer burns normally, but in an accelerated and unpredictable manner that can cause an inflator rupture. “The purpose of the Safety Act . . . is to prevent serious injuries stemming from established defects before they occur.”
The Agency finds shortcomings in the sample sizes utilized in the analyses. The total field-return sample (for ZN and ZQ collectively) was, across the Takata, NG, and the additional Third Party analyses, less than 3,000 inflators for an affected population of over 3 million (Ford) vehicles. Ford and Mazda presented analysis from Takata of fewer than 2,000 inflators, while NG analyzed only 196, and the additional Third Party analyzed just over 100. In total, 1,460 ballistic tests are cited, which is approximately .05% of the total population in which the covered Ford and Mazda inflators were installed. Specific to the Ford Ranger, the exact sample size of ZN inflators for all analyses is less than 1,250.
Other shortcomings regarding various analyses presented here—including some information that was missing or unclear—further undermine the associated conclusions. These are identifiable in both Mazda's Petition and in the subsequent Presentations to the Agency.
As an initial matter, Mazda submitted little of the underlying data, and did not fully explain the underlying methodologies and results, associated with the arguments in its 2017 Petition. More specifically, one of the arguments in Mazda's Petition is that Takata's live dissections of covered Ford inflators does not show tablet-density degradation or increased inflation pressure, and therefore, Takata “did not identify a reduction in density trend” in the covered Ford inflators.
Mazda also provides little information about the specific inflators tested and associated results with regard to density measurements—such as actual dimensions, mass, and densities, among measurements—instead largely relying
The statistical analysis of the MEAF contains several shortcomings in the first two charts
There are also several shortcomings with the second two charts
Regarding NG's analysis, as an initial matter, over a quarter of the 196 inflators analyzed were non-aged/virgin inflators and, further, degradation would not be expected in the inflators from Michigan (from which, collectively, 55 of the inflators were obtained). Aging in inflator O-rings from this analysis is also acknowledged. In addition, there are several particular issues with NG's live dissections worth noting. Findings regarding moisture content are of limited value, and important information on the comparator prefix ZA and YT inflators—
The probability-of-failure projections are also unpersuasive. As previously described, these projections, submitted in support of Ford's Petition in November 2020, are based on the NG Model. While the projections are informative in various respects, NHTSA does not view the Model's outputs for the inflators at issue as fully squaring with the evidence available for those inflators from real-world field returns
Ford and Mazda also noted a ZN inflator tested by NG with a chamber pressure approximately 20% higher than the average of the other inflators in tank testing. The specific measurement (and measurements of other NG tests) does not appear to have been provided to the Agency.
Data from the MEAF also may suggest the beginning stages of notable density changes in propellant tablets in the covered Ford inflators with increasing field age. Recent results from primary tablets in inflators with field ages between 12 and 14 years show four inflators with density measurements near (or below) 1.68 g/cc; according to Ford, 1.64 g/cc is the point at which the PSDI-5 inflators with 2004 tablets are susceptible to energetic disassembly.
The above results from real-world field returns signal that propellant degradation in the covered Ford
Further, there are shortcomings particular to the metrics on which Mazda relies regarding the Model. Notably, Ford and Mazda contend that “there are no expected field events projected at 26 years of service.”
The relief sought here is extraordinary. Mazda's Petition is quite distinct from previous petitions discussed above relating to defective labels that may (or may not) mislead the user of the vehicle to create an unsafe condition.
NHTSA has been offered no persuasive reason to think that without a recall, even if current owners are aware of the defect and instant petition, subsequent owners of vehicles equipped with covered Mazda inflators would be made aware of the issue.
As discussed above, threshold of evidence necessary to prove the inconsequentiality of a defect such as this one—involving the potential performance failure of safety-critical equipment—is very difficult to overcome.
As noted above, at various points, Mazda's Petition appears to focus on differentiating the covered Ford inflators from the covered Nissan inflators—not directly answering the question of whether the defect in the covered Ford inflators (and the covered Mazda inflators) is, on its own merits, inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. It was similarly argued in subsequent materials that the covered Ford inflators compared favorably to another inflator variant of the same type, and even to non-desiccated inflators. These comparisons do not suffice for an inconsequentiality determination. Relatedly, the argument regarding design differences does not suffice to support an inconsequentiality determination. This argument, furthermore, was not persuasively connected to meaningful improved performance in generate-properties and pressure differences (and even if it had
As a general matter, signs of aging were observed, which leads to propellant degradation, which leads to inflator rupture—and the 2004 propellant that is present in the covered Mazda inflators degrades until, at some point, it no longer burns normally, but in an accelerated and unpredictable manner that can cause an inflator rupture. Perhaps most importantly, even with the limited testing evidence available, ballistic testing of field returns of the covered Ford inflators includes three inflator deployments with primary-chamber pressures between 60 and 70 MPa—coming from two ZQ inflators with a field age between 12 and 13 years (one of which exhibited a pressure of 68 MPa), and one ZN inflator with a field age between 10 and 11 years. Data from the MEAF also appears to indicate the beginning stages of density changes in propellant tablets in the inflators with increasing field age. These results from real-world field returns signal that propellant degradation is occurring, and belie the probability-of-failure projections provided in November 2020 (which have their own additional shortcomings that would lead to an understatement of the potential risk).
Given the severity of the consequence of propellant degradation in these air bag inflators—the rupture of the inflator and metal shrapnel sprayed at vehicle occupants—a finding of inconsequentiality to safety demands extraordinarily robust and persuasive evidence. What Mazda presents here, while valuable and informative in certain respects, suffers from far too many shortcomings, both when the evidence is assessed individually and in its totality, to demonstrate that the defect in covered Mazda inflators is not important or can otherwise be ignored as a matter of safety.
In consideration of the forgoing, NHTSA has decided Mazda has not demonstrated that the defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mazda's Petition is hereby denied, and Mazda is obligated to provide notification of, and a remedy for, the defect pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. Within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, Ford shall submit to NHTSA a proposed schedule for the notification of vehicle owners and the launch of a remedy required to fulfill those obligations.
49 U.S.C. 30101,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for special permit received from the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by February 25, 2021.
Comments should reference the docket number for this special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
PHMSA received a special permit request from NGPL, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and (d): Change in class location:
The proposed special permit would allow NGPL to uprate the Gulf Coast Line #1 and Gulf Coast Line #2 Pipelines from a current 715 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) to an 858 psig MAOP. The pipeline MAOP uprating is for a new NGPL 2021 contractual obligation to deliver 300,000 dekatherms per day of incremental natural gas volumes to the Cheniere Corpus Christi, Texas Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal.
The Gulf Coast Line #1 Pipeline was constructed between 1951 and 1973. The Gulf Coast Line #2 Pipeline was constructed between 1962 and 1982.
The special permit request, proposed special permit with conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the NGPL Gulf Coast Lines #1 and #2 Pipelines are available for review and public comments in Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0151. PHMSA invites interested persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
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 must be received on or before February 25, 2021.
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 must be received on or before February 25, 2021.
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 programs and compliance procedures. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR chapter X. The authority of the Secretary to administer the BSA has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Under 31 U.S.C. 5314, the Secretary is authorized to require any “resident or citizen of the United States or a person in, and doing business in, the United States, to . . . keep records and file reports, when the resident, citizen, or person makes a transaction or maintains a relation for any person with a foreign financial agency.” The term “foreign financial agency” encompasses the activities found in the statutory definition of “financial agency,” notably, “a person acting for a person as a financial institution, bailee, depository trustee, or agent, or acting in a similar way related to money, credit, securities, gold, or a transaction in money, credit, securities, or gold.” The Secretary is also authorized to prescribe exemptions to the reporting requirement and to prescribe other matters the Secretary considers necessary to carry out 31 U.S.C. 5314.
The regulations implementing 31 U.S.C. 5314 appear at 31 CFR 1010.350, 1010.306, and 1010.420. Section 1010.350 generally requires each U.S. person having a financial interest in, or signature or other authority over, a bank, securities, or other financial account in a foreign country to report such relationship to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for each year such relationship exists, and to provide and report such information specified in a reporting form prescribed under 31 U.S.C. 5314. The FinCEN Report 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), is used to file the information required by this section. The FBAR must be filed electronically with FinCEN and can be completed by accessing FinCEN's BSA E-filing System website:
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 must be received on or before February 25, 2021.
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 Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA), Public Law 113-159, was enacted on August 8, 2014, and was effective retroactively for single employer defined benefit pension plans, optional for plan years beginning in 2013 and mandatory for plan years beginning in 2014.
Section 3608(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 116-136 provides that for purposes of applying § 436 of the Code (and § 206(g) of ERISA), a sponsor of a single-employer defined benefit pension plan may elect to treat the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, as the AFTAP for plan years that include calendar year 2020. Notice 2020-61, in part, provides guidance on the rules relating to this election.
Section 115(a) of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), Division O of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-94, added new § 430(m) to the Code to permit the plan sponsor of a community newspaper plan under which no participant has had an increase in accrued benefit after December 31, 2017 to elect to have alternative minimum funding standards apply to the plan in lieu of the minimum funding requirements that would otherwise apply under § 430. Pursuant to § 430(m)(2), any election under § 430(m) will be made at such time and in such manner as prescribed by the Secretary, and once an election is made with respect to a plan year, it will apply to all subsequent plan years unless revoked with the consent of the Secretary. Notice 2020-60 provides guidance regarding this election.
January 28, 2021, from Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.
This meeting will be accessible via conference call and screen sharing. Any interested person may call 877-853-5247 (US toll free), 888-788-0099 (US toll free), +1 929-205-6099 (US toll), or +1 669-900-6833 (US toll), Conference ID 981 5574 7617, to participate in the meeting.
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the “Board”) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of the meeting will include:
The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and facilitate self-introductions.
The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via email followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the
For Discussion and Possible Action.
Agenda will be reviewed and the Board will consider adoption.
For Discussion and Possible Action.
Draft Minutes of the December 10, 2020 UCR Board meeting will be reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.
For Discussion and Possible Action.
There are five members of the UCR Board of Directors whose terms expire on May 31, 2021. Four of these Directors have requested re-appointment for additional three-year terms. The remaining Director is willing to continue to serve until a successor is appointed. In addition, one Director from among the chief administrative officers of the state agencies responsible for overseeing administration of the UCR Agreement who is from the Federal Motor Carrier Service Administration's Midwestern service area has tendered her resignation from the UCR Board effective February 19, 2021. The UCR Board will discuss re-appointments and appointments to the UCR Board for these positions and may take action to approve candidates for recommendation to the United States Department of Transportation.
The UCR Executive Director will provide an update on the scheduled Board and Subcommittee meetings for 2021.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will provide a report on any relevant activity.
The UCR Board Chair will call for any updates regarding UCR legislation since the last Board meeting.
The UCR Chief Legal Officer will provide an update on the status of the March 2019 data event, the Twelve Percent Logistics litigation, cease and desist letters sent to third party permitting service providers, and other matters.
The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will discuss with the Board next steps regarding the 2019 Audit Deficiencies of Idaho and Utah.
For Discussion and Possible Action.
The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion regarding the MCS-150 retreat audit program provided by UCR and the progress made with participating states. States may opt into the program. States will remain engaged in the audit process but may have a lesser burden of having to attend to unresponsive/unproductive retreat audits.
The UCR Technology Manager will discuss plans to conduct a protocol of tests of the National Registration System (NRS) to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to resist unwanted attacks against the NRS. A highly experienced and qualified contractor has been selected to provide the appropriate testing.
For Discussion and Possible Action.
The UCR Depository Manager will discuss the CD maturing on February 5, 2021 and outline potential re-investment opportunities to the Board. The UCR Board may take action to re-invest the funds.
The UCR Depository Manager will review the UCR Bank Balance Summary Report as of December 31, 2020 and answer questions from the Board.
The UCR Depository Manager will present the administrative costs incurred for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, compared to the budget for the same time-period, and discuss all significant variances.
The UCR Depository Manager will provide updates on the results of collections and registration compliance rates for the 2020 and 2021 registration years.
The UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on the development of the Basic Audit Training Module and Flow Chart/Decision Tree.
• UCR Executive Director
The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering recent activity for the UCR Plan.
• DSL Transportation Services, Inc.
DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data from the FARs program, discuss motor carrier inspection results, and other matters.
• Seikosoft
Seikosoft will provide an update on recent/new activity related to the NRS.
• UCR Administrator Report (Kellen)—UCR Operations and Depository Managers
The UCR Staff will provide its management report covering recent activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.
The UCR Board Chair will call for any business, old or new, from the floor.
The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
This agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, January 21, 2021 at:
Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors, (617) 305-3783,
(b) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator shall, as necessary, convene appropriate representatives from relevant agencies to coordinate the agencies' collection, provision, and analysis of data, including key equity indicators, regarding the COVID-19 response, as well as their sharing of such data with State, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities.
(c) The Director of OMB, in consultation with the Director of OSTP, the United States Chief Technology Officer, and the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, shall promptly review the Federal Government's existing approaches to open data, and shall issue supplemental guidance, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, concerning how to de-identify COVID-19-related data; how to make data open to the public in human- and machine-readable formats as rapidly as possible; and any other topic the Director of OMB concludes would appropriately advance the policy of this order. Any guidance shall include appropriate protections for the information described in section 5 of this order.
(d) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Director of OMB, shall promptly:
(a) review the effectiveness, interoperability, and connectivity of public health data systems supporting the detection of and response to high-consequence public health threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic;
(b) review the collection of morbidity and mortality data by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments during high-consequence public health threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic; and
(c) issue a report summarizing the findings of the reviews detailed in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and any recommendations for addressing areas for improvement identified in the reviews.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a)
(b)
(A) recommendations for how agencies and State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials can best allocate COVID-19 resources, in light of disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality in certain communities and disparities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, and other factors, to the extent permitted by law;
(B) recommendations for agencies with responsibility for disbursing COVID-19 relief funding regarding how to disburse funds in a manner that advances equity; and
(C) recommendations for agencies regarding effective, culturally aligned communication, messaging, and outreach to communities of color and other underserved populations.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Education, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of all other agencies with authorities or responsibilities relating to the pandemic response and recovery shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:
(A) the disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality in certain communities; and
(B) any barriers that have restricted access to preventive measures, treatment, and other health services for high-risk populations;
(A) the effect of proposed policy changes on the distribution of resources to, and access to health care by, communities of color and other underserved populations;
(B) the effect of proposed policy changes on agencies' ability to collect, analyze, and report data necessary to monitor and evaluate the impact of pandemic response plans and policies on communities of color and other underserved populations; and
(C) policy priorities expressed by communities that have suffered disproportionate rates of illness and death as a result of the pandemic;
(b) The Secretary of HHS shall:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a)
(b)
(A) priority populations, including healthcare workers and other essential workers;
(B) communities with major shortages in testing availability and use;
(C) at-risk settings, including long-term care facilities, correctional facilities, immigration custodial settings, detention facilities, schools, child care settings, and food processing and manufacturing facilities; and
(D) high-risk groups, including people experiencing homelessness, migrants, and seasonal workers;
(d) The Chair of the Testing Board shall coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the heads of other relevant agencies or their designees, as necessary, to ensure that the Testing Board's work is coordinated with the Public Health Emergency Countermeasures Enterprise within HHS.
(b) The Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, shall promptly, and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:
(b) The Secretary of HHS shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, as soon as practicable:
(c) The Secretary of HHS shall submit to the President, through the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP), and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), a plan detailing:
(d) The Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, in coordination with the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, the APDP, and the APNSA, shall
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) develop a plan for supporting a range of studies, including large-scale randomized trials, for identifying optimal clinical management strategies, and for supporting the most promising treatments for COVID-19 and future high-consequence public health threats, that can be easily manufactured, distributed, and administered, both domestically and internationally;
(b) develop a plan, in consultation with non-governmental partners, as appropriate, to support research:
(c) consider steps to ensure that clinical trials include populations that have been historically underrepresented in such trials.
(a) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies), in coordination with the Coordinator of the COVID-19 Response and Counselor to the President (COVID-19 Response Coordinator), shall promptly, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, provide targeted surge assistance to critical care and long-term care facilities, including nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with disabilities, and residential treatment centers, in their efforts to combat the spread of COVID-19.
(b) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall review the needs of Federal facilities providing care to COVID-19 patients and develop recommendations for further actions such facilities can take to support active military personnel, veterans, and Tribal nations during this crisis.
(c) The Secretary of HHS shall promptly:
(b) To facilitate the utilization of existing COVID-19 treatments, the Secretary of HHS shall identify barriers to maximizing the effective and equitable use of existing COVID-19 treatments and shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, provide support to State, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities aimed at overcoming those barriers.
(c) To address the affordability of treatments and clinical care, the Secretary of HHS shall, promptly and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(A) the timing and types of COVID-19 tests that should satisfy the negative test requirement, including consideration of additional testing immediately prior to departure;
(B) the proof of test results that travelers should be required to provide;
(C) the feasibility of implementing alternative and sufficiently protective public health measures, such as testing, self-quarantine, and self-isolation on arrival, for travelers entering the United States from countries where COVID-19 tests are inaccessible, particularly where such inaccessibility of tests would affect the ability of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to return to the United States; and
(D) measures to prevent fraud.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) issue, within 2 weeks of the date of this order and in conjunction or consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), revised guidance to employers on workplace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic;
(b) consider whether any emergency temporary standards on COVID-19, including with respect to masks in the workplace, are necessary, and if such standards are determined to be necessary, issue them by March 15, 2021;
(c) review the enforcement efforts of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) related to COVID-19 and identify any short-, medium-, and long-term changes that could be made to better protect workers and ensure equity in enforcement;
(d) launch a national program to focus OSHA enforcement efforts related to COVID-19 on violations that put the largest number of workers at serious risk or are contrary to anti-retaliation principles; and
(e) coordinate with the Department of Labor's Office of Public Affairs and Office of Public Engagement and all regional OSHA offices to conduct, consistent with applicable law, a multilingual outreach campaign to inform workers and their representatives of their rights under applicable law. This campaign shall include engagement with labor unions, community organizations, and industries, and place a special emphasis on communities hit hardest by the pandemic.
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies, shall, consistent with applicable law, explore mechanisms to protect workers not protected under the Act so that they remain healthy and safe on the job during the COVID-19 pandemic.
(c) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, shall consider whether any emergency temporary standards on COVID-19 applicable to coal and metal or non-metal mines are necessary, and if such standards are determined to be necessary and consistent with applicable law, issue them as soon as practicable.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) The Secretary of Education shall, consistent with applicable law:
(b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, consistent with applicable law:
(c) The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the COVID-19 Response Coordinator identifying strategies to address the impact of COVID-19 on educational outcomes, especially along racial and socioeconomic lines, and shall share those strategies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials. In developing these strategies, the Secretaries shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consult with such officials, as well as with education experts; educators; unions; civil rights advocates; Tribal education experts; public health experts; child development experts; early educators, including child care providers; Head Start staff; school technology practitioners; foundations; families; students; community advocates; and others.
(d) The Federal Communications Commission is encouraged, consistent with applicable law, to increase connectivity options for students lacking reliable home broadband, so that they can continue to learn if their schools are operating remotely.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) Where a review and assessment described in section 2(a)(i) of this order identifies shortfalls in the provision of pandemic response supplies, the head of the relevant agency shall:
(c) Upon completing the review and assessment described in section 2(a)(i) of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide to the President, through the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, a report on the status and inventory of the Strategic National Stockpile.
(d) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of any other agencies relevant to inventorying pandemic response supplies shall, as soon as practicable, provide to the President, through the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, a report consisting of:
(e) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator, in coordination with the heads of appropriate agencies, shall review the report described in section 2(d) of this order and submit recommendations to the President that address:
(f) The heads of agencies responsible for completing the requirements of this section, as appropriate and in coordination with the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, shall consult with State, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities, as well as with other entities critical to assessing the availability of and need for pandemic response supplies.
(a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promptly recommend to the President, through the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, whether any changes should be made to the authorities delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order 13910 of March 23, 2020 (Preventing Hoarding of Health and Medical Resources To Respond to the Spread of COVID-19), with respect to scarce materials or materials the supply of which would be threatened by accumulation for the purpose of hoarding or price gouging.
(b) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly review and provide to the President, through the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, recommendations for how to address the pricing of pandemic response supplies, including whether and how to direct the use of reasonable pricing clauses in Federal contracts and investment agreements, or other related vehicles, and whether to use General Services Administration Schedules to facilitate State, local, Tribal, and territorial government buyers and compacts in purchasing pandemic response supplies using Federal supply schedules.
(a) mechanisms to respond to emergency supply needs of State, local, Tribal, and territorial authorities, which should include standards and processes to prioritize requests and delivery and to ensure equitable distribution based on public health criteria;
(b) an analysis of the role of foreign supply chains in America's pandemic supply chain, America's role in the international public health supply chain, and options for strengthening and better coordinating global supply chain systems in future pandemics;
(c) mechanisms to address points of failure in the supply chains and to ensure necessary redundancies;
(d) the roles of the Strategic National Stockpile and other Federal and military stockpiles in providing pandemic supplies on an ongoing or emergency basis, including their roles in allocating supplies across States, localities, tribes, and territories, sustaining supplies during a pandemic, and in contingency planning to ensure adequate preparedness for future pandemics and public health emergencies;
(e) approaches to assess and maximize the value and efficacy of public/private partnerships and the value of Federal investments in latent manufacturing capacity; and
(f) an approach to develop a multi-year implementation plan for domestic production of pandemic supplies.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) In particular, the recommendations should:
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Director of OMB is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the