Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
United States Mint
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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notification of preliminary injunction.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing this document to inform the public of two preliminary injunctions ordered by Federal district courts affecting the Department of Homeland Security's (the Department, or DHS) final rule entitled “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements.”
The court orders were effective September 29, 2020 and October 8, 2020.
For technical questions only: Kika Scott, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20588-0009, telephone (240) 721-3000.
On August 3, 2020, the Department published a final rule in the
On August 20, 2020, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
On September 3, 2020, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and other plaintiffs in
On September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in
On October 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted NWIRP's motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Department is complying with the terms of these orders and is not enforcing the regulatory changes set out in the Final Rule. USCIS will continue to accept the fees that were in place prior to October 2, 2020, and follow the guidance in place prior to October 2, 2020 to adjudicate fee waiver requests as provided under the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapters 10.9 and 10.10.
Any further guidance and updates regarding the subject litigation will be posted on the USCIS website
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is adopting this final rule amending its Rules of Practice and Procedure and other agency regulations to adjust each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to account for inflation, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
Frank R. Wright, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 649-3087,
FHFA is an independent agency of the Federal government, and the financial safety and soundness regulator of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises), as well as the Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the Banks) and the Office of Finance under authority granted by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Adjustment Act), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Adjustment Improvements Act), requires FHFA, as well as other federal agencies with the authority to issue civil money penalties (CMPs), to adjust by regulation the maximum amount of each CMP authorized by law that the agency has jurisdiction to administer.
The Adjustment Improvements Act sets forth the formula that agencies must apply when making annual adjustments, based on the percent change between the October Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (the CPI-U) preceding the date of the last adjustment and the October CPI-U for the year before that.
This final rule adjusts the maximum penalty amount within each of the three tiers specified in 12 U.S.C. 4636 by amending the table contained in 12 CFR 1209.80 of the Enforcement regulations to reflect the new adjusted maximum penalty amount that FHFA may impose upon a regulated entity or any entity-affiliated party within each tier. The increases in maximum penalty amounts contained in this final rule may not necessarily affect the amount of any CMP that FHFA may seek for a particular violation, which may not be the maximum that the law allows; FHFA would calculate each CMP on a case-by-case basis in light of a variety of factors.
The Adjustment Improvements Act directs federal agencies to calculate each annual CMP adjustment as the percent change between the CPI-U for the previous October and the CPI-U for October of the calendar year before.
When promulgating any regulation that may have future effect relating to the Banks, the Director is required by section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure, mission of providing liquidity to members, affordable housing and community development mission, capital structure, and joint and several liability (12 U.S.C. 4513(f)).
FHFA finds good cause that notice and an opportunity to comment on this final rule are unnecessary under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The Adjustment Improvements Act states that the annual civil money penalty adjustments shall be made notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Civil remedies, Program fraud.
Flood insurance, Government-sponsored enterprises, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
5 U.S.C. 554, 556, 557, and 701
The maximum amount of each civil money penalty within FHFA's jurisdiction, as set by the Safety and Soundness Act and thereafter adjusted in accordance with the Inflation Adjustment Act, is as follows:
The inflation adjustments set out in § 1209.80 shall apply to civil money penalties assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4636, and subparts B and C of this part, for violations occurring on or after January 15, 2021.
12 U.S.C. 4501; 12 U.S.C. 4526; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
(a) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of not more than $11,803 may be imposed upon a person who makes a claim to FHFA for property, services, or money where the person knows or has reason to know that the claim:
(b) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of up to $11,803 may be imposed upon a person who makes a written statement to FHFA with respect to a claim, contract, bid or proposal for a contract, or benefit from FHFA that:
12 U.S.C. 4521(a)(4) and 4526; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 4001 note; 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(3), (4), (5), (8), (9), and (10).
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 29, 2021. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 29, 2021.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 29, 2021. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 29, 2021.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is amending its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee regulations to reflect more accurately the CPSC's direct costs of providing FOIA services, as well as to conform to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's)
The rule is effective on March 1, 2021.
Abioye Ella Mosheim, Chief FOIA Officer and Assistant General Counsel, email:
On June 30, 2016, the President signed into law the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185 (2016 Act). The 2016 Act amends the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requiring,
OMB's
On April 16, 2020, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to make the following changes to part 1015:
• Amendments concerning FOIA fees;
• amendments reflecting recent organizational changes within the CPSC, and the CPSC's FOIA Office, more specifically;
• amendments addressing the FOIA appeals process;
• amendments concerning the scope of FOIA Exemptions under 16 CFR 1015.20; and
• other miscellaneous conforming amendments, all of which will be incorporated into the final rule and are summarized in greater detail below.
85 FR 21118. CPSC received two comments on the NPR. After reviewing the comments, the CSPC is finalizing this rule with modifications.
The CPSC received two comments regarding the NPR. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) suggested that paragraphs (f) and (g) of § 1015.9 should be clarified to further distinguish between the terms “fee categories” and “fee waivers,” by removing language that could unintentionally lead to the mistaken inference that agencies have the discretion to waive fees based on requester categories. The CPSC agrees, and therefore, incorporated those comments into § 1015.9(f) and (g), by distinguishing between fee waivers and references to free services. The consumer advocacy group, Kids in Danger, in relevant part, recommended that the CPSC should not charge duplication fees for pages redacted in full. The CPSC agrees, and therefore, incorporated those comments into § 1015.9(e)(1)(iv), by noting that CPSC will not charge a duplication fee for pages redacted in full. Other Kids in Danger comments included a request for CPSC to provide more digital delivery methods, and to provide a faster turnaround for final responses; these comments were not incorporated. Digital delivery and response turnaround times are outside the scope of this rule; although it should be noted that CPSC already has a digital delivery service that every requester can opt into.
Currently, 16 CFR 1015.9(e)(1) sets forth the amount charged for reproducing documents on a standard photocopying machine at $0.10 per page. The final rule amends § 1015.9(e)(1) to specify a charge of $0.15 per page for manual photocopies and for computer printouts that are sent from a computer to a printer or photocopier machine. We calculated the fee for manual photocopies and computer printouts using the 2019 basic hourly pay rate of the average grade and step of staff members from the Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat (GCOS), who charged hours for FOIA projects in Fiscal Year 2019 (GS 12/4, or $33.52/staff hour), plus 16 percent for the allowable OMB benefit rate; multiplying that amount by the total staff hours within the GCOS that we estimated to be attributable to FOIA duplication in Fiscal Year 2019 (486.45 staff hours); adding the estimated cost of paper and toner used by GCOS staff for computer printouts in Fiscal Year 2019 ($9,826); and dividing that number by the corresponding number of pages printed (196,820 pages). CPSC staff estimated the total hours spent by GCOS staff attributable to FOIA duplication in Fiscal Year 2019, by taking a poll of the FOIA specialists, whose most common response was that they spent 5 percent of their time on duplication.
The final rule amends § 1015.9(e) to clarify that CPSC will not charge a duplication fee for producing records provided to requesters in electronic format. Because converting an electronic file, such as a file in portable document format (PDF), and sending it to requesters via electronic mail or the FOIA online portal requires minimal operator time and computer and software costs, the agency's actual costs of duplicating these records are
Currently, § 1015.9(e)(2) and(3) divide searches into two categories: (1) Searches conducted by clerical staff; and (2) searches conducted by non-clerical, professional, or managerial staff. The current regulations charge $3.00 per quarter-hour for clerical searches, and $4.90 per quarter-hour for non-clerical searches.
The final rule amends § 1015.9(e)(2) to remove the set dollar figures for search fees enumerated in the regulation, and in their place, states that search fees are based on the average grade and step of certain employees who charged hours in this category. CPSC staff concluded that this revision eliminates the need to update continuously the CPSC's published FOIA fee regulations in accord with General Schedule pay adjustments. This approach is similar to the FOIA fee regulations at several other agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Additionally, due to organizational changes in the CPSC's FOIA Office, and how requests are processed, clerical staff members rarely perform searches. Therefore, the final rule eliminates the category of clerical search fees.
CPSC will charge manual search fees on a per-quarter-hour basis, and annually calculate and publish on the FOIA web page the exact rate, using the basic hourly pay rate of the average grade and step of CPSC program staff who worked outside of the FOIA Office and who charged hours for FOIA projects in Fiscal Year 2019 (GS 14/7), plus 16 percent for the allowable OMB benefit rate.
CPSC will charge computer search fees on a per-quarter-hour basis, and annually calculate and publish the exact rate, using the basic hourly pay rate of the average grade and step of GCOS staff who charged hours for FOIA projects in Fiscal Year 2019 (GS 12/4), plus 16 percent for the allowable OMB benefit rate. CPSC program staff who work outside of the FOIA Office often conduct FOIA computer searches. The Commission determined that the average grade and step of staff who charged hours for FOIA projects represents a reasonable agency-wide rate for operator costs in this category. The final rule computer search fee does not include CPU costs, because any agency software or hardware costs directly attributable to searching for responsive records would be difficult to quantify, and likely would be
Currently, § 1015.9(e)(4) sets forth the amount charged for review at $4.90 per quarter-hour. The final rule removes the set dollar figure review fee enumerated in the regulation. Instead, CPSC will charge the review fee on a per-quarter-hour basis, and annually calculate and publish the exact rate, using the basic hourly pay rate of the average grade and step of GCOS staff who charged hours for FOIA review (GS 12/9), plus 16 percent for the allowable OMB benefit rate.
The final rule amends § 1015.9(g)(3) to specify that CPSC will provide at no cost, the first 2 hours of search time for all requesters to whom search fees apply, except commercial requesters.
Currently, § 1015.5(h) states that the CPSC “may be unable to comply with the time limits set forth in § 1015.5 when disclosure of documents responsive to a request under this part is subject to the requirements of section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act.” However, the regulation does not take into account that, due to statutory obligations, the CPSC also may be unable to comply with the time limits set forth in § 1015.5, when disclosure of documents responsive to a request is subject to section 6(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). As such, the final rule amends § 1015.5(h) to conform to the statute by replacing the phrase, “section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2055(b)” with the phrase, “section 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2055”.
Additionally, the current § 1015.20, which addresses the release of accident or investigation reports, only allows for the application of the investigatory file FOIA exemption and the redaction of the names of injured persons and the persons who treated the injured, pursuant to section 25(c) of the CPSA. Current CPSC practice, however, is to redact all personally identifiable information, including not only the names of injured persons and the persons who treated them, but also the names of other persons incidental to a consumer complaint, pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(6).
To ensure proper routing of new FOIA requests and appeals, CPSC's FOIA Office created a separate email address for the submission of new FOIA requests and appeals. That address is
The CPSC's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 16 CFR part 1021. These regulations provide a categorical exclusion for certain CPSC actions that normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This final rule falls within the categorical exclusion.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this case, we noted in the NPR that neither the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) nor the FOIA statute required CPSC to issue an NPR, but CPSC voluntarily chose to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking.
For the NPR, CPSC staff reviewed the potential impact of the changes proposed in the NPR on small entities. Staff's analysis compared the number of fiscal year (FY) 2018 FOIA requesters to the number of small entities in the relevant North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) sectors. Based on this analysis, staff concluded it was unlikely that a substantial number of small entities would be impacted by the proposed rule. Staff also concluded that the impact on noncommercial entities would remain essentially unchanged, unless noncommercial requesters opt to receive their documents in paper format, rather than electronically. Staff found that the costs for commercial firms increased more than for other entities; however, requesters would be alerted if costs were expected to be greater than $25; and commercial firms would be expected to proceed with the request (in whole or in part), only if the perceived benefit at least balanced the cost. Finally, staff noted that requesting firms can avoid duplication costs by electing to receive the requested documents electronically.
The Commission sought comment on staff's regulatory analysis in the NPR, and it received none. Because we have no information that would change staff's analysis, the Commission concludes that the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) establishes certain requirements when an agency conducts or sponsors a “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The final rule amends CPSC's regulations to conform to the 2016 Act, updates certain CPSC's procedures by codifying them, and makes other technical changes and corrections. The final rule does not impose any information-collection requirements. Thus, the PRA is not implicated by this final rule.
According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. Section 26 of
The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that, before a rule can take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The submission must indicate whether the rule is a “major rule.” The CRA states that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a rule qualifies as a “major rule.” Pursuant to the CRA, OIRA designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). To comply with the CRA, the Office of the General Counsel will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.
In accordance with the APA's general requirement that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule, the NPR proposed a 30-day effective date for the final rule. The Commission received no comment on the effective date. Accordingly, the effective date is 30 days after the date of publication of this final rule in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Disclosure of information, Freedom of information.
For the reasons discussed above, in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 and the authority in the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051
15 U.S.C. 2051-2084; 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278; 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476; 15 U.S.C. 1211-1214; 15 U.S.C. 1191-1204; 15 U.S.C. 8001-8008; Pub. L. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602; 5 U.S.C. 552.
The addition reads as follows:
(d) The General Counsel is the designated authority for the Commission's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeals and is responsible for reviewing and responding to appeals from denials or partial denials of requests for records under this chapter.
(a) The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will maintain in a public reference room or area the materials relating to the CPSC that are required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) and 552(a)(5) to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format. The principal location will be in the Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat. The address of this office is: Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
(b) The CPSC will maintain an electronic reading room on the internet at:
(c) Subject to the requirements of section 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the CPSC will make available for public inspection in an electronic format, copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which:
(1) Have been released to any person under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3);
(2) Because of the nature of their subject matter, the FOIA Office determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or
(3) Have been requested three or more times.
The ultimate responsibility for responding to requests for records is vested in the Chief FOIA Officer of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, can respond directly, or forward the request to any other office of the CPSC for response. The Chief FOIA Officer's response shall be in the form set forth in § 1015.7(d), for action on appeal. If no response is made by the FOIA Office within 20 working days, or any extension of the 20-day period, the requester and the General Counsel or the delegate of the General Counsel can take the action specified in § 1015.7(e).
(a) The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, shall respond to all written requests for records within twenty (20) working days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays). The time limitations on responses to requests for records submitted by mail shall begin to run at the time a request for records is received and date-stamped by the Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat. The Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat shall date-stamp the request the same day that it receives the request. The time limitations on responses to requests for records submitted electronically during working hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST) shall begin to run at the time the request was electronically received, and the time limitations on responses to requests for records submitted electronically during non-working hours will begin to run when working hours resume.
(b) The time for responding to requests for records can be extended by the Chief FOIA Officer at the initial stage, or by the General Counsel, at the appellate stage, up to an additional ten (10) working days, under the following unusual circumstances:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; or
(3) The need to consult, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the CPSC having substantial subject matter interest.
(c) Any extension of time must be accompanied by written notice to the person making the request, setting forth the reason(s) for such extension, and the time within which a response is expected.
(d) If the Chief FOIA Officer at the initial stage, or the General Counsel at the appellate stage, determines that an extension of time greater than ten (10) working days is necessary to respond to a request satisfying the “unusual circumstances” specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief FOIA Officer, or the General Counsel, shall notify the requester, and give the requester the opportunity to:
(1) Limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within the time limit prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) Arrange with the Chief FOIA Officer, or the General Counsel, an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request.
(f) The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, may aggregate and process as a single request, requests by the same requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, if the Chief FOIA Officer, or delegate, reasonably believes that the requests actually constitute a single request that would otherwise satisfy the “unusual circumstances” specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and the requests involve clearly related matters.
(g) The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, will provide expedited processing of requests in cases where the requester requests expedited processing and demonstrates a compelling need for such processing.
(3) The Chief FOIA Officer or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer will determine whether to grant a request for expedited processing and will notify the requester of such determination within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the request.
(4) Denials of requests for expedited processing may be appealed to the Office of the General Counsel, as set forth in § 1015.7. The General Counsel will determine expeditiously any such appeal.
(5) The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, will process, as soon as is practicable, the documents responsive to a request for which expedited processing is granted.
(h) The Chief FOIA Officer may be unable to comply with the time limits set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, when disclosure of documents responsive to a request under this part is subject to the requirements of section 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2055, and the regulations implementing that section, 16 CFR part 1101. The Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, will notify requesters whose requests will be delayed for this reason.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) A statement that the denial can be appealed to the General Counsel, as specified in § 1015.1(d). Any such appeal must be made within 90 calendar days after the date of the denial or partial denial from the Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer.
(a) When the Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, has denied a request for records, in whole or in part, the requester can, within 90 calendar days after the date of the denial or partial denial, appeal the denial to the General Counsel of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, attention: Division of the Secretariat. Appeals may be submitted through any of the following methods: the e-FOIA Public Access Link at
(b) The General Counsel will act upon an appeal within 20 working days of its receipt. The time limitations on an appeal submitted by mail shall begin to run at the time an appeal is received and date-stamped by the Division of the Secretariat. The Division of the Secretariat will date-stamp the appeal the same day that it receives the appeal. The time limitations on an appeal submitted electronically during working hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST) shall begin to run at the time the appeal is received electronically; and the time limitations on appeals submitted electronically during non-working hours will begin to run when working hours resume.
(c) After reviewing the appeal, the General Counsel will issue a decision either to grant or deny the appeal, in whole or in part. If the General Counsel decides to grant the appeal in whole or in part, the General Counsel will inform the requester and submitter of the information, in accordance with §§ 1015.6(a) and 1015.18(b). Thereafter, the Chief FOIA Officer will provide the records in accordance with the General Counsel's decision.
(d) The General Counsel shall have the authority to grant or deny all appeals and, as an exercise of discretion, to disclose records exempt from mandatory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In unusual or difficult cases, the General Counsel can, in his/her discretion, refer an appeal to the Chairman for determination.
(e) The General Counsel's decision on appeal shall be in writing, shall be signed by the General Counsel, and shall constitute final agency action. A denial in whole or in part of a request on appeal shall set forth the exemption relied upon; a brief explanation, consistent with the purpose of the exemption, of how the exemption applies to the records withheld; and the reasons for asserting it. The decision will inform the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from CPSC's FOIA Liaison, or the Office of Government Information Services. A denial in whole or in part shall also inform the requester of his/her right to seek judicial review of the General Counsel's final determination in a
(g) Copies of all appeals and copies of all actions on appeal shall be furnished to and maintained in a public file by the Office of the General Counsel, Division of the Secretariat.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) The CPSC will provide, at no charge, certain routine information. For other CPSC responses to information requests, the Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer, shall determine and levy fees for duplication, search, review, and other services, in accordance with this section.
(e) The following fee schedule will apply:
(1)
(ii) Computer printouts that are sent from a computer to a printer or photocopier machine: $0.15 per page.
(iii) Compact discs, DVDs, or other similar media duplications: Direct-cost basis. The exact fees for duplication of records on these forms of media will be calculated and published annually and are available to the public on the CPSC's FOIA web page at:
(iv) There is no duplication fee for producing records provided to requesters in electronic format, or for pages redacted in full in any format.
(v) Requesters can request and be provided records in any format that is readily reproducible by the agency, including electronic format.
(vi) When records available only in paper format must be scanned to comply with a requester's preference to receive records in an electronic format, the requester must pay the direct costs of scanning those materials. The exact fees for scanning these materials will be assessed on a quarter-hour basis, will be calculated and published annually, and are available to the public on the CPSC's FOIA web page at:
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) Any other service: Direct-cost basis.
(f) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25:
(1) When the FOIA Office determines or estimates that the fees to be assessed will exceed $25, the FOIA Office shall promptly notify the requester of the actual or estimated amount of the fees, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review, and duplication, if applicable, and any applicable fee waivers that would apply to the request, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. The notice shall specify that the requester may confer with agency staff with the objective of reformulating the request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost. If only a portion of the fee can be estimated readily, the FOIA Office will advise the requester, accordingly. If the request is not from a commercial use requester, the notice shall specify that the requester is entitled to 100 pages of duplication at no charge, and if the requester is charged search fees, 2 hours of search time at no charge.
(2) When a requester has been provided notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25, the FOIA Office shall toll processing of the request, and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay. In the case of a requester who is not a commercial requester, the requester may designate that the requester seeks only those services that can be provided in paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section, without charge. The CPSC is not required to accept payment in installments.
(3) If the requester has committed to pay a designated amount of fees, but the FOIA Office determines or estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the FOIA Office shall toll processing of the request and notify the requester of the actual or estimated fees in excess of the requester's commitment. The FOIA Office shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or wishes to modify the request. Once the requester responds, the administrative time limits in § 1015.5 will resume.
(4) The Chief FOIA Officer shall make available the FOIA Public Liaison to assist requesters in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(5) If a requester does not commit in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee or designate in writing the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay within 30 working days from the date of the notification letter, the request shall be closed. The FOIA Office shall notify the requester that the request has been closed.
(6) Any adverse determination made by the Chief FOIA Officer, or the designee of the Chief FOIA Officer, concerning a dispute over actual or estimated fees can be appealed by the requester to the General Counsel, in the manner described at § 1015.7.
(g)(1) There are three categories of requesters: Commercial; educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, and representatives of the news media; and all other requesters, including members of the general public.
(2) Fees shall be assessed as follows:
(i) Full fees shall apply to commercial-use requests.
(ii) The first 100 pages of duplication shall be free for requests from the categories of educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, representatives of the news media, and all other requesters (including members of the general public).
(iii) The first 2 hours of search time shall be free for the category of all other requesters (including members of the general public).
(iv) The Chief FOIA Officer, or the designee of the Chief FOIA Officer, shall waive or reduce fees whenever disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government, and disclosure of the requested information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(v) In making a determination under paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section, the Chief FOIA Officer, or the designee of the Chief FOIA Officer, shall consider the following factors:
(A) The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations or activities of the Government.
(B) The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute to an understanding of Government operations or activities.
(C) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to public understanding.
(D) The significance of the contribution to public understanding: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of Government operations or activities.
(E) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and, if so
(F) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(vi) Search fees shall not be charged for all requests and duplication fees shall not be charged for requests from educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, and representatives of the news media, if the FOIA Office fails to comply with any time limit under §§ 1015.5(a) and (g)(3) and 1015.7(b) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6), other than the exceptions stated in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(viii)(ll). Those exceptions include:
(A) If the FOIA Office has determined that “unusual circumstances,” as defined in § 1015.5(b) apply, and the FOIA Office provided timely written notice to the requester, as required by § 1015.5(c) or § 1015.7(f), then failure to comply with the time limit in §§ 1015.5(a) and (g)(3) and 1015.7(b) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) is excused for 10 additional working days; or
(B) If the FOIA Office has determined that “unusual circumstances,” as defined in § 1015.5(b), apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, and the FOIA Office has provided timely written notice in accordance with § 1015.5(c) and (e), and the FOIA Office has discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or has made not less than three good-faith efforts to do so), how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request; or
(C) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C), then failure to comply with §§ 1015.5(a) and (g)(3) and 1015.7(b) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(vii) No fee will be charged when the total fee is equal to or less than $25.
(viii) Any determination made by the Chief FOIA Officer, or the designee of the Chief FOIA Officer, concerning fee reductions or fee waivers may be appealed by the requester to the General Counsel, in the manner described at § 1015.7.
(h) Collection of fees shall be in accordance with the following:
(1) Interest will be charged on amounts billed, starting on the 31st day following the day on which the requester receives the bill. Interest will be charged at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(2) Search fees may be charged, even if no responsive documents are located, or if the search leads to responsive documents that are withheld under an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.
(3) The FOIA Office may aggregate requests, for the purposes of billing, whenever it reasonably believes that a requester, or, on rare occasions, a group of requesters, is attempting to separate a request into more than one request to evade fees. The FOIA Office shall not aggregate multiple requests on unrelated subjects from one requester.
(i)(1) For requests other than those described in paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section, the FOIA Office shall not require a requester to make advance payment (
(2) When the FOIA Office determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250, and the requester has no history of payment, the FOIA Office shall notify the requester of the actual or estimated fee, and may require the requester to make an advance payment of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. A notice under this paragraph (i)(2) shall offer the requester an opportunity to discuss the matter with FOIA Office staff to modify the
(3) When a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the CPSC within 30 calendar days of the date of billing, the FOIA Office may notify the requester that the requester is required to pay the full amount owed, plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee, before the FOIA Office begins to process a new request or continues processing a pending request from that requester.
(4) When the CPSC FOIA Office requires advance payment, the FOIA Office will not further process the request until the required payment is made. The FOIA Office will toll the processing of the request while it notifies the requester of the advanced payment due, and the administrative time limits in § 1015.5 will begin only after the agency has received the advance payments. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days from the date of the FOIA Office's fee notice, the FOIA Office will presume that the requester is no longer interested in the records and notify the requester that the request has been closed.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel, of Eureka, CA. This emergency safety zone is in support of the safe navigation of piloted vessels transiting and is needed to protect life, vessels, and the maritime environment from potential hazards posed by the wreckage of a fishing vessel that sank near the Channel on January 24, 2021. The location of the wreckage is currently unknown. Due to heavy weather conditions, a proper survey of the wreckage cannot be immediately completed. Unauthorized piloted vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from January 29, 2021 through 11:59 p.m. on February 10, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12 p.m. January 26, 2021 through January 29, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Anthony Solares, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399-7443, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard received notice of the wrecked vessel and the resulting immediate need for this safety zone on January 24, 2021. It is impracticable to go through the full rulemaking process, including providing a reasonable comment period and considering those comments, because the Coast Guard must establish this emergency temporary safety zone by January 26, 2021.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with a vessel marine casualty exist within the entrance of the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel. This rule is needed to protect personnel and piloted vessels transiting through the potentially hazardous section of the navigable waters until the wreckage can be located and addressed.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone in navigable waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel, of Eureka, CA from January 26, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. through February 10, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to prohibit unauthorized navigation by piloted vessels within the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel while the hazards associated with a recent marine casualty exist. Except for piloted vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative, no piloted vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone, and its application only to piloted vessels. Although this rule restricts access to the water encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the significant majority of vessel traffic is not piloted so will not be impacted. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-23A about the zone, and the rule allows piloted vessels desiring to transit through the temporary safety zone to do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone established to deal with an emergency situation, lasting just over two weeks, that will prohibit unauthorized entry by piloted vessels to the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Because this safety zone is established in response to an emergency situation and is one week or longer in duration, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination will be prepared and submitted after publication of this rule, and will be made available as indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all piloted vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) An operator of a piloted vessel desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Piloted vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Piloted vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
(d)
(e)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur. Information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's CSB available at
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 674-1087. Details regarding updated publication requirements of community eligibility status information under the NFIP can be found on the CSB section at
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives, new and substantially improved construction, and development in general from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date listed in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. FEMA recognizes communities may adopt and submit the required documentation after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. Their current NFIP participation status can be verified at anytime on the CSB section at
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the published FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory basis; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting comments on a regulatory basis to support a proposed rule that would amend the NRC's regulations for the licensing of new nuclear power reactors. The NRC's goals in amending these regulations would be to ensure consistency in new reactor licensing reviews, provide for an efficient new reactor licensing process, reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations and license amendment requests, address other new reactor licensing issues deemed relevant by the NRC, and support the principles of good regulation, specifically openness, clarity, and reliability. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to promote a full understanding of the rulemaking, discuss the regulatory basis, and facilitate public participation.
Submit comments by April 14, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
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
James G. O'Driscoll, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1325; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0196 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0196 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons to not 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. Please note that the NRC will not provide formal written responses to each of the comments received on the regulatory basis. However, the NRC will consider all comments received in the rulemaking process.
The NRC is requesting comments on a regulatory basis to support a proposed rule that would amend the NRC's regulations for the licensing of new nuclear power reactors in parts 50 and 52 of title 10 of the
On January 15, 2019, the NRC held a Category 3 public meeting to obtain feedback from external stakeholders on the scope of the development of the regulatory basis for this proposed rule. Representatives of the commercial nuclear power industry presented 18 suggested changes at the meeting and submitted a list of 20 additional suggested changes.
On September 20, 2019, the NRC met with individual members of the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The purpose of the meeting was to receive the ACRS members' observations on the implementation of the 10 CFR part 52 process based on their individual perspectives from their reviews of early site permit (ESP), design certification (DC), and combined license applications.
On November 21, 2019, and April 29, 2020, the NRC held Category 3 public meetings with members of the public to provide updates on the agency's efforts since the January 15, 2019, public meeting. In these meetings, the NRC provided updates on progress including an overview of the scope of the regulatory basis. At both meetings, the NRC conducted question and answer sessions. Consistent with the NRC's rulemaking process, the NRC has prepared a regulatory basis to describe and document the results of assessments performed by the NRC in support of the proposed rule. This regulatory basis and the meeting summaries, including transcripts, are listed in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
In the regulatory basis, the NRC concludes that there is sufficient basis to proceed with rulemaking to address the alignment of regulatory requirements associated with 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 and the incorporation of lessons learned from new reactor licensing reviews. However, through development of its regulatory basis, the NRC has determined that some areas within the scope previously discussed could be addressed using other regulatory alternatives.
The Commission has not approved any specific recommendation in the regulatory basis at this time, and as such, any conclusions regarding the elements of the alignment of licensing processes and lessons learned from new reactor licensing process rulemaking are subject to change.
The NRC is requesting comment on the regulatory basis titled “Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing.” As you prepare your comments, consider the following general questions:
1. Is the NRC considering appropriate options for each regulatory area described in the regulatory basis?
2. Are there additional factors that the NRC should consider in each regulatory area? What are these factors?
3. Are there any additional options that the NRC should consider during development of the proposed rule?
4. Is there additional information concerning regulatory impacts that the NRC should include in its regulatory analysis for this rulemaking?
In addition to the general questions, the NRC has identified additional areas of consideration that could either be included in the scope of the alignment of licensing processes and lessons learned from new reactor licensing rulemaking or addressed through other actions. The NRC may include additional discussion of these issues in the proposed rule, and if included, will use any public comments received regarding these issues to inform the development of the proposed rule. The NRC requests that members of the public answer the following specific questions regarding these additional regulatory issues.
As required by § 52.17(b)(1), the site safety analysis report for an ESP application must include an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the proposed site, such as egress limitations from the area surrounding the site, that could pose a significant impediment to the development of emergency plans.
1. The NRC is considering revising the guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.7, “General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations,” and NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Chapter 13, “Conduct of Operations,” on how to meet the requirements of § 52.17(b)(1) and the siting criteria in 10 CFR part 100, “Reactor site criteria,” as it relates to siting and emergency planning for ESP reviews. The NRC is seeking comment on the appropriate distance within which to perform the analysis to demonstrate compliance with the siting criteria for identifying site characteristics that could pose significant impediments to the development of emergency plans. Please provide a basis for your response.
As described in § 52.147, standard design approvals (SDAs) are valid for 15 years from the date of issuance and may not be renewed. For manufacturing licenses (MLs), § 52.173 specifies that a license authorizing manufacture of nuclear power reactors is valid for no more than 15 years from the date of issuance. As part of this rulemaking, the NRC is considering the removal of the 15-year duration for DCs established in § 52.55 and DC renewal requirements in §§ 52.57, 52.59, and 52.61 and 10 CFR part 52 DC appendices. This would result in DCs that never expire and, therefore, do not need to be renewed every 15 years. The 2007 10 CFR part 52 final rule provided the term of an SDA to be for 15 years and the term of an ML to be for no less than 5, or no more than 15 years from the date of issuance. The Commission established the 15-year maximum term for SDAs and MLs to be consistent with the maximum term for a standard design certification. The 5-year minimum term was established by the Commission to encourage the use of an ML for the manufacture of more than one nuclear power reactor.
2. If the NRC eliminates the renewal requirements for DCs, should the NRC consider eliminating or changing duration requirements for MLs?
3. If the NRC eliminates the renewal requirements for DCs, should the NRC consider eliminating or changing the duration requirements for SDAs?
As part of the proposed rule, the NRC is considering the removal of the 15-year duration for DCs established in § 52.55 and DC renewal requirements in §§ 52.57, 52.59, and 52.61 and 10 CFR part 52 DC appendices. This would result in DCs that never expire and, therefore, do not need to be renewed every 15 years. However, there are presently two DCs contained in the appendices to 10 CFR part 52 (AP600
4. Should the NRC remove expired DC rules from the appendices to 10 CFR part 52 in the proposed rule?
The current regulations in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 were largely written during a period when the NRC was licensing light-water-reactors. Today, significant stakeholder interest exists in licensing new advanced non-light-water reactor designs. As such, in the proposed rule and in subsequent rulemakings addressing new licensing regulations for advanced reactors, the NRC wants to ensure that it considers stakeholder feedback on how regulatory changes would impact potential non-light-water reactor applicants.
For example, the NRC recommends revising § 50.34(f) so that the TMI requirements in § 50.34(f) apply to new power reactor applications submitted under 10 CFR part 50, with the same exceptions given for 10 CFR part 52 applicants. Section 50.34(f) requires 10 CFR part 52 applicants to provide information necessary to demonstrate compliance with any “technically relevant” positions of the requirements in § 50.34(f)(1) through (3) with the exception of § 50.34(f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and (f)(3)(v). The NRC is still considering whether and how these regulations would apply to non-light water reactors.
5. Please provide feedback on impacts of the TMI requirements on non-LWR applicants the NRC should consider in the scope of the proposed rule. Please provide the basis for your answer.
The cumulative effects of regulation (CER) describes the challenges that licensees or other impacted entities (such as State agency partners) may face while implementing new regulatory positions, programs, and requirements (
1. In light of any current or projected CER challenges, what should be a reasonable effective date, compliance date, or submittal date(s) from the time the final rule is published to the actual implementation of any new proposed requirements, including changes to programs, procedures, or the facility?
2. If CER challenges currently exist or are expected, what should be done to address them? For example, if more time is required for implementation of the new requirements, what period of time is sufficient?
3. Do other regulatory actions (
4. Are there unintended consequences? Does the potential proposed action create conditions that would be contrary to the potential proposed action's purpose and objectives? If so, what are the consequences and how should they be addressed?
5. Please comment on NRC's costs and benefits estimate of the potential proposed action. This information will be used to support additional regulatory analysis by the NRC.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published in the
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post additional materials related to this rulemaking activity to the Federal rulemaking website at
The Federal rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2009-0196); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Bell Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FCS). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send comments on or before March 15, 2021.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-0065 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John VanHoudt, FAA, Dynamic Systems Section, AIR-627, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-98198; telephone and fax 817-222-5193; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
On December 15, 2011, Bell applied for a type certificate for a new 14 CFR part 29 transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. Bell applied for multiple extensions, with the most recent occurring on November 12, 2020. The date of the updated type certification basis is December 31, 2016, based upon the applicant's proposed type certificate issuance date of December 31, 2021. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.
The Bell Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The design of the Bell Model 525 FBW controls, which provides no direct hydro-mechanical linkage between the primary cockpit flight controls or inceptors and the main and tail rotor
The rotorcraft industry is producing new generations of helicopters, and gradually increasing size, speed, load capacity, and technical sophistication. In recent years, an accelerated trend has occurred using rotorcraft for a wide range of commercial and industrial applications. This has resulted in increased complexity of modern control systems and increased use of automation in flight control systems, including the implementation of advanced flight control systems such as FBW FCS.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 29.671(c), which provides requirements for transport category rotorcraft control systems, does not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this new design feature. 14 CFR 29.671(c) requires, in part, a means to allow the pilot to determine that full control authority is available prior to flight. This command control authority is typically achieved by verifying movement of the control quadrant through an unassisted mechanical pilot-initiated manipulation of the primary flight controls prior to flight. Although this approach does not guarantee that 100% maximum control movement of the flight controls has been achieved prior to flight, it has been deemed appropriate for mechanical flight control systems.
Unlike traditional mechanical flight control systems, the FBW FCS reduces the opportunity for jamming of the flight controls due to mechanical bind, improper servo adjustment resulting from faulty maintenance, or presence of a foreign object in the control mechanism that will impair safety. This reduced exposure for jams is due to the replacement of the mechanical linkages between the primary cockpit flight controls or inceptors and the main and tail rotor actuators with digital signal processing wiring. However, the FBW FCS does increase the potential for latent failures or faults that could impair full control authority, unless a means exists to ensure the FBW FCS is fully functional and free of control authority impairment prior to flight. A FBW system may have the ability to verify full control authority without having to move the primary flight controls.
Although part 29 does not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this novel or unusual design feature, 14 CFR 25.671, amendment 25-23, provides these requirements for transport category airplanes. Accordingly, these proposed special conditions are based on § 25.671 to provide requirements for a FBW FCS on the Bell Model 525 helicopter. 14 CFR 25.671(c) provides the same level of safety as that intended by § 29.671(c) when employing a FBW FCS by including requirements for jamming and failure analysis. The proposed special conditions would require a comprehensive safety analysis of the aircraft's FBW FCS to include failures due to command logic (software), mechanical and electronic interfaces to other systems, jamming and maintenance. Therefore, in conjunction with § 29.671(a) and (b), the proposed special conditions incorporate provisions from § 25.671(c) to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bell must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendments 29 through 55 thereto. The Bell Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2016.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bell Model 525 helicopter must comply with the the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Bell Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A FBW FCS.
This new design feature has no direct hydro-mechanical linkage between the primary cockpit flight controls or inceptors and the main and tail rotor actuators, thereby eliminating the more complex elements of either a manual movement of the controls by the pilot, or another manual means.
The proposed special conditions would require that a means be available to show full control authority for all powered control systems.
The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bell Model 525 helicopter. Should Bell apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include aother model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on the Bell Model 525 helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions in lieu of § 29.671(c) as part of the type certification basis for the Bell Textron Inc. Model 525 helicopter:
The rotorcraft must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be capable of continued safe flight and landing after any of the following failures or jamming in the flight control system within the normal flight envelope, without requiring exceptional piloting skill or strength. Probable failures must have only minor effects.
(1) Any single failure not shown to be extremely improbable, excluding jamming.
(2) Any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable, excluding jamming.
(3) Any jam in a control position normally encountered during hover, takeoff, climb, cruise, normal turns,
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to amend the Commission's regulations to require the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization to submit assessments of its performance every three years instead of the current period of every five years. The Commission also proposes to add to the Commission's regulations a requirement for the Electric Reliability Organization to include in its performance assessment a detailed discussion of any areas of the Electric Reliability Organization's responsibilities and activities, or a Regional Entity's delegated functions, beyond those required by the Commission's regulations, that the Commission has identified at least 90 days prior to the expected performance assessment submission date. Finally, the Commission proposes formalizing the method for the Electric Reliability Organization and Regional Entities to receive and respond to recommendations by the users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, and other interested parties for improvement of the Electric Reliability Organization's operations, activities, oversight and procedures.
Comments are due March 1, 2021.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed electronically at
Leigh Anne Faugust (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-6396.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Also, pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, we propose to add paragraph (iv) to § 39.3(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations to require the Commission-certified ERO to include in its performance assessments a detailed discussion of any areas of the ERO's responsibilities and activities, or the Regional Entities' delegated functions, beyond those required by § 39.3(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), that the Commission identifies for inclusion at least 90 days prior to the expected performance assessment submission date.
3. Finally, we propose to amend § 39.3(c)(1)(ii) of the Commission's regulations to require the ERO to solicit via a formal public comment period recommendations by the users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, and other interested parties for improvement of the ERO's operations, activities, oversight and procedures.
4. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to issue regulations that, among other things, provide for the certification of an entity as the ERO if it meets certain criteria.
5. FPA section 215(e)(4) provides that the ERO may delegate authority to a Regional Entity for the purpose of proposing regional Reliability Standards and enforcing Reliability Standards. Regional Entities must meet the same statutory criteria as those required for Commission certification of an ERO, except that more flexibility is allowed in the composition of a Regional Entity board of directors. The Commission must approve a delegation agreement between the ERO and a Regional Entity, and the Commission is authorized to modify such delegation.
6. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, which amended the Commission's regulations to implement the requirements of FPA section 215.
7. In Order No. 672, the Commission also said that the performance assessments should employ regular and systematic measurement and reporting of the ERO's performance. The specific requirements for the performance assessments are set out in the Commission's regulations in § 39.3(c) and provide that the ERO file an assessment of its performance three years from the date of initial certification, and every five years thereafter. Section 39.3(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations specify that the ERO should include in its performance assessment: (1) An explanation of how it satisfies the requirements of § 39.3 (b);
8. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, we propose to amend § 39.3(c) of the Commission's regulations to require the Commission-certified ERO to submit assessments of its performance every three years instead of the current period of every five years.
9. While Order No. 672 established a five-year period for submitting ERO performance assessments following the initial three-year assessment, decreasing the periodicity to every three years would improve the ERO's accountability to the public, stakeholders, and the Commission. Our proposed reduction in the assessment period aligns with the ERO's own acknowledgement that it is “facing unprecedented, rapid change in the electric industry, which raises new challenges to and opportunities for the reliability and security of the Bulk Power System.”
10. The proposed three-year performance assessment cycle will enhance the Commission's oversight of the ERO and provide an opportunity to address issues arising with regard to ERO performance in a more timely fashion. We believe this will allow for changes to be made in a more timely manner, and improve the efficiency of the overall performance assessment process. A three-year performance assessment aligns more closely with certain ongoing NERC activities, such as the triennial Reliability Standards and reliability guidelines reviews. Moreover, the reduced period between assessments will allow better continuity in the Commission's review of the ERO's operations, activities, oversight, procedures, and evaluation of the effectiveness of each Regional Entity in the performance of delegated functions. For example, a three-year period improves the likelihood that the NERC staff preparing the performance assessment, the Commission staff reviewing the assessment, and Commissioners would be familiar with the performance assessment process—thereby providing continuity and subject matter expertise. Three years also provides an earlier opportunity to address new and emerging areas of concern or recommendations for development identified by the Commission and stakeholders.
11. We believe that the proposed three-year performance cycle affords a reasonable amount of time between performance assessments. We note that this is the same three-year timeframe imposed in Order No. 672 on the initial performance assessment submitted by the ERO in 2010. The timing also aligns with the NERC's Rules of Procedure requirement of an independent audit of NERC's Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP) and Organization Registration and Certification Program.
12. The ERO has existing internal processes used to assess its ongoing performance of its statutory responsibilities, and the Regional Entities' ongoing performance in their delegated activities.
13. Based on the examples described above, we believe the ERO should be able to use these existing processes to provide a self-assessment to the Commission on a three-year basis rather than every five years without imposing an undue burden on the ERO. NERC could leverage the existing tracking mechanisms discussed above, as well as the findings of its required three-year independent audit, its internal audit department, ongoing quarterly and annual assessments of its CMEP and Organization Registration and Certification Program,
14. Next, based on the last three performance assessments NERC has submitted to the Commission as the ERO, where the Commission has directed NERC to submit additional information on further compliance, we propose to revise the Commission's regulations governing what an ERO must include in its performance assessment. Specifically, we propose to require that the Commission-certified ERO include in its performance assessments a detailed discussion of any areas of the ERO's activities and functions, or the Regional Entities' delegated functions, beyond those set forth in § 39.3(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), that the Commission identifies for inclusion at least 90 days prior to the expected performance assessment submission date.
15. Finally, we propose to add a formal requirement for a public comment period to solicit Regional Entities, users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, and other interested parties for improvement of the ERO's operations, activities, oversight and procedures. The intent of the comment period is to inform the content of the ERO's draft performance assessment. We anticipate that the ERO would meet the proposed requirement by issuing notice of a public comment period on its website specifically requesting that interested parties identify areas of improvement. We envision the solicitation of comments would be issued separately and prior to the posting of the draft performance assessment. The posting should be independent of other recurring stakeholder surveys that may have a more limited audience. The ERO would then include the submitted comments, and the ERO's responses to such comments, with its performance assessment filing.
16. We believe that the proposed amendments to our regulations will improve our oversight of the ERO. The proposal will better enable the Commission to determine that the ERO is satisfying the statutory and regulatory criteria continuously,
17. This NOPR proposes to amend the Commission's regulations to require the Commission-certified ERO to submit assessments of its performance every three years instead of the current period of every five years. It also proposes to require the Commission-certified ERO to include in its performance assessments a detailed discussion of any areas of the ERO's responsibilities and activities, or the Regional Entities' delegated functions, beyond those required by § 39.3(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), that the Commission identifies for inclusion at least 90 days prior to the expected performance assessment submission date. Finally, this NOPR proposes to formalize the ERO's solicitation of recommendations via a formal public comment period from Regional Entities, users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, and other interested parties for improvement of the ERO's operations, activities, oversight and procedures.
18. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
19. The information collection in this NOPR is FERC-725, “Certification of Electric Reliability Organization.” The OMB Control Number is 1902-0225. As required by the PRA, the collection of information that would be revised in this proposed rule is being submitted to OMB for review under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
20. The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for the proposed revision of the information collection, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. All burden estimates are discussed in this NOPR and in the Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement.
21. Interested persons may submit questions about this information collection by contacting Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, at
22. Please submit to the Commission copies of comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimates (identified by Docket No. RM21-12-000) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
23. The following discussion describes and analyzes the existing collection of information associated with 18 CFR 39.3(c) (FERC-725, OMB Control Number 1902-0225), as it would be modified by this proposed rule.
•
•
24. The annualized number of responses for each self-assessment would be revised from 0.2 per year to 0.33 per year. As shown below, RM21-12-000 would result in a total of 2.31 responses for self-assessments annually. The Commission has also reduced the number of Regional Entities from seven to six.
25. The Commission calculates the average annual burden and cost
26. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
28. By only proposing to direct NERC, the Commission-certified ERO, to
29. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 1, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM21-12-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
30. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
31. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must submit an original of their comments either by mail through the United States Postal Service to: The Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC, 20426,
32. 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.
33. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
34. 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.
35. 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
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission. Commissioners Chatterjee and Glick are concurring with a joint separate statement attached.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend part 39, chapter I, title 18,
16 U.S.C. 824o.
(c) The Electric Reliability Organization shall submit an assessment of its performance three years from the date of certification by the Commission, and every three years thereafter. After receipt of the assessment, the Commission will establish a proceeding with opportunity for public comment in which it will review the performance of the Electric Reliability Organization.
(ii) Recommendations, as solicited by the Electric Reliability Organization via a noticed public comment period, by Regional Entities, users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, and other interested parties for improvement of the Electric Reliability Organization's operations, activities, oversight and procedures, and the Electric Reliability Organization's response to such recommendations. . .
(iv) a detailed discussion of any areas of the Electric Reliability Organizations responsibilities and activities, or the Regional Entity delegated functions, beyond those required by § 39.3(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section that the Commission has identified. The Commission will inform the Electric Reliability Organization of any additional performance areas to include at least 90 days prior to the expected performance assessment submission date.
CHATTERJEE, Commissioner, and GLICK, Commissioner,
We support this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), which explores potential improvements to the existing framework for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), to submit assessments of its performance. Given the important and increasingly complex role the ERO plays in ensuring the reliability of the Bulk Power System, we urge interested parties to submit comments on the proposed reforms. To that end, while we encourage comments on the potential benefits of these proposed reforms, we also encourage interested parties to provide comments on the potential burdens the proposed
For these reasons, we respectfully concur.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of comment period.
In response to a request from Venable LLC, NHTSA is announcing a 60-day extension of the comment period on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comment on NHTSA's development of a framework for Automated Driving System (ADS) safety. The comment period for the ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on February 1, 2021. It will now end on April 1, 2021.
The comment period for the “Framework for Automated Driving System Safety” ANPRM, published on December 3, 2020, at 85 FR 78058, is extended to April 1, 2021.
Comments must refer to the docket number above and be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9322. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Sara R. Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-2992, email
On December 3, 2020, NHTSA published an ANPRM to obtain public comments on the development of a framework for Automated Driving System (ADS) safety (85 FR 78058). The framework would objectively define, assess, and manage the safety of ADS performance while ensuring the needed flexibility to enable further innovation. The Agency sought specific feedback on key components that can meet the need for motor vehicle safety while enabling innovative designs, in a manner consistent with Agency authorities. The ANPRM provided a 30-day comment period, which closes on February 1, 2021.
On December 18, 2020, NHTSA received a request from Venable LLP on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, American Trucking Associations, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Automotive Dealers Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, (hereinafter “the requestors”), for a 60-day extension of the comment period. The requestors state that the ANPRM raises a substantial number of technical and policy questions that require significant discussion and analysis on the part of their respective members. They suggest that an extension would offer them enough time to consult with and seek input from experts across their businesses about the “many complex issues presented in the ANPRM.” They state that having additional time to engage in such consultations would enable them “to better ensure that the comments they provide to NHTSA reflect the full measure of thought and analysis that is due for this important proceeding.” The request can be found in the docket for the ANPRM identified in the heading of this notice.
In accordance with NHTSA's rulemaking procedures in 49 CFR part 553, subpart B, the Agency is granting the request to extend the comment period 60 days. We have determined that the requestors have shown good cause for an extension, and that the extension is consistent with the public interest (49 CFR 553.19). A 60-day extension appropriately balances NHTSA's interest in providing the public with sufficient time to comment on the complex and novel questions raised in the ANPRM, with its interest in obtaining specific feedback from stakeholders in a timely manner. Accordingly, NHTSA is extending the comment period until April 1, 2021.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 12 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States (Dolphin Wahoo FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 12 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP (Amendment 12) would add bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP and designate them as ecosystem component (EC) species. The purpose of Amendment 12 is to acknowledge the ecological role of bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel as forage fish and to achieve the ecosystem management objectives in the Dolphin Wahoo FMP.
Written comments must be received on or before March 30, 2021.
You may submit comments on Amendment 12, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2020-0146,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 12, which includes a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The Council prepared the Dolphin Wahoo FMP that is being revised by Amendment 12. If approved, Amendment 12 would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Council manages dolphin and wahoo under the Dolphin Wahoo FMP in Federal waters off the Atlantic states from Maine south to the Florida Keys in the Atlantic. In the western North Atlantic, bullet mackerel are found from Cape Cod to the Gulf of Mexico, and frigate mackerel are found mostly from North Carolina to Florida. As described in Amendment 12, both bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel are found in the diets of dolphin and wahoo in the North Atlantic. In particular, wahoo has been demonstrated to have a strong dietary reliance on bullet and frigate mackerel, indicating that these mackerel species are the most dominant forage species observed in the diets of wahoo. Dolphin tend to have more diverse diets than wahoo and have a lower reliance on these mackerel species as prey. Additionally, bullet and frigate mackerel have been identified as important forage species for other offshore pelagic predatory species in the Atlantic such as blue marlin and yellowfin tuna. Bullet mackerel feed on a variety of prey, especially clupeoids (
Regulations implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act define EC species as “stocks that a Council or the Secretary has determined do not require conservation and management, but desire to list in a FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives” (50 CFR 600.305(d)(13)). National Standards (NS) General guidelines state that a Council should consider a list of ten non-exhaustive list of factors when deciding whether additional stocks require Federal conservation and management (50 CFR 600.305(c)(1)). The proposed EC designation for bullet and frigate mackerel was recommended to the Council by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), their Dolphin Wahoo Advisory Panel (AP), the Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management (Habitat) AP, and through extensive positive comments from the public during scoping of Amendment 12. The Dolphin Wahoo AP and Habitat AP members acknowledged that wahoo particularly target these mackerel species as prey. The AP members also stated that the Council should consider a “conservative approach” to ensure there are no major increases in the harvest of bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel in the foreseeable future as a result of any EC designation. This designation would address the Council's growing emphasis on developing ecosystem management approaches to fisheries management and advancing ecosystem management objectives in the Dolphin Wahoo FMP.
The extent to which the low landings of bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel occur within the dolphin and wahoo fishery is unknown; however, it is unlikely that these species are often harvested in conjunction with efforts to target dolphin and wahoo, especially in the commercial sector. Bullet and frigate
Amendment 12 would add bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP and designate them as EC species. There would be no additional management measures added to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP as a result of this EC species designation, either for bullet and frigate mackerel, or for dolphin and wahoo.
If approved and implemented, Amendment 12 and the proposed rule could be expected to result in potential indirect benefits such as increased awareness among the fishermen, fishing communities, data collecting agencies, and regulatory entities managing dolphin, wahoo, bullet mackerel, and frigate mackerel. If landings for these two mackerel species were to greatly increase in the future to unsustainable levels, fisheries managers could be made aware of the changing stock status before the stocks are depleted which may have subsequent beneficial effects on populations of several economically important predatory fish species, including dolphin, wahoo, blue marlin, and yellowfin tuna.
A proposed rule to implement Amendment 12 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule for Amendment 12 to determine whether it is consistent with the Dolphin Wahoo FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted Amendment 12 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 12 must be received by March 30, 2021. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 12 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove, Amendment 12. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 1, 2021 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 1, 2021 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The initial scope of the QSS was driven primarily by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) priorities and what the budget initiative would allow. The goal was to begin covering the most dynamic sectors of the service economy for which BEA had little to no alternate source data. In the wake of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, it was clear that information services and high-tech industries needed to be a priority as BEA experienced major revisions to their GDP estimates as annual data came in later. So, at the time it was launched, QSS produced estimates for just three North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors (51, 54, and 56).
Shortly after the Financial Crisis in 2007-2008, QSS received approval to expand the scope of the survey to match that of the Economic Census of Services. A major part of this expansion would provide for tracking of the Financial sector which, of course, was now in the spotlight. Between 2009 and 2010, QSS underwent a multi-phased expansion, increasing the total coverage from three to eleven NAICS sectors.
QSS expanded yet again in 2012 to cover the Accommodation subsector which was the only remaining service industry with no sub-annual coverage.
We currently publish estimates based on the 2012 NAICS. The QSS covers all or parts of the following NAICS sectors: Utilities (excluding government owned); Transportation and warehousing (except rail transportation and postal) services; Information; Finance and insurance (except funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles); Real estate and rental and leasing; Professional, scientific, and technical services; Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services; Educational services (except elementary and secondary schools, junior colleges, and colleges, universities, and professional schools); Health care and social assistance; Arts, entertainment, and recreation; Accommodation; and Other services (except public administration). See Section 19 (NAICS Codes Affected) for a list of all of the QSS industries. The QSS provides the most current official measures of total revenue and percentage of revenue by class of customer (for selected industries) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the QSS provides the most current official quarterly measure of total expenses from tax-exempt firms in industries that have a large not-for-profit component. All
The total revenue estimates produced from the QSS provide current trends of economic activity in the service industry in the United States from service providers with paid employees.
In addition to revenue, we also collect total expenses from tax-exempt firms in industries that have a large not-for-profit component. Expenses provide a better measure of the economic activity of these firms. Expense estimates produced by the QSS, in addition to inpatient days and discharges for the hospital industry, are used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to project and study hospital regulation, Medicare payment adequacy, and other related projects. For select industries in the Arts, entertainment, and recreation sector, the survey produces estimates of admissions revenue.
Beginning with the release of 2016 fourth quarter estimates on February 17, 2017, the first Advance Quarterly Services Report was released in an effort to meet data users' needs for more timely data. Published approximately 50 days following the end of the quarter, the Advance Quarterly Services Report contains a snapshot of quarterly estimates of revenue for selected sectors, subsectors, and industries on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Our research found that these selected levels were good predictors of the estimates published in the full quarterly services report.
Beginning with the release of 2019 first quarter estimates on May 17, 2019, the Advance Quarterly Services Report includes a seasonally adjusted estimate for the Selected Services Total. Additionally, with the release of 2019 fourth quarter estimates on March 12, 2020, the Quarterly Services Report now includes 100 seasonally adjusted series. Seasonal adjustment is the process of estimating and removing seasonal effects from a time series in order to better reveal certain non-seasonal features. Many data users prefer seasonally adjusted data because they want to see those characteristics that seasonal movements tend to mask, especially changes in the direction of the series.
The notice in
Reliable measures of economic activity are essential to an objective assessment of the need for, and impact of, a wide range of public policy decisions. The QSS supports these measures by providing the latest estimates of service industry output on a quarterly basis.
Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau collects, tabulates, and publishes estimates to provide, with measurable reliability, statistics on domestic service total revenue, total expenses, and percentage of revenue by class of customer for select service providers. In addition, the QSS produces estimates for inpatient days and discharges for hospitals.
The BEA is the primary Federal user of QSS results. The BEA utilizes the QSS estimates to make improvements to the national accounts for service industries. In the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), the QSS estimates allow more accurate estimates of both Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and private fixed investment. For example, published revisions to the quarterly NIPA estimates are often the result of incorporation of the latest source data from the QSS. Revenue estimates from the QSS are also used to produce estimates of gross output by industry that allow BEA to produce a much earlier release of the gross domestic product by industry estimates.
Estimates produced from the QSS are used by the BEA as a component of quarterly GDP estimates. The estimates also provide the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) with timely information on current economic performance. All estimates collected from this survey are used extensively by various government agencies and departments on economic policy decisions; private businesses; trade organizations; professional associations; academia; and other various business research and analysis organizations.
The CMS uses the QSS estimates to develop hospital spending estimates in the National Health Expenditure Accounts. In addition, the QSS estimates improve their ability to analyze changes in spending trends for hospitals and other healthcare services. The CMS also uses the estimates in its ten-year health spending forecast estimates and in studies related to Medicare policy and trends.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) utilizes the QSS estimates to assess payment adequacy in the current Medicare program.
The FRB and the CEA use the QSS information to better assess current economic performance. In addition, other government agencies, businesses, and investors use the QSS estimates for market research, industry growth, business planning and forecasting.
Private sector data users and other government agencies both benefit from an earlier release of U.S. services data. The Advance Quarterly Services Report allows policymakers and private data users to make data-driven decisions sooner due to this high-level snapshot of economic data. In addition, the release also allows the BEA to incorporate services data into the second estimate of the GDP. Prior to the implementation of the Advance Quarterly Services Report, Quarterly Services Survey estimates were incorporated in the third estimate of GDP.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks from the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) and Italy. In addition, Commerce is amending its final affirmative determination with respect to Germany.
Applicable January 29, 2021.
Katherine Johnson (Germany) or Hermes Pinilla (Italy), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-3477, respectively.
On December 11, 2020, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy.
The product covered by these orders is forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.
On January 25, 2021, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy. With the exception of entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, as further described below, antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after July 23, 2020, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations.
Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin is zero for subject merchandise produced and exported by Metalcam S.p.A., entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination are excluded from the antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Italy. This exclusion will not be applicable to
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each of these investigations. Commerce published the preliminary determinations in these investigations on July 23, 2020.
The extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on January 18, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany and Italy pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
This amended final determination and antidumping duty orders are published in accordance with sections 735(e) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products covered by these orders are forged steel fluid end blocks (fluid end blocks), whether in finished or unfinished form, and which are typically used in the manufacture or service of hydraulic pumps.
The term “forged” is an industry term used to describe the grain texture of steel resulting from the application of localized compressive force. Illustrative forging standards include, but are not limited to, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A668 and A788.
For purposes of these orders, the term “steel” denotes metal containing the following chemical elements, by weight: (i) Iron greater than or equal to 60 percent; (ii) nickel less than or equal to 8.5 percent; (iii) copper less than or equal to 6 percent; (iv) chromium greater than or equal to 0.4 percent, but less than or equal to 20 percent; and (v) molybdenum greater than or equal to 0.15 percent, but less than or equal to 3 percent. Illustrative steel standards include, but are not limited to, American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) or Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) grades 4130, 4135, 4140, 4320, 4330, 4340, 8630, 15-5, 17-4, F6NM, F22, F60, and XM25, as well as modified varieties of these grades.
The products covered by these orders are: (1) Cut-to-length fluid end blocks with an actual height (measured from its highest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), an actual width (measured from its widest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), and an actual length (measured from its longest point) of 11 inches (279.4 mm) to 75 inches (1,905.0 mm); and (2) strings of fluid end blocks with an actual height (measured from its highest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), an actual width (measured from its widest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), and an actual length (measured from its longest point) up to 360 inches (9,144.0 mm).
The products included in the scope of these orders have a tensile strength of at least 70 KSI (measured in accordance with ASTM A370) and a hardness of at least 140 HBW (measured in accordance with ASTM E10).
A fluid end block may be imported in finished condition (
Excluded from the scope of these orders are fluid end block assemblies which (1) include (a) plungers and related housings, adapters, gaskets, seals, and packing nuts, (b) valves and related seats, springs, seals, and cover nuts, and (c) a discharge flange and related seals, and (2) are otherwise ready to be mated with the “power end” of a hydraulic pump without the need for installation of any plunger, valve, or discharge flange components, or any other further manufacturing operations.
The products included in the scope of these orders may enter under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7218.91.0030, 7218.99.0030, 7224.90.0015, 7224.90.0045, 7326.19.0010, 7326.90.8688, or 8413.91.9055. While these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. (Negromex) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 29, 2021.
Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0250.
On September 12, 2017, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Mexico.
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days.
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
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 to parties within five days after public announcement of the 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, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will announce the date and time of the hearing. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If Negromex's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Negromex for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash 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 finals results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Negromex in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by a producer or exporter not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which it was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 19.52 percent,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also 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 POR. 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) determines that imports of certain corrosion inhibitors (corrosion inhibitors) from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.
Applicable January 29, 2021.
Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201.
On September 10, 2020, Commerce published its
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation. Thus, we have not changed the scope of the investigation.
The products covered by this investigation are corrosion inhibitors from China. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
No party commented on our preliminary separate rate determinations with respect to the mandatory respondents and the non-individually examined companies;
Commerce continues to find that the use of facts available is warranted in determining the rate of the China-wide entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act. As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce finds that the use of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted with respect to the China-wide entity because the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information and, accordingly, we applied adverse inferences in selecting from the facts available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(a). For the final determination, as AFA, we are assigning the China-wide entity the highest transaction-specific dumping margin calculated for Botao, 277.90 percent. Because this constitutes primary information, the statutory corroboration requirement in section 776(c) of the Act does not apply.
Consistent with the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of corrosion inhibitors from China, as described in the appendix to this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 10, 2020, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate identified in the table; (2) for all
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce makes an affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce offsets the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rates. Commerce continues to find that both Botao and Delian qualify for a double-remedy adjustment. We have continued to adjust the cash deposit rates for Botao, Delian, all non-individually-examined companies, and the China-wide entity for export subsidies in the companion CVD investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rates
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an AD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an 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). 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is tolyltriazole and benzotriazole. This includes tolyltriazole and benzotriazole of all grades and forms, including their sodium salt forms. Tolyltriazole is technically known as Tolyltriazole IUPAC 4,5 methyl benzotriazole. It can also be identified as 4,5 methyl benzotriazole, tolutriazole, TTA, and TTZ.
Benzotriazole is technically known as IUPAC 1,2,3-Benzotriazole. It can also be identified as 1,2,3-Benzotriazole, 1,2-Aminozophenylene, lH-Benzotriazole, and BTA.
All forms of tolyltriazole and benzotriazole, including but not limited to flakes, granules, pellets, prills, needles, powder, or liquids, are included within the scope of this investigation.
The scope includes tolyltriazole/sodium tolyltriazole and benzotriazole/sodium benzotriazole that are combined or mixed with other products. For such combined products, only the tolyltriazole/sodium tolyltriazole and benzotriazole/sodium benzotriazole component is covered by the scope of this investigation. Tolyltriazole and sodium tolyltriazole that have been combined with other products is included within the scope, regardless of whether the combining occurs in third countries.
Tolyltriazole, sodium tolyltriazole, benzotriazole and sodium benzotriazole that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with tolyltriazole, sodium tolyltriazole, benzotriazole, or sodium benzotriazole from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject merchandise component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
A combination or mixture is excluded from this investigation if the total tolyltriazole or benzotriazole component of the combination or mixture (regardless of the source or sources) comprises less than 5 percent of the combination or mixture, on a dry weight basis.
Notwithstanding the foregoing language, a tolyltriazole or benzotriazole combination or mixture that is transformed through a chemical reaction into another product, such that, for example, the tolyltriazole or benzotriazole can no longer be separated from the other products through a distillation or other process is excluded from this investigation.
Tolyltriazole has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 299385-43-1. Tolyltriazole is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2933.99.8220.
Sodium Tolyltriazole has the CAS registry number 64665-57-2 and is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8290.
Benzotriazole has the CAS registry number 95-14-7 and is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8210.
Sodium Benzotriazole has the CAS registry number 15217-42-2. Sodium Benzotriazole is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8290.
Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing countervailing duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks (FEBs) from the People's Republic of China (China), the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany), India, and Italy. In addition, Commerce is amending its final determination with respect to FEBs from China to correct ministerial errors.
Applicable January 29, 2021.
Jaron Moore at (202) 482-3640 or Janae Martin at (202) 482-0238 (China); Joseph Dowling at (202) 482-1646 or Robert Palmer at (202) 482-9068 (Germany); William Langley at (202) 482-3861 or Nicholas Czajkowski at (202) 482-1395 (India); and Konrad Ptaszynski at (202) 482-6187 or Nicholas Czajkowski at (202) 482-1395 (Italy); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 705(a), 705(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on December 11, 2020, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy.
On January 25, 2021, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determinations that pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from China, Germany, India, and Italy.
The merchandise covered by these orders is FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
On December 21, 2020, Shanghai Qinghe Machinery Co., Ltd. (Qinghe) timely alleged that the
Commerce reviewed the record and, on January 6, 2020, agreed that an error referenced in Qinghe's allegation constituted a ministerial error within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
On January 25, 2021, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 26, 2020, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy, as described in the appendix to this notice, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the
Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after September 23, 2020, the date on
This notice constitutes the countervailable duty (CVD) orders with respect to FEBs from China, Germany, India, and Italy, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products covered by these orders are forged steel fluid end blocks (fluid end blocks), whether in finished or unfinished form, and which are typically used in the manufacture or service of hydraulic pumps.
The term “forged” is an industry term used to describe the grain texture of steel resulting from the application of localized compressive force. Illustrative forging standards include, but are not limited to, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A668 and A788.
For purposes of these orders, the term “steel” denotes metal containing the following chemical elements, by weight: (i) Iron greater than or equal to 60 percent; (ii) nickel less than or equal to 8.5 percent; (iii) copper less than or equal to 6 percent; (iv) chromium greater than or equal to 0.4 percent, but less than or equal to 20 percent; and (v) molybdenum greater than or equal to 0.15 percent, but less than or equal to 3 percent. Illustrative steel standards include, but are not limited to, American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) or Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) grades 4130, 4135, 4140, 4320, 4330, 4340, 8630, 15-5, 17-4, F6NM, F22, F60, and XM25, as well as modified varieties of these grades.
The products covered by these orders are: (1) Cut-to-length fluid end blocks with an actual height (measured from its highest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), an actual width (measured from its widest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), and an actual length (measured from its longest point) of 11 inches (279.4 mm) to 75 inches (1,905.0 mm); and (2) strings of fluid end blocks with an actual height (measured from its highest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), an actual width (measured from its widest point) of 8 inches (203.2 mm) to 40 inches (1,016.0 mm), and an actual length (measured from its longest point) up to 360 inches (9,144.0 mm).
The products included in the scope of these orders have a tensile strength of at least 70 KSI (measured in accordance with ASTM A370) and a hardness of at least 140 HBW (measured in accordance with ASTM E10).
A fluid end block may be imported in finished condition (
Excluded from the scope of these orders are fluid end block assemblies which (1) include (a) plungers and related housings, adapters, gaskets, seals, and packing nuts, (b) valves and related seats, springs, seals, and cover nuts, and (c) a discharge flange and related seals, and (2) are otherwise ready to be mated with the “power end” of a hydraulic pump without the need for installation of any plunger, valve, or discharge flange components, or any other further manufacturing operations.
The products included in the scope of these orders may enter under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7218.91.0030, 7218.99.0030, 7224.90.0015, 7224.90.0045, 7326.19.0010, 7326.90.8688, or 8413.91.9055. While these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion inhibitors from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable January 29, 2021.
Theodore Pearson or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2631 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.
The petitioner in this investigation is Wincom, Inc. In addition to the Government of China, the selected mandatory respondents in this investigation are Jiangyin Delian Chemical Co., Ltd. (Delian) and Nantong Botao Chemical Co., Ltd. (Botao).
On July 13, 2020, Commerce published in the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The period of investigation is January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
The products covered by this investigation are certain corrosion inhibitors from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In making this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Additionally, as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. This includes three companies that did not respond to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire; as described in the
Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Botao and Delian's subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, Commerce calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that, in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. The rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero,
In this investigation, as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Delian and Botao that were not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of corrosion inhibitors from China. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of corrosion inhibitors from China no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a countervailing duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is tolyltriazole and benzotriazole. This includes tolyltriazole and benzotriazole of all grades and forms, including their sodium salt forms. Tolyltriazole is technically known as Tolyltriazole IUPAC 4,5 methyl benzotriazole. It can also be identified as 4,5 methyl benzotriazole, tolutriazole, TTA, and TTZ.
Benzotriazole is technically known as IUPAC 1,2,3-Benzotriazole. It can also be identified as 1,2,3-Benzotriazole, 1,2-Aminozophenylene, lH-Benzotriazole, and BTA.
All forms of tolyltriazole and benzotriazole, including but not limited to flakes, granules, pellets, prills, needles, powder, or liquids, are included within the scope of this investigation.
The scope includes tolyltriazole/sodium tolyltriazole and benzotriazole/sodium benzotriazole that are combined or mixed with other products. For such combined products, only the tolyltriazole/sodium tolyltriazole and benzotriazole/sodium benzotriazole component is covered by the scope of this investigation. Tolyltriazole and sodium tolyltriazole that have been combined with other products is included within the scope, regardless of whether the combining occurs in third countries.
Tolyltriazole, sodium tolyltriazole, benzotriazole and sodium benzotriazole that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with tolyltriazole, sodium tolyltriazole, benzotriazole, or sodium benzotriazole from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject merchandise component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
A combination or mixture is excluded from this investigation if the total tolyltriazole or benzotriazole component of the combination or mixture (regardless of the source or sources) comprises less than 5 percent of the combination or mixture, on a dry weight basis.
Notwithstanding the foregoing language, a tolyltriazole or benzotriazole combination or mixture that is transformed through a chemical reaction into another product, such that, for example, the tolyltriazole or benzotriazole can no longer be separated from the other products through a distillation or other process is excluded from this investigation.
Tolyltriazole has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number 299385-43-1. Tolyltriazole is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2933.99.8220.
Sodium Tolyltriazole has the CAS registry number 64665-57-2 and is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8290.
Benzotriazole has the CAS registry number 95-14-7 and is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8210.
Sodium Benzotriazole has the CAS registry number 15217-42-2. Sodium Benzotriazole is classified under HTSUS subheading 2933.99.8290.
Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 30, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to MaryLee Haughwout, Deputy Director, NOAA Marine Debris Program, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,
This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
This data collection project will be coordinated by the NOAA Marine Debris Program, under the authority of Marine Debris Act (33 U.S.C. 1951
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings; request for comments.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) will hold five public hearings via webinar and a written comment period to solicit public comments on a developing management action to consider potential changes to the allocation of total catch or landings between the commercial and recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.
The webinar hearings will be held between February 17 and March 2, 2021. Each hearing will take place from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. EST. Written comments must be received on or before 11:59 p.m. EST, March 16, 2021. See
All hearings will be hosted through GoToWebinar. You must use GoToWebinar to speak during the hearings. A listen-only call in option is also available. Participants will not be able to speak through the listen-only phone connection. To access any of the webinar hearings, please follow the registration prompts at
A public hearing document with more information on this action is available at:
•
•
•
•
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Council and the Commission are developing a joint action to consider adjusting the allocations of catch or landings between the commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The commercial and recreational allocations for all three species are currently based on historical proportions of landings (for summer flounder and black sea bass) or catch (for scup) from each sector. The current allocations were set in the mid-1990s and have not been revised since that time. Recent changes in how recreational catch is estimated have resulted in a discrepancy between the current levels of estimated recreational harvest and the allocations of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass to the recreational sector. This action will consider whether modifications to the allocations are needed in light of these and other changes in the fisheries. This action will also consider the option to transfer a portion of the allowable landings each year between the commercial and recreational sectors, in either direction, based on the needs of each sector, and consider whether future additional modifications to the commercial/recreational allocations and/or transfer provisions can be considered through a future FMP addendum/framework action, as opposed to an amendment. Additional information on this action is available at:
The dates and times of the five webinar hearings are listed below. You are encouraged to participate in the hearing for your state or region; however, all hearings are open to all individuals.
1. Massachusetts and Rhode Island: Wednesday, February 17, 2021; 6-8 p.m. EST.
2. New Jersey: Thursday, February 18, 2021; 6-8 p.m. EST.
3. Delaware and Maryland: Wednesday, February 24, 2021; 6-8 p.m. EST.
4. Virginia and North Carolina: Monday, March 1, 2021; 6-8 p.m. EST.
5. Connecticut and New York: Tuesday, March 2, 2021; 6-8 p.m. EST.
These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.
16 U.S.C. 101
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 30, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Donald Collins, Oceanographer, NOAA/National Centers for Environmental Information, 1315 East West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301-713-4853,
This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects, generates, retains, and redistributes geospatial metadata in a wide array of data formats covering diverse aspects of earth, biological, and space sciences. To fully understand and reuse these data over the course of many years, NOAA provides several metadata documentation tools for various communities of users to enable them to
•
•
•
•
•
Collecting geospatial metadata is necessary to fully understand, use, and reuse geospatial data, geospatial metadata because metadata provides contextual information about data formats, bounding areas, use and access limitations (if any). Geospatial metadata from this information collection also supports multiple search and discovery catalog services, such as
Information will be collected from data producers (primarily university, private industry, and government-funded scientific researchers) in multiple fields of geosciences, biological and atmospheric sciences, and socio-economic sciences. Geospatial metadata typically includes descriptive information about specific observed, calculated, or modelled data (
The existing OMB control number is being revised to include additional information collection instruments that collect similar kinds of geospatial metadata as Send2NCEI, but that have different community-based practices or standards that provide for more or less details in the metadata requested. Additionally, the title of this collection of information is being revised from National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Send2NCEI Web Application to NOAA Geospatial Metadata to more accurately reflect the revised collection of information.
All of the listed information collection instruments use a series of guided web page (html) forms to collect specific elements of geospatial metadata (
Send2NCEI—300 respondents/year,
ATRAC—100 respondents/year,
CoMET—50 respondents/year,
InPort—15 respondents/year,
SDIS—200 respondents/year.
Send2NCEI—.75 hours/response,
ATRAC—4 hours/response,
CoMET—3 hours/response,
InPort—1 hour/response,
SDIS—1 hour/response.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 30, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Ashley Chappell, NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Coordinator, 1315 East West Hwy., SSMC3, Rm 6813, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 240-429-0293, or
This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and partner mapping agencies are working to improve the technology systems, data, and services that provide information about 3D data and related applications within the United States. By continuing to learn about business uses and associated benefits that would be realized from improved 3D data, the agencies can more effectively prioritize and direct investments that will best serve user needs. The 3D Nation Elevation Data Requirements and Benefits Study [3D Nation Study] is part of the continuing effort to develop and refine future program alternatives that would provide enhanced 3D data to meet many Federal, State, and other national business needs.
In 2017, NOAA and the USGS initiated a 3D Nation Study follow-on to the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA) white paper finalized in 2012 (NEEA overview can be found at
Because 3D data are collected and used to meet a wide range of mission critical needs, the 3D Nation Study seeks input from managers and data users from a variety of government entities (
Emails are sent to a comprehensive list of stakeholders, with requests to forward to any other interested participants. The emails include a link to the online survey, which can also be provided upon request by paper or other means. In-person interviews may follow to resolve questions, clarify answers and add more detail to responses. Responses may be summarized at the organization level and verified by respondents willing for their input to be included in final reports and appendices.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its River Herring and Shad (RH/S) Advisory Panel (AP) via webinar.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 8, 2021, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See
The meeting will be held via online webinar, with connection information available via the Council's website at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of the meeting is gather AP input on several RH/S white papers being developed by Council staff. Briefing materials will be posted to the Council's website at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Collins, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to any meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 30, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources F/PR1, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 427-8647,
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under section 101(a)(5)(A) or 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires three sets of information collection: (1) A complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104, which provides the information necessary for us to make the necessary statutory determinations, including estimates of take and an assessment of impacts on the affected species and stocks; (2) information relating to required monitoring; and (3) information related to required reporting. These collections of information enable us to: (1) Evaluate the proposed activity's impact on marine mammals; (2) arrive at the appropriate determinations required by the MMPA and other applicable laws prior to issuing the authorization; and (3) monitor impacts of activities for which we have issued Authorizations to determine if our predictions regarding impacts on marine mammals remain valid.
We do not propose any changes to the information collection beyond expecting an increased number of respondents and responses due to increases in the number of requests for incidental take authorizations.
Respondents have a choice of submitting either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email, mail, overnight delivery service, and/or facsimile transmissions.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 10/23/2020, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add product(s) the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes product(s) and service(s) previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 1, 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 Darryl Davis, 202-453-7582.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This collection 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.
Department of Education.
Notice of a new Computer Matching Agreement.
This document provides notice of a new Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) between the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and the Department of Defense (DoD). The current 18-month CMA was recertified for an additional 12 months on February 27, 2020, and will automatically expire on February 26, 2021.
Submit your comments on the proposed CMA on or before March 1, 2021. The CMA will be effective March 1, 2021, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public requiring modification and republication of the notice.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Gerard Duffey, Management and Program Analyst, Wanamaker Building, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 100 Penn Square East, Suite 509.B10, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Telephone: (215) 656-3249.
In accordance with the Privacy Act; OMB Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, published in the
The Secretary of Defense must provide the Secretary of Education with information to identify the children of military personnel who have died as a result of their military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, to determine if the child is eligible for increased amounts of title IV, HEA program assistance.
The CMA will continue for 18 months after the effective date of the CMA and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if the conditions specified in sections 420R and 473(b) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070h), 473(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1087mm(b)(3)), and in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), have been met.
Verification by this matching program provides an efficient and comprehensive method of identifying students whose parent or guardian was a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and died as a result of performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Accelerator R&D and Production, Office of Science, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for information (RFI).
The Office of Accelerator R&D and Production, as DOE's coordinating office for accelerator R&D to support the Office of Science research mission, is requesting information on the current state of the accelerator technology market, and for information about successful public-private-partnership models.
Written comments and information are requested on or before March 15, 2021.
Interested persons may submit comments by email only. Comments must be sent to
Dr. Eric R. Colby, (301) 903-5475,
For the purposes of this Request for Information, Accelerator Technology encompasses the materials, components, subsystems, and integrated accelerator systems needed for modern accelerators. This includes accelerator structures (both room temperature and superconducting); high power radio frequency sources and transmission components; high efficiency high-voltage pulsed-power systems; high precision accelerator magnets (both conventional and superconducting); high power laser systems; high brightness sources of electrons, protons,
The transfer of high technology from academic and research use into industrialized production for broader use is a vital step towards reducing cost and increasing reliability of particle accelerators generally. Collaborative models of accelerator R&D, public-private partnerships, cooperative research and development agreements, Small Business Innovation Research programs, and industrial R&D are but a few of the critical mechanisms that move technology from concept to practice.
The questions below are intended to assist in the formulation of comments and should not be considered as a limitation on either the number or the issues that may be addressed in such comments. A summary of the comments provided will be made public.
The DOE Office of Accelerator R&D and Production is specifically interested in receiving input pertaining to any of the following questions:
1. What are the current industrial applications of particle accelerators and closely related accelerator technologies (see previous description)? What is the approximate size of these markets?
2. What are the emergent industrial applications of particle accelerators and closely related technologies?
3. Are there specific aspects of the current market that pose challenges to maintaining a viable accelerator technology business?
4. Are there specific aspects of the current market that inhibit technology transfer and/or the introduction of new accelerator technologies?
5. What mechanisms are currently in use to transfer technology innovations to industrial practice in your technology area?
a. What aspects of these mechanisms are effective?
b. What opportunities exist to improve these mechanisms?
c. How widely known or easily accessible are these mechanisms?
6. Can you describe previous examples of successful technology R&D partnerships or mechanisms? Why, specifically, were these partnerships or mechanisms successful?
7. Can you describe examples of failed technology partnerships or mechanisms? Why, specifically, did these attempts fail?
8. Are there new models of technology transfer that should be explored?
9. Do present training mechanisms such as SULI,
a. What aspects of current training mechanisms could be improved?
b. What additional mechanisms could be used to improve overall workforce expertise and readiness?
10. What mix of institutions (industrial, academic, lab, government) could best carry out the required technology transfer R&D, and who should drive the R&D?
11. What collaboration models would be most effective for pursuing joint technology R&D?
12. How could accelerator technology R&D efforts engage with other innovation and manufacturing initiatives, such as Manufacturing USA?
13. At what point in the technology transfer and subsequent manufacturing development cycle would federal support no longer be needed?
14. How best can integrated production know-how for niche market technologies be preserved once high-quality sustainable production has been achieved?
15. What metrics should be used to assess the progress of an accelerator technology transfer effort over the short term (
16. Are there other factors, not addressed by the questions above, that impact the successful transfer and industrialization of accelerator technology?
Depending on the response to this RFI, a subsequent workshop may be held to further explore and elaborate the opportunities.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 25, 2021, by J. Stephen Binkley, Acting Director, Office of Science, pursuant to delegated authority from the Acting Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On October 28, 2020 and supplemented on January 19, 2021, Ada County, (transferor), Fulcrum, LLC (co-licensee) and Barber Pool Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed jointly an application for partial transfer of license for the Barber Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 4881. The project is located on the Boise, Columbia and Snake rivers, Ada County, Idaho.
The applicants seek Commission approval to partially transfer the license for the Barber Dam Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the transferee and keeping Fulcrum, LLC and Barber Pool Hydro, LLC as co-licensees.
In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-4881-029. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (EPA ICR Number 2498.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0697), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2021. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2020-0203 online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/22/2021; Officially Withdrawn per request of the submitting agency.
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/22/2021; Officially Withdrawn per request of the submitting agency.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (EPA ICR Number 0801.25, OMB Control Number 2050-0039), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act . This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2021. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 1, 2021.
Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756 online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bryan Groce, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division, (5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8750; fax number: (703) 308-0514; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to the Act, EPA modified the manifest regulations on February 7, 2014 (the e-Manifest “One Year Rule”), to authorize use of electronic manifests (or e-Manifests) for tracking offsite shipments of hazardous waste from a generator's site to the site of the receipt and disposition of the hazardous waste. On January 3, 2018, EPA finalized the e-Manifest User Fee Final Rule which established the fee methodology that EPA uses to determine the user fees applicable to the electronic and paper manifests submitted to the national system. EPA launched the e-Manifest system on June 30, 2018. TSDFs and other receiving facilities must submit manifests, both paper and electronic, to EPA. In addition to fees for RCRA wastes, EPA is charging TSDFs and other facilities receiving state-only regulated wastes a fee for each manifest submitted to the system. Regulations regarding copy submission requirements for interstate shipments and the applicability of e-Manifest system and fees to facilities receiving state-only regulated wastes are found in 40 CFR part 260 (Hazardous Waste Management System). Regulations regarding imposition of user fees on receiving facilities for their manifest submissions, with references to key fee methodology, fee dispute, and fee sanction requirements are found in parts 264 and 265.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 574 Tribal entities recognized by and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes.
The list is updated from the notice published on January 30, 2020 (85 FR 5462).
Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally acknowledged Indian Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Amendments to the list include formatting edits, name changes, and name corrections.
To aid in identifying Tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.
United States International Trade Commission.
Correction of notice.
Correction is made to the March 24, 2021 deadline for filing posthearing briefs statements, the April 8, 2021 date of record closing, and the April 12, 2021 deadline for filing final comments, in the
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 13) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation (“NOI”) in the above-captioned investigation to add dependent claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,403,531 (“the '531 patent”) and withdraw claims 17, 21, and 24 of the same patent.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On August 17, 2020, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Ideal Industries Lighting LLC d/b/a Cree Lighting (“Cree”) of Durham, North Carolina. 85 FR 50047-48 (Aug. 17, 2020). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain light-emitting diode products, fixtures, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of the '531 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,596,819; 8,777,449; 9,261,270; and 9,476,570.
On December 23, 2020, Cree filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation (“NOI”) to add dependent claim 11 of the '531 patent, and withdraw claims 17, 21, and 24 of the same patent. RAB opposed the motion.
The ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 13) on January 8, 2021, granting Cree's motion for leave to amend the complaint and NOI. The ID finds that the prejudice to RAB is minimal and that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the motion to amend under Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) because it is in the public interest to adjudicate all relevant claims as efficiently as possible,
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 26, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of Investigation and Scheduling of a public hearing.
Following receipt on January 4, 2021, of a request from the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted Investigation No. 332-585,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be submitted electronically and addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Ricky Ubee (202-205-3493 or
In its letter the Committee defined censorship as “the prohibition or suppression of speech or other forms of communication,” and stated that foreign governments use many tools to carry out censorship, including technological measures that restrict digital trade. The Committee said that these tools, and the policies that enable them, allow authorities in foreign markets to limit speech by controlling the flow of information and services.
More specifically, the Committee asked that the Commission conduct an investigation and prepare a report, informed by a survey of businesses in the United States, that provides detailed information, including the following:
1. Identification and descriptions of various foreign censorship practices, in particular any examples that U.S. businesses consider to impede trade or investment in key foreign markets. The description should include to the extent practicable:
a. The evolution of censorship policies and practices over the past 5 years in key foreign markets;
b. any elements that entail extraterritorial censorship; and
c. the roles of governmental and non-governmental actors in implementation and enforcement of the practices.
2. To the extent practicable, including through the use of survey data, an analysis of the trade and economic effects of such policies and practices on affected businesses in the United States and their global operations. The analysis should include to the extent practicable, quantitative and qualitative impacts of the identified policies, including by reference, where identifiable, to:
a. Impact on employment;
b. direct costs (
c. foregone revenue and sales;
d. self-censorship; and
e. other effects the Commission considers relevant for the Committee to know.
Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary no later than 5:15 p.m., August 24, 2021, in accordance with the requirements in the “Written Submissions” section below. All prehearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., September 2, 2021. To facilitate the hearing, including the preparation of an accurate written transcript of the hearing, oral testimony to be presented at the hearing must be submitted to the Commission electronically no later than noon, September 7, 2021. All posthearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., September 21, 2021. Posthearing briefs and statements should address matters raised at the hearing. For a description of the different types of written briefs and statements, see the “Definitions” section below.
In the event that, as of the close of business on August 24, 2021, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000 after August 24, 2021, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
There is no standard format that briefs or other written submissions must follow. However, each such document must identify on its cover (1) the type of document filed (
As requested by the Committee on Finance, the Commission will not include any confidential business information in its report. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a way that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-647 and 731-TA-1517-1520 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, provided for in subheadings 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50, 4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less-than-fair-value and subsidized by the government of Vietnam.
January 6, 2021.
Keysha Martinez ((202) 205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars.
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks.
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose
All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by these investigations regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that fits passenger cars or light trucks. Sizes that fit passenger cars and light trucks include, but are not limited to, the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually. The scope includes all tires that are of a size that fits passenger cars or light trucks, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set out below.
Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.
Specifically excluded from the scope are the following types of tires:
(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;
(2) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;
(3) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(4) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in Table PCT-1R (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) or PCT-1B (“T” Type Diagonal (Bias) Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “T” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed is 81 MPH or a “M” rating;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for light trucks which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The tires have a 265/70R17, 255/80R17, 265/70R16, 245/70R17, 245/75R17, 265/70R18, or 265/70R18 size designation;
(b) “Temporary Use Only” or “Spare” is molded into the tire's sidewall;
(c) the tread depth of the tire is no greater than 6.2 mm; and
(d) Uniform Tire Quality Grade Standards (“UTQG”) ratings are not molded into the tire's sidewall with the exception of 265/70R17 and 255/80R17 which may have UTGC molded on the tire sidewall;
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:
(a) The size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “ST” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the Tire and Rim Association Year Book for the relevant ST tire size, and
(e) either
(i) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 81 MPH or an “M” rating; or
(ii) the tire's speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire's maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either
(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book; or
(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than any cold inflation pressure listed for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load limit molded on the tire is higher than the maximum load limit listed at that cold inflation pressure for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 55 MPH or a “G” rating, and
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design;
(8) Tires designed and marketed for off-road use as all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) tires or utility-terrain-vehicle (UTV) tires, and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following characteristics:
(a) The tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and
(b) both of the following physical characteristics are satisfied:
(i) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall does not match any of those listed in the passenger car or light truck sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and
(ii) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall matches any of the following size designation (American standard or metric) and load index combinations:
The products covered by this investigation are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10,
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 19, 2019, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Ellwood City Forge Company, Ellwood Quality Steels Company, and Ellwood National Steel Company, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania; A. Finkl & Sons, Chicago, Illinois; and FEB Fair Trade Coalition, Cleveland, Ohio. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of fluid end blocks from China, Germany, India, and Italy were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and imports from Germany and Italy sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 25, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5152 (January 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective April 16, 2020, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Insteel Wire Products Company, Mount Airy, North Carolina, Sumiden Wire Products Corporation, Dickson, Tennessee, and Wire Mesh Corporation, Houston, Texas. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of PC strand from Turkey were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and that imports of PC strand from Argentina, Colombia, Egypt, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 25, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5153 (January 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-648 and 731-TA-1521-1522 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of walk-behind lawn mowers from China and Vietnam, provided for in subheading 8433.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of walk-behind lawn mowers from China preliminarily determined by Commerce to be subsidized by the Government of China sold at less-than-fair-value.
December 30, 2020.
Nitin Joshi ((202) 708-1669), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Walk-behind lawn mowers within the scope of this investigation are only those powered by an internal combustion engine with a power rating of less than 3.7 kilowatts (kw). These internal combustion engines are typically spark ignition, single or multiple cylinder, air cooled, internal combustion engines with vertical power take off shafts with a maximum displacement of 196cc. Walk-behind lawn mowers covered by this scope typically must be certified and comply with the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Safety Standard For Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers under the 16 CFR part 1205. However, lawn mowers that meet the physical descriptions above, but are not certified under 16 CFR part 1205 remain subject to the scope of this proceeding.
The internal combustion engines of the lawn mowers covered by this scope typically must comply with and be certified under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution controls title 40, chapter I, subchapter U, part 1054 of the Code of Federal Regulations standards for small non-road spark-ignition engines and equipment. However, lawn mowers that meet the physical descriptions above but that do not have engines certified under 40 CFR part 1054 or other parts of subchapter U remain subject to the scope of this proceeding.
For purposes of this investigation, an unfinished and/or unassembled lawn mower means at a minimum, a sub-assembly comprised of an engine and a cutting deck shell attached to one another. A cutting deck shell is the portion of the lawn mower—typically of aluminum or steel—that houses and protects a user from a rotating blade. Importation of the subassembly whether or not accompanied by, or attached to, additional components such as a handle, blade(s), grass catching bag, or wheel(s) constitute an unfinished lawn mower for purposes of this investigation. The inclusion in a third country of any components other than the mower subassembly does not remove the lawn mower from the scope. Lawn mowers that meet the physical description above are covered by the scope of this investigation regardless of the origin of its engine, unless such lawn mowers contain an engine that is covered by the scope of the ongoing proceedings on certain vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc, and parts thereof (small vertical engines) from China. If the proceedings on small vertical engines from China are terminated, the lawn mowers containing small vertical engines from China will be covered by the scope of this proceeding.”
The walk-behind lawn mowers subject to these investigations are typically imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting number 8433.11.0050. Walk-behind lawn mowers subject to these investigations may also enter under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 8407.90.1010 and 8433.90.1090. The HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, and the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this investigation effective December 18, 2019, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition Against Korean Cigarettes. The coalition members are Xcaliber International, Pryor, Oklahoma and Cheyenne
The Commission made this determination pursuant to § 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on January 25, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5151 (January 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 1, 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:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 1, 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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 1, 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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
On January 15, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Third Amendment to Consent Decree (Consent Decree) with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, in the lawsuit entitled
The Complaint initiating this matter sought injunctive relief and civil penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Under the proposed Third Amendment to Consent Decree, the City has agreed to achieve a series of interim overflow reductions culminating in achievement of at least 85% reduction of overflow volume not later than December 31, 2040. The interim milestones require capture of specified percentages of overflows and implementation of specified control measures by December 31, 2024, December 31, 2030, and December 31, 2035. Additionally, the Third Amendment to Consent Decree incorporates adaptive management concepts intended to allow the parties expeditiously to agree upon re-ordering or substitution of projects in a manner that does not impact the achievement of interim or final flow capture requirements.
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
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 $26.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND (2(A) or 2(B) below)
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely; AND (ii and iii below)
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(i) (I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; AND
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; AND
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4)); AND
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); OR
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A)); AND
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both), or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Administrator of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than February 8, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 8, 2021.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Veterans Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS),” to be conducted in August 2021, August
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before March 30, 2021.
Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by email to
Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7763 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The CPS has been the principal source of official Government statistics on employment and unemployment since 1940 (75 years). Collection of labor force data through the CPS is necessary to meet the requirements in Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1 and 2. The Veterans Supplement provides information on the labor force status of veterans with a service-connected disability, combat veterans, past or present National Guard and Reserve members, and recently discharged veterans. Also, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam veterans are identified by location of service. Data are provided by period of service and a range of demographic characteristics. The supplement also provides information on veterans' participation in various transition and employment and training programs. The data collected through this supplement will be used by the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to determine policies that better meet the needs of our Nation's veteran population.
In order to make the information for the supplement more relevant, twenty-four questions are proposed for addition starting with the 2021 Veterans Supplement. New questions include items about veterans' transition from Active Duty to civilian employment, details about working with service-connected disabilities, awareness of VA benefits, and work duties while in the Armed forces. In addition, many questions were revised; most of these changes were made to streamline or clarify language or to update questions to use more current terms. Finally, ten questions are proposed for elimination; these little-used questions include detailed questions about veterans' experiences with Transition Assistance Program workshops, strategies for obtaining employment (networking, etc.), and whether veterans receive a monthly check from the VA for a service-connected disability. The revised questionnaire underwent cognitive testing and expert review.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Veterans Supplement to the CPS.
A revision of a currently approved collection is needed to continue to provide the Nation with timely information about the labor force status of veterans with a service-connected disability, combat veterans, past or present National Guard and Reserve members, recently discharged veterans, and veterans who have served in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. In addition, the Veterans Supplement will provide information to assist VA and VETS to develop programs and policies that smooth veterans' transition into civilian employment, including for veterans with service-connected disabilities.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).
Thursday, February 18, 2021, 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
This will be a virtual meeting via teleconference.
Ms. Lisa M. Hackley, ASAP Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1947 or
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its First Quarterly Meeting for 2021. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
This meeting is a virtual meeting, and only available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-566-6133; passcode 8343253 and then the # sign. At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5 minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Lisa M. Hackley at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection—Renewal of existing approved collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has submitted for OMB review a request regarding this information collection under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments are due by March 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Little, NASA Clearance Officer,
Contractors performing research and development are required by statutes, NASA implementing regulations, and OMB policy to submit reports of inventions, patents, data, and copyrights, including the utilization and disposition of same. The NASA New Technology Summary Report reporting form is being used for this purpose.
NASA FAR Supplement clauses for patent rights and new technology encourage the contractor to use an electronic form and provide a hyperlink to the electronic New Technology Reporting System (e-NTR) site
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight (CO), pursuant to National Science Foundation regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Wednesday, February 3, 2021 from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST.
This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Open.
Committee Chair's opening remarks; review and approve a handbook describing CO activity; discuss priority items from the workplan for the CO's broader impacts inquiry; discuss topics for the Chair's upcoming meeting with the Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering (CEOSE); consider broader impacts as a part of NSF's strategic plan under development; and Committee Chair's closing remarks.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Ann Bushmiller, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: 703/292-7000. To listen to this teleconference, members of the public must send an email to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan-final section revision; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final revision to Branch Technical Position (BTP) 7-19, “Guidance for Evaluation of Defense in Depth and Diversity to Address Common-Cause Failure due to Latent Design Defects in Digital Safety Systems” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.”
The update to this BTP takes effect on January 29, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0253 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC posts its issued staff guidance on the NRC's public website at
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3053, email:
On January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2152), the NRC published for public comment a proposed revision of BTP 7-19, “Guidance for Evaluation of Potential Common Cause Failure Due to Latent Software Defects in Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” The public comment period closed on March 16, 2020. Eight public comments were received regarding draft Revision 8 of BTP 7-19. The final Revision 8 to NUREG-0800, BTP 7-19, “Guidance for Evaluation of Defense in Depth and Diversity to Address Common-Cause Failure due to Latent Design Defects in Digital Safety Systems” is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML20339A647. A summary of the public comments and the NRC staff's disposition of the comments are available in ADAMS Accession No. ML20126G430. The redline/strikeout comparison between the draft version of BTP 7-19 and this final version, including revisions made in response to public comments and to improve organization, is shown in ML20364A212.
Chapter 7 of the SRP provides guidance to the staff for reviewing instrumentation and controls information provided in applications for licensing actions. Part of Chapter 7, BTP 7-19 provides guidance for the evaluation of diversity and defense-in-depth in digital computer-based instrumentation and control systems.
Issuance of this BTP revision does not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
First, the SRP provides guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in guidance intended for use by only the staff are not matters that constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1); constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4; or affect issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certificates, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”
Second, the NRC staff does not intend to use the guidance in this BTP SRP section to support NRC staff actions in a manner that would constitute backfitting or forward fitting. If, in the future, the NRC seeks to impose a position in this SRP section in a manner that constitutes backfitting or forward fitting or affects the issue finality for a 10 CFR part 52 approval, then the NRC will address the backfitting provision in 10 CFR 50.109, the forward fitting provision of MD 8.4, or the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, respectively.
This action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). OMB's clearance of BTP 7-19 as a non-major rule is shown in ADAMS Accession No. ML21025A022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of consolidation of staff guidance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed a consolidation effort to streamline the review process pertaining to staff guidance for spent fuel storage and radioactive material transportation packages. NUREG-1536, and NUREG-1567 have been consolidated into NUREG-2215 (NRC-2017-0211), and similarly, NUREG-1609 and NUREG-1617 have been consolidated into in NUREG-2216 (NRC-2019-0132), as well as all associated supplements and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Interim Staff Guidance (ISG). A notice of this consolidation has been posted on each of the affected web pages and redirects to NUREG-2215 and NUREG-2216 have been provided. Note that the retired standard review plans (SRPs) and ISG still remain available for reference as legacy documents, with links provided on each web page.
The revised format described in this document takes effect on January 29, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0033 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents collection at
•
Jeremy Smith, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7308, email:
NUREG-2215 is the new consolidated SRP for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities that was issued as a draft for public comment on February 15, 2017 (82 FR 52944), under docket number NRC-2017-0211. This SRP is used by staff to generate safety evaluation reports and certificate of compliances under part 72 of title 10 of the
NUREG-2216 is the new consolidated SRP for Transportation Packages for Spent Fuel and Radioactive Material that was issued as a draft for public comment on August 16, 2019 (84 FR 42024), under docket number NRC-2019-0132. This SRP is used by staff for evaluating package approvals under 10 CFR part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material.” NUREG-1609, NUREG-1617, their respective supplements for mixed oxide fuels and tritium producing burnable absorber rods, and all applicable ISGs were consolidated into NUREG-2216.
NUREG-1536 was the SRP for Dry Cask Storage Systems. NUREG-1567 was the SRP for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities. NUREG-1609 was the SRP for Transportation Packages for Radioactive Material. NUREG-1617 was the SRP for Transportation Packages for Spent Nuclear Fuel.
The ISG for Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation was a set of guidance documents for staff that clarify information or provide additional guidance to staff in specific areas that had evolved since the original issuance of the original SRPs.
Staff determined that a consolidation of this information would streamline the review process for staff since the original SRPs, supplements, and ISGs (over 20 documents) were cumbersome for staff to reference as part of the review process. Further, this notice is specifically made so that the public are aware of the changes that took place in the NUREG Series Publications pertaining to the standard review process for spent fuel storage and radioactive material packaging.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 231k), unemployment benefits are not payable for any day for which the claimant is not available for work.
Under Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) regulation 20 CFR 327.5, “available for work” is defined as being willing and ready for work. A claimant is “willing” to work if willing to accept and perform for hire such work as is reasonably appropriate to his or her employment circumstances. A claimant is “ready” for work if he or she (1) is in a position to receive notice of work and is willing to accept and perform such work, and (2) is prepared to be present with the customary equipment at the location of such work within the time usually allotted.
Under RRB regulation 20 CFR 327.15, a claimant may be requested at any time to show, as evidence of willingness to work, that reasonable efforts are being made to obtain work. In order to determine whether a claimant is; (a) available for work, and (b) willing to work, the RRB utilizes Forms UI-38, UI Claimant's Report of Efforts to Find Work, and UI-38s, School Attendance and Availability Questionnaire, to obtain information from the claimant and Form ID-8k, Questionnaire—Reinstatement of Discharged or Suspended Employee, from the union representative. One response is completed by each respondent.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
(a) Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rule 5.24. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are
(a)-(d) No change.
(e)
(1)
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 Rule 5.24 regarding the Exchange's business continuity and disaster recovery plans. Rule 5.24 describes which Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) are required to connect to the Exchange's backup systems as well as certain actions the Exchange may take as part of its business continuity plans so that it may maintain fair and orderly markets if unusual circumstances occurred that could impact the Exchange's ability to conduct business. This includes what actions the Exchange would take if its trading floor became inoperable. Specifically, Rule 5.24(e) states if the Exchange trading floor becomes inoperable and the Exchange does not make a virtual trading floor available in a class pursuant to Rule 5.24(e)(3), the Exchange will continue to operate in a screen-based only environment using a floorless configuration of the System that is operational while the trading floor facility is inoperable. The Exchange would operate using that configuration only until the Exchange's trading floor facility became operational. Open outcry trading would not be available in the event the trading floor becomes inoperable.
Rule 5.24(e)(1) currently states in the event that the trading floor becomes inoperable, trading will be conducted pursuant to all applicable System Rules, except that open outcry Rules would not be in force, including but not limited to the Rules (or applicable portions) in Chapter 5, Section G,
As of March 16, 2020, the Exchange suspended open outcry trading to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The trading floor is currently open for open outcry trading, and the Exchange is operating pursuant to its normal hybrid trading rules. The Exchange implemented numerous health and safety measures in connection with the reopening of the trading floor on June 15, 2020 to help protect the safety and welfare of the trading floor community and help prevent the continued spread of COVID-19.
Previously when the temporary provisions of Rule 5.24(e)(1) were in place, the Exchange's Regulatory Division has continued its standard routine surveillance reviews for electronic trading and implemented a regulatory plan to surveil the rules in place in Rule 5.24(e)(1) when operating in a screen-based only environment. In the event the Exchange closes its trading floor again and the temporary provisions in Rule 5.24(e)(1) become applicable to any class in an all-electronic trading environment, the Exchange's Regulatory Division would reimplement that regulatory plan to surveil those rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by permitting the Exchange to as seamlessly as possible transition back to an all-electronic trading environment in the event the Exchange determines it is appropriate to again close its trading floor. The Exchange expects it would take this action if it believes necessary and appropriate to help protect the safety and welfare of the trading community. Such a determination may occur with little advance notice, and closure of the trading floor may need to occur in a short time frame. The Exchange continues to believe the recent amendments to Rule 5.24(e)(1) allowed all-electronic trading to occur more similarly to open outcry trading while the trading floor was closed. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to provide TPHs with execution opportunities in an all-electronic trading environment in which a virtual trading floor is unavailable for orders that generally execute in open outcry trading. Rule 5.24(e)(3), which would permit the Exchange to make available a virtual trading floor in one or more classes if the trading floor became inoperable, provides that if the Exchange makes a virtual trading floor available in a class, the temporary rules in subparagraph (e)(1) will not apply to that class. The proposed rule change will provide investors with definitive knowledge of what rules will apply when the trading floor is closed (and a virtual trading floor is not available).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended as a competitive filing, but rather extends the effectiveness of temporary rules as part of the Exchange's business continuity plans, which are intended to allow the Exchange to continue to maintain fair and orderly markets while
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) for the Exchange's options market.
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 the Fee Schedule to increase the Exchange's network connectivity fees for its 10 gigabit (“Gb”) ultra-low latency (“ULL”) fiber connection for Members
The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange, to its primary and secondary facilities, consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection, a 10Gb fiber connection, and a 10Gb ULL fiber connection. The 10Gb ULL offering uses an ultra-low latency switch, which provides faster processing of messages sent to it in comparison to the switch used for the other types of connectivity. The Exchange currently assesses the following monthly network connectivity fees to both Members and non-Members for connectivity to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility: (a) $1,400 for the 1Gb connection; (b) $6,100 for the 10Gb connection; and (c) $9,300 for the 10Gb ULL connection.
The Exchange's MIAX Express Network Interconnect (“MENI”) can be configured to provide Members and non-Members of the Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of both the Exchange and its affiliate, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”), via a single, shared connection. Members and non-Members utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange and MIAX via a single, shared connection are assessed only one monthly network connectivity fee per connection, regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection. The Exchange now proposes to increase the monthly network connectivity fees for its 10Gb ULL connections for both Members and non-Members from $9,300 to $10,000 per connection.
The Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the requirements of the Act that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes various access fees for market participants to access an exchange's marketplace. The Exchange deems connectivity fees to be access fees. The Exchange believes that it is important to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees will allow the Exchange to offset expense the Exchange has and will incur, and that the Exchange is providing sufficient transparency (as described below) into how the Exchange determined to charge such fees. Accordingly, the Exchange is providing an analysis of its revenues, costs, and profitability for the Proposed Access Fees. This analysis includes information regarding its methodology for determining the costs and revenues associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
In order to determine the Exchange's costs associated with providing the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the services included in the Proposed Access Fees. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the Proposed Access Fees. For the avoidance of doubt, no expense amount was allocated twice. The Exchange is also providing detailed information regarding the Exchange's cost allocation methodology—namely, information that explains the Exchange's rationale for determining that it was reasonable to allocate certain expenses described in this filing towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the Proposed Access Fees.
In order to determine the Exchange's projected revenues associated with providing the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange analyzed the number of Members and non-Members currently utilizing the Exchange's services associated with the Proposed Access Fees during 2020, and, utilizing a recently completed monthly billing cycle, extrapolated annualized revenue on a going-forward basis. The Exchange is presenting its revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees in this filing in a manner that is consistent with how the Exchange presents its revenue and expense in its Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. The Exchange's most recent Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is for 2019. However, since the revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees were not in place in 2019 (or 2020), the Exchange believes its 2019 Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is not useful for analyzing the reasonableness of the total annual revenue and costs associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2020 (actual for the first 11 months and projected for the final 1 month) revenue and costs, as described herein, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit when comparing the Exchange's total annual expense associated with providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees versus the total projected annual revenue the Exchange will collect for providing those services.
On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued its Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes to Amend the Fee
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are consistent with the Act because they (i) are reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not an undue burden on competition; (ii) comply with the BOX Order and the Guidance; (iii) are supported by evidence (including data and analysis), constrained by significant competitive forces; and (iv) are supported by specific information (including quantitative information), fair and reasonable because they will permit recovery of the Exchange's costs (less than all) and will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Commission should find that the Proposed Access Fees are consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
For November 2020, the Exchange had only a 3.39% market share of the U.S. options industry.
Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason why market participants could not simply drop their connections and cease being Members of the Exchange if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable and uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives. Market participants choose to connect to a particular exchange and because it is a choice, the Exchange must set reasonable connectivity pricing, otherwise prospective members would not connect and existing members would disconnect or connect through a third-party reseller of connectivity. No options market participant is required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange. As evidence of the fact that market participants can and do disconnect from exchanges based on connectivity pricing, R2G Services LLC (“R2G”) filed a comment letter after BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its connectivity fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-04).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the Proposed Access Fees will not result in excessive or supra-competitive profit. The costs associated with providing access to Exchange Members and non-Members, as well as the general expansion of a state-of-the-art infrastructure, are extensive, have increased year-over-year, and are projected to increase year-over-year in the future.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the 10Gb ULL connection is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because 10Gb ULL purchasers: (1) Consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the 10Gb ULL fees are equitably allocated among users of the network connectivity alternatives, as the users of the 10Gb ULL connections consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network. Specifically, the Exchange notes that these users account for approximately greater than 99% of message traffic over the network, while the users of the 1Gb connections account for approximately less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's experience, users of the 1Gb connections do not have a business need for the high performance network solutions required by 10Gb ULL users. The Exchange's high performance network solutions and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput with the network ability to support access to several distinct options markets and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million quote messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange and MIAX handle over approximately 8,304,500,000 billion total messages. Of that total, users of the 10Gb ULL connections generate approximately 8.3 billion messages, and users of the 1Gb connections generate approximately 4.5 million messages. However, in order to achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall network connectivity expense for storage and network transport capabilities. Given this difference in network utilization rate, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory that the 10Gb ULL users pay for the vast majority of the shared network resources from which all Member and non-Member users benefit, but is designed and maintained from a capacity standpoint to specifically handle the message rate and performance requirements of 10Gb and 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange also believes that the connectivity fees are equitably allocated amongst users of the network connectivity alternatives, when these fees are viewed in the context of the overall trading volume on the Exchange. To illustrate, the purchasers of the 10Gb ULL connectivity account for approximately 94% of the volume on the Exchange for the month of November 2020. This overall volume percentage (94% of total Exchange volume) is in line with the amount of network connectivity revenue collected from 10Gb ULL purchasers (98% of total Exchange connectivity revenue). For example, utilizing the same recently completed billing cycle described above, Exchange Members and non-Members that purchased 10Gb ULL connections accounted for approximately 87% of the total network connectivity revenue collected by the Exchange from all connectivity alternatives; and Members and non-Members that purchased 1Gb and 10Gb connections accounted for approximately 13% of the revenue collected by the Exchange from all connectivity alternatives.
The Exchange further believes that the fees are equitably allocated, as the amount of the fees for the various connectivity alternatives are directly related to the actual costs associated with providing the respective connectivity alternatives. That is, the cost to the Exchange of providing a 1Gb network connection is significantly lower than the cost to the Exchange of providing a 10Gb or 10Gb ULL network connection. Pursuant to its extensive cost review described above, the Exchange believes that the average cost to provide a 10Gb ULL network connection is approximately 8 times more than the average cost to provide a 1Gb connection. The simple hardware and software component costs alone of a 10Gb ULL connection is not 8 times more than the 1Gb connection. Rather, it is the associated premium-product level network monitoring, reporting, and support services costs that accompany a 10Gb ULL connection which causes it to be 8 times more costly to provide than the 1Gb connection. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is equitable to allocate those network infrastructure costs that accompany a 10Gb ULL connection to the purchasers of those connections, and not to purchasers of 1Gb connections.
As discussed above, the Exchange differentiates itself by offering a “premium-product” network experience, as an operator of a high performance, ultra-low latency network with unparalleled system throughput, which network can support access to three distinct options markets and multiple competing market-makers having affirmative obligations to continuously quote over 750,000 distinct trading products (per exchange), and the capacity to handle approximately 10.7 million quote messages per second. The “premium-product” network experience enables users of 10Gb and 10Gb ULL connections to receive the network monitoring and reporting services for those approximately 750,000 distinct trading products. There is a significant, quantifiable amount of research and development (“R&D”) effort, employee compensation and benefits expense, and other expense associated with providing the high touch network monitoring and reporting services that are utilized by the 10Gb and 10Gb ULL connections offered by the Exchange. These value add services are fully-discussed herein, and the actual costs associated with providing these services are the basis for the differentiated amount of the fees for the various connectivity alternatives.
In order to provide more detail and to quantify the Exchange's costs associated with providing access to the Exchange in general, the Exchange notes that there are material costs associated with providing the infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to the Exchange. The Exchange incurs technology expense related to establishing and maintaining Information Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting, as well as Regulation SCI mandated processes, associated with its network technology. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense is not fixed, and thus increases as the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees increase. For example, new 10Gb ULL connections require the purchase of additional hardware to support those connections as well as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer performance that MIAX PEARL and its affiliates provide. Further, as the total number of all connections increase, MIAX PEARL and its affiliates need to increase their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting in increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider. Accordingly, the cost to MIAX PEARL and its affiliates is not fixed. The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in order to offset the costs to the Exchange associated with providing access to its network infrastructure.
Further, because the costs of operating its own data center are significant and not economically feasible for the Exchange at this time, the Exchange does not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts with a third-party data center provider. The Exchange notes that other competing exchange operators own/operate their data centers, which offers them greater control over their data center costs. Because those exchanges own and operate their data centers as profit centers, the Exchange is subject to additional costs. The Proposed Access Fees, which are charged for accessing the Exchange's data center network infrastructure, are directly related to the network and offset such costs.
The Exchange invests significant resources in network R&D to improve the overall performance and stability of its network. For example, the Exchange has a number of network monitoring tools (some of which were developed in-house, and some of which are licensed from third-parties), that continually monitor, detect, and report network performance, many of which serve as significant value-adds to the Exchange's Members and enable the Exchange to provide a high level of customer service. These tools detect and report performance issues, and thus enable the Exchange to proactively notify a Member (and the SIPs) when the Exchange detects a problem with a Member's connectivity. In fact, the Exchange often receives inquiries from other industry participants regarding the status of networking issues outside of the Exchange's own network environment that are impacting the industry as a whole via the SIPs, including inquiries from regulators, because the Exchange has a superior, state-of the-art network that, through its enhanced monitoring and reporting solutions, often detects and identifies industry-wide networking issues ahead of the SIPs. The Exchange also incurs costs associated with the maintenance and improvement of existing tools and the development of new tools.
Additionally, certain Exchange-developed network aggregation and monitoring tools provide the Exchange with the ability to measure network traffic with a much more granular level of variability. This is important as Exchange Members demand a higher level of network determinism and the ability to measure variability in terms of single digit nanoseconds. Also, routine R&D projects to improve the performance of the network's hardware infrastructure result in additional cost. In sum, the costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network in the U.S. options industry is a significant expense
For the avoidance of doubt, none of the expenses included herein relating to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees also relate to the provision of any other services offered by the Exchange. Stated differently, no expense amount of the Exchange is allocated twice. The Exchange notes that it made certain representations in a previous filing
The Exchange only has four primary sources of revenue: Transaction fees, access fees (which includes the Proposed Access Fees), regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total annual expense of MIAX PEARL and MIAX associated with providing these services versus the total projected annual revenue for both exchanges from these services. For 2020, the total annual expense for providing network connectivity services (that is, the shared network connectivity of MIAX PEARL and MIAX, but excluding MIAX Emerald) is projected to be approximately $17.9 million. The $17.9 million in projected total annual expense is comprised of the following, all of which are directly related to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees for MIAX PEARL and MIAX: (1) Third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX PEARL and MIAX to third-parties for certain products and services; and (2) internal expense, relating to the internal costs of MIAX PEARL and MIAX to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. As noted above, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2020 (actual for the first 11 months and projected for the final 1 month) revenue and costs, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements.
For 2020, total third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX PEARL and MIAX to third-parties for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to provide network connectivity services, is projected to be $4,079,910. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary, secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the MIAX PEARL and MIAX trading system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (“Zayo”) for connectivity services (fiber and bandwidth connectivity) linking MIAX PEARL and MIAX office locations in Princeton, NJ and Miami, FL to all data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”),
For clarity, only a portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, MIAX PEARL and MIAX do not allocate their entire information technology and communication costs to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Equinix expense because Equinix operates the data centers (primary, secondary, and disaster recovery) that host the Exchange's network infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the necessary storage space, which continues to expand and increase in cost, power to operate the network infrastructure, and cooling apparatuses to ensure the Exchange's network infrastructure maintains stability.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking MIAX PEARL with its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, as well as the data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the trade data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange, flow through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 62% of the total Zayo expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the SFTI expense and various other service providers' (including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap) expense because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire U.S. options industry as well as the content, connectivity services, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers' expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 89% of the total SFTI and other service providers' expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security monitoring and reporting across the network. Without this hardware and software, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the hardware and software provider expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 54% of the total hardware and software provider expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
For 2020, total projected internal expense, relating to the internal costs of MIAX PEARL and MIAX to provide network connectivity services, is projected to be $13,831,434. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including staff in network operations, trading operations, development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that support those employees and functions; (2) depreciation and amortization of hardware and software used to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally developed software used in the production environment to support the network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space for staff that provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-described below. For clarity, only a portion of all such internal expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange and MIAX do not allocate their entire costs contained in those items to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fee. In particular, MIAX PEARL's and MIAX's combined employee compensation and benefits expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be approximately $6,892,689, which is only a portion of the $9,727,857 (for MIAX PEARL) and $11,811,796 (for MIAX) total projected expense for employee compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes the time spent by employees of several departments, including Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents that the Technology staff use to develop network features and enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the provision of services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only the portions which the Exchange identified
MIAX PEARL's and MIAX's combined depreciation and amortization expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be $6,378,337, which is only a portion of the $3,342,621 (for MIAX PEARL) and $5,276,753 (for MIAX) total projected expense for depreciation and amortization. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 74% of the total depreciation and amortization expense, as these services would not be possible without relying on such equipment. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
MIAX PEARL's and MIAX's combined occupancy expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be $560,408, which is only a portion of the $528,425 (for MIAX PEARL) and $615,264 (for MIAX) total projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense represents the portion of the Exchange's cost to rent and maintain a physical location for the Exchange's staff who operate and support the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This amount consists primarily of rent for the Exchange's Princeton, NJ office, as well as various related costs, such as physical security, property management fees, property taxes, and utilities. The Exchange operates its Network Operations Center (“NOC”) and Security Operations Center (“SOC”) from its Princeton, New Jersey office location. A centralized office space is required to house the staff that operates and supports the network. The Exchange currently has approximately 150 employees. Approximately two-thirds of the Exchange's staff are in the Technology department, and the majority of those staff have some role in the operation and performance of the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without this office space, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of its occupancy expense because such amount represents the Exchange's actual cost to house the equipment and personnel who operate and support the Exchange's network infrastructure and the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange did not allocate all of the occupancy expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, approximately 49% of the total occupancy expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange's monthly projected revenue for the Proposed Access Fees is based on MIAX PEARL and MIAX Members and non-Members purchasing 140 10Gb ULL connections, based on a recent billing cycle. Accordingly, based on current assumptions and approximations, the Exchange and MIAX PEARL project total combined monthly revenue from 10Gb ULL connections of approximately $1,400,000.
On a going-forward, fully-annualized basis, the Exchange and MIAX project that their annualized revenue for providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to be approximately $16.8 million per annum, based on a most recently completed billing cycle. The Exchange and MIAX project that their annualized revenue for providing network connectivity services (all connectivity alternatives) to be approximately $19.4 million per annum.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of operating and supporting the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees because the Exchange performed a line-by-line item analysis of all the expenses of the Exchange, and has determined the expenses that directly relate to operation and support of the network. Further, the Exchange notes that, without the specific third-party and internal items listed above, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Each of these expense items, including physical hardware, software, employee compensation and benefits, occupancy costs, and the depreciation and amortization of equipment, have been identified through a line-by-line item analysis to be integral to the operation and support of the network. The Proposed Access Fees are intended to recover the Exchange's costs of operating and supporting the network. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fee increases are fair and reasonable because they do not
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, the Exchange has received no official complaints from Members, non-Members (extranets and service bureaus), third-parties that purchase the Exchange's connectivity and resell it, and customers of those resellers, that the Exchange's fees or the Proposed Access Fees are negatively impacting or would negatively impact their abilities to compete with other market participants or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the various market participants and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. As described above, the less expensive 1Gb direct connection is generally purchased by market participants that utilize less bandwidth. The market participants that purchase 10Gb ULL direct connections utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the Proposed Access Fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the Proposed Access Fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants—lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher costs to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees do not place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase market data from) all options exchanges. Not only does MIAX PEARL have less than half the number of members as certain other options exchanges, but there are also a number of the Exchange's Members that do not connect directly to MIAX PEARL or MIAX. There are a number of large market makers and broker-dealers that are members of other options exchange but not Members of MIAX PEARL or MIAX. Additionally, other exchanges have similar connectivity alternatives for their participants, including similar low-latency connectivity, but with much higher rates to connect. The Exchange is also unaware of any assertion that its existing fee levels or the Proposed Access Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market participants, they can simply disconnect.
While the Exchange recognizes the distinction between connecting to an exchange and trading at the exchange, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive options market in which market participants can readily connect and trade with venues they desire. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On August 31, 2006, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between FINRA and NYSE Arca for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
The Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of FINRA and NYSE Arca by allocating regulatory responsibility with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations that are common among them. Included in the Plan is an exhibit that lists every NYSE Arca rule for which FINRA bears responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to NYSE Arca members that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith (“Certification”).
On December 18, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan (“Amended Plan”). The primary purpose of the Amended Plan is to
This Agreement, by and between Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), is made this 17th day of December, 2020 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “SEA”) and Rule 17d-2 thereunder which permits agreements between self-regulatory organizations to allocate regulatory responsibility to eliminate regulatory duplication. FINRA and NYSE Arca may be referred to individually as a “party” and together as the “parties.”
This Agreement amends and restates the agreement entered into between the parties on February 9, 2007, entitled “Agreement Between the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and NYSE Arca, Inc. Pursuant to SEA Rule 17d-2 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,” and any subsequent amendments thereafter.
1.
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
(a) Surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving NYSE Arca's own marketplace;
(b) registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
(c) discharge of its duties and obligations as a Designated Examining Authority pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Exchange Act, if applicable; and
(d) any NYSE Arca Rules that are not Common Rules except for NYSE Arca Rules for any NYSE Arca affiliate that is a member that operates as a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Exchange Act), acts as a router for NYSE Arca and is a member of FINRA (“Router Member”) as provided in paragraph 6. As of the date of this Agreement, Archipelago Securities LLC is the only Router Member.
(a) In the event that FINRA becomes aware of apparent violations of any NYSE Arca Rules, which are not listed as Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed hereunder, FINRA shall notify NYSE Arca of those apparent violations for such response as NYSE Arca deems appropriate. With respect to apparent violations of any NYSE Arca Rules by any Router Member, FINRA shall not make referrals to NYSE Arca pursuant to this paragraph 6. Such apparent violations shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA as provided in this agreement.
(b) In the event that NYSE Arca becomes aware of apparent violations of any Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Retained Responsibilities, NYSE Arca shall notify FINRA of those apparent violations and such matters shall be handled by FINRA as provided in this Agreement.
(c) Apparent violations of Common Rules shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto shall be conducted by FINRA as provided hereinbefore; provided, however, that in the event a Dual Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on the NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca may in its discretion assume concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility.
(d) Each party agrees to make available promptly all files, records and witnesses necessary to assist the other in its investigation or proceedings.
(a) FINRA shall make available to NYSE Arca all information obtained by FINRA in the performance by it of the Regulatory Responsibilities hereunder with respect to the Dual Members subject to this Agreement. In particular, and not in limitation of the foregoing, FINRA shall furnish NYSE Arca any information it obtains about Dual Members which reflects adversely on their financial condition. NYSE Arca shall make available to FINRA any information coming to its attention that reflects adversely on the financial condition of Dual Members or indicates possible violations of applicable laws, rules or regulations by such firms.
(b) The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out their respective regulatory obligations. Neither party shall assert regulatory or other privileges as against the other with respect to documents or information that is required to be shared pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) The sharing of documents or information between the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating to the discovery of documents or information.
NYSE Arca, Inc. hereby certifies that the requirements contained in the rules listed below are identical to, or substantially similar to the comparable FINRA Rules and bylaws identified (“Common Rules”).
# Common Rules shall not include provisions regarding (i) notice, reporting or any other filings made directly to or from NYSE Arca, (ii) incorporation by reference of other NYSE Arca Rules that are not Common Rules (iii) exercise of discretion in a manner than differs from FINRA's exercise of discretion including, but not limited to exercise of exemptive authority, by NYSE Arca, (iv) prior written approval of NYSE Arca, and (v) payment of fees or fines to NYSE Arca.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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.
The Commission finds that the proposed Amended Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Amended Plan, NYSE Arca and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those NYSE Arca rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Common Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Amended Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Amended Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Amended Plan, NYSE Arca will review the Certification at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of NYSE Arca or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add NYSE Arca rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete NYSE Arca rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as common rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be NYSE Arca rules that qualify as common rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective an Amended Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for Common Members of NYSE Arca and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Amended Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to NYSE Arca rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Amended Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a NYSE Arca rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a NYSE Arca rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a NYSE Arca rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Amended Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The primary purpose of the amendment is to remove Regulation SHO from the Certification. The Commission notes that the prior version of this plan immediately prior to this proposed amendment was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.
This order gives effect to the Amended Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-523. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Amended Plan of their rights and obligations under the Amended Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 12, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “BOX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule change is substantially similar to a proposed rule change previously filed with the Commission by the Exchange as SR-BOX-2019-37.
This order disapproves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (“BSTX Governance Proposal”). The Exchange proposes to establish BSTX as a facility of the Exchange, as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Exchange Act, that would operate a market for the trading of securities (“BSTX Market”) and be jointly owned and controlled by BOX Digital Markets LLC (“BOX Digital”), a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of BOX Holdings Group LLC (“BOX Holdings,” which is also the parent company of the Exchange's existing facility BOX Options Market LLC, “BOX Options”) and tZERO Group, Inc. (“tZERO”), a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Overstock.com Inc. (“Overstock”). According to the Exchange, it is proposing the Boston Security Token Exchange LLC, Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of December 24, 2019 (“BSTX LLC Agreement”)
The Exchange separately filed a proposed rule change containing proposed trading rules for BSTX that would have established the kinds of securities that would be listed and traded on BSTX, the manner of operations of the BSTX Market, and eligibility to participate on the BSTX Market (“BSTX Trading Rules Proposal”).
As described in the Notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
Pursuant to the proposal, ownership interests in BSTX are represented by two classes of units (“Units”): Class A Units, which represent equal units of limited liability interest in BSTX, including an interest in the ownership and profits and losses of BSTX and the right to receive distributions from BSTX as set forth in the BSTX LLC Agreement (“Class A Units”); and Class B Units, which are generally identical to the Class A Units, except that they do not have the right to vote on any matter related to BSTX (“Class B Units”).
The Exchange states that BOX Holdings wholly owns BOX Options, which is a facility of the Exchange
Pursuant to the BSTX LLC Agreement, a person that establishes an indirect ownership interest in BSTX that meets certain thresholds would be required to become a party to the BSTX LLC Agreement, by executing an amendment to the BSTX LLC Agreement, and abide by its provisions to the same extent as if they were a BSTX LLC Member.
The Exchange states that the BSTX LLC Agreement includes provisions designed to prevent any owner of BSTX from having undue influence over regulatory actions and ensure that the Exchange has full regulatory control over BSTX and these provisions.
The BSTX LLC Agreement provides that the Exchange shall receive notice of planned or proposed changes to BSTX, with the exception of certain changes not related to the operation of the market, or to the BSTX Market, and that such changes will require affirmative approval by the Exchange before implementation.
Additionally, as described above, the Exchange proposes that without Commission approval of the BSTX Trading Rules Proposal, it would not permit BSTX to commence operations of the BSTX Market.
• Rules for which securities could be listed and traded on the BSTX Market,
• rules governing listing on BSTX, such as initial listing standards;
• rules governing suspension and delisting;
• forms to be used by issuers applying to list on BSTX;
• rules governing the process for and eligibility to become a BSTX Participant, as well as ongoing obligations, including:
• Rules defining BSTX Participant;
• rules setting forth requirements to participation on BSTX;
• agreements and forms required to become a BSTX Participant;
• rules governing business conduct, trading practice, financial responsibility for BSTX Participants;
• rules for trading on the BSTX Market and access to the BSTX System;
• rules for BSTX Participants and the Exchange requiring reporting of end-of-day balance information of BSTX Participants in BSTX Securities to the Exchange for recording to the Ethereum blockchain;
• rules for how the Exchange would satisfy its regulatory obligations (including by extending its existing Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) to cover BSTX Participants).
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, the Commission must approve the proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) if the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder; if it does not make such a finding, the Commission must disapprove the proposed rule change.
As discussed throughout, the rules for operation of the BSTX Market proposed in the BSTX Trading Rules Proposal undergird the operation and governance of BSTX as a facility of the Exchange. Those listing and trading rules, which are cited and relied upon by the Exchange in the BSTX Governance Proposal, were disapproved by the Commission and, as a result, the BSTX Governance Proposal, standing alone, does not reflect the proposed operations of the BSTX facility. Given that the rules for the BSTX facility were not approved, and BOX relied on those rules in the BSTX Governance Proposal with respect to how BSTX would operate the BSTX market and the Exchange would provide regulatory oversight of BSTX, the Commission is unable to assess the scope of the Exchange's regulatory operations, and therefore cannot find that the BSTX Governance Proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act, and in particular Section 6(b)(1). For these reasons, the Commission is unable to find that the Exchange has met its burden to show that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder, and in particular Exchange Act Section 6(b)(1), and is therefore unable to find that the proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act.
With the BSTX Governance Proposal, the Exchange proposes to establish BSTX as a facility of the Exchange and proposes the BSTX LLC Agreement as the source of operating and governance authority for BSTX. The Exchange rules that would have governed operation of the BSTX Market, and established many
For example, in the BSTX LLC Agreement the Exchange defines the BSTX Market as “the market operated by BSTX pursuant to Section 3.1 [of the BSTX LLC Agreement],”
In particular, the securities that are proposed to be traded on BSTX are described in the BSTX Governance Proposal only as “securities,” but are defined in the BSTX LLC Agreement as “BSTX Products,” which are “security tokens” authorized for trading on the BSTX Market. And the Exchange does not further explain BSTX Products. The BSTX Trading Rules Proposal, however, proposed rules governing what securities could be listed and traded on BSTX,
Similarly, the BSTX Governance Proposal does not sufficiently explain who would be a member of the Exchange that is eligible to trade on BSTX and qualify as a BSTX Participant. The BSTX LLC Agreement defines BSTX Participant as “a firm or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rules for purposes of participating in Trading on the BSTX Market,”
In addition, the BSTX LLC Agreement states that the Exchange will have regulatory responsibility for the activities of the BSTX Market. But the Exchange also states that it will only commence operations of the BSTX Market if the BSTX Trading Rules Proposal is approved. Additionally, as described above, the BSTX Governance Proposal does not provide information about the proposed operations of BSTX as a facility. As a result, it is not clear what the activities of the BSTX Market would be, over which the Exchange would exercise regulatory responsibility. For example, Section 3.2 of the BSTX LLC Agreement provides that the Exchange will (a) act as the Commission approved SRO for the BSTX Market, (b) have regulatory responsibility for the activities of the BSTX Market, and (c) provide regulatory services to BSTX pursuant to the Facility Agreement.
Furthermore, the BSTX Trading Rules Proposal included discussion about how the Exchange planned to comply with its regulatory obligations with respect to the BSTX Market that is not included in the BSTX Governance Proposal. For example, the BSTX Governance Proposal does not explain whether the Exchange would enter into any agreements with other parties to provide regulatory services. However, the BSTX Trading Rules Proposal explained that
In other regards, the BSTX LLC Agreement also refers to the Exchange's regulatory authority with respect to BSTX.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase the Exchange's network connectivity fees for its 10 gigabit (“Gb”) ultra-low latency (“ULL”) fiber connection for Members
The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange, to its primary and secondary facilities, consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection, a 10Gb fiber
The Exchange's MIAX Express Network Interconnect (“MENI”) can be configured to provide Members and non-Members of the Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of both the Exchange and its affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”), via a single, shared connection. Members and non-Members utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection are assessed only one monthly network connectivity fee per connection, regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection. The Exchange now proposes to increase the monthly network connectivity fees for its 10Gb ULL connections for both Members and non-Members from $9,300 to $10,000 per connection.
The Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the requirements of the Act that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes various access fees for market participants to access an exchange's marketplace. The Exchange deems connectivity fees to be access fees. The Exchange believes that it is important to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees will allow the Exchange to offset expense the Exchange has and will incur, and that the Exchange is providing sufficient transparency (as described below) into how the Exchange determined to charge such fees. Accordingly, the Exchange is providing an analysis of its revenues, costs, and profitability for the Proposed Access Fees. This analysis includes information regarding its methodology for determining the costs and revenues associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
In order to determine the Exchange's costs associated with providing the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the services included in the Proposed Access Fees. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the Proposed Access Fees. For the avoidance of doubt, no expense amount was allocated twice. The Exchange is also providing detailed information regarding the Exchange's cost allocation methodology—namely, information that explains the Exchange's rationale for determining that it was reasonable to allocate certain expenses described in this filing towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the Proposed Access Fees.
In order to determine the Exchange's projected revenues associated with providing the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange analyzed the number of Members and non-Members currently utilizing the Exchange's services associated with the Proposed Access Fees during 2020, and, utilizing a recently completed monthly billing cycle, extrapolated annualized revenue on a going-forward basis. The Exchange is presenting its revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees in this filing in a manner that is consistent with how the Exchange presents its revenue and expense in its Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. The Exchange's most recent Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is for 2019. However, since the revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees were not in place in 2019 (or 2020), the Exchange believes its 2019 Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is not useful for analyzing the reasonableness of the total annual revenue and costs associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2020 (actual for the first 11 months and projected for the final 1 month) revenue and costs, as described herein, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit when comparing the Exchange's total annual expense associated with providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees versus the total projected annual revenue the Exchange will collect for providing those services.
On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued its Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes to Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC Options Facility to Establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants and Non-Participants Who Connect to the BOX Network (the “BOX Order”).
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are consistent with the Act because they (i) are reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not an undue burden on competition; (ii) comply with the BOX Order and the Guidance; (iii) are supported by evidence (including data and analysis), constrained by significant competitive forces; and (iv) are supported by specific information (including quantitative information), fair and reasonable because they will permit recovery of the Exchange's costs (less than all) and will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Commission should find that the Proposed Access Fees are consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
For November 2020, the Exchange had only a 3.90% market share of the U.S. options industry.
Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason why market participants could not simply drop their connections and cease being Members of the Exchange if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable and uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives. Market participants choose to connect to a particular exchange and because it is a choice, the Exchange must set reasonable connectivity pricing, otherwise prospective members would not connect and existing members would disconnect or connect through a third-party reseller of connectivity. No options market participant is required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange. As evidence of the fact that market participants can and do disconnect from exchanges based on connectivity pricing, R2G Services LLC (“R2G”) filed a comment letter after BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its connectivity fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-04).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the Proposed Access Fees will not result in excessive or supra-competitive profit. The costs associated with providing access to Exchange Members and non-Members, as well as the general expansion of a state-of-the-art infrastructure, are extensive, have increased year-over-year, and are projected to increase year-over-year in the future.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the 10Gb ULL connection is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because 10Gb ULL purchasers: (1) Consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to the 10Gb ULL fees are equitably allocated among users of the network connectivity alternatives, as the users of the 10Gb ULL connections consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network. Specifically, the Exchange notes that these users account for approximately greater than 99% of message traffic over the network, while the users of the 1Gb connections account for approximately less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's experience, users of the 1Gb connections do not have a business need for the high performance network solutions required by 10Gb ULL users. The Exchange's high performance network solutions and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput with the network ability to support access to several distinct options markets and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million quote messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange and MIAX PEARL handle over approximately 8,304,500,000 billion total messages. Of that total, users of the 10Gb ULL connections generate approximately 8.3 billion messages, and users of the 1Gb connections generate approximately 4.5 million messages. However, in order to achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall network connectivity expense for storage and network transport capabilities. Given this difference in network utilization rate, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory that the 10Gb ULL users pay for the vast majority of the shared network resources from which all Member and non-Member users benefit, but is designed and maintained from a capacity standpoint to specifically handle the message rate and performance requirements of 10Gb and 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange also believes that the connectivity fees are equitably allocated amongst users of the network connectivity alternatives, when these fees are viewed in the context of the overall trading volume on the Exchange. To illustrate, the purchasers of the 10Gb ULL connectivity account for approximately 94% of the volume on the Exchange for the month of November 2020. This overall volume percentage (94% of total Exchange volume) is in line with the amount of network connectivity revenue collected from 10Gb ULL purchasers (87% of total Exchange connectivity revenue). For example, utilizing the same recently completed billing cycle described above, Exchange Members and non-Members that purchased 10Gb ULL connections accounted for approximately 87% of the total network connectivity revenue collected by the Exchange from all connectivity alternatives; and Members and non-Members that purchased 1Gb and 10Gb connections accounted for approximately 13% of the revenue collected by the Exchange from all connectivity alternatives.
The Exchange further believes that the fees are equitably allocated, as the amount of the fees for the various connectivity alternatives are directly related to the actual costs associated with providing the respective connectivity alternatives. That is, the cost to the Exchange of providing a 1Gb network connection is significantly lower than the cost to the Exchange of providing a 10Gb or 10Gb ULL network connection. Pursuant to its extensive cost review described above, the Exchange believes that the average cost to provide a 10Gb ULL network connection is approximately 8 times more than the average cost to provide a 1Gb connection. The simple hardware and software component costs alone of a 10Gb ULL connection is not 8 times
As discussed above, the Exchange differentiates itself by offering a “premium-product” network experience, as an operator of a high performance, ultra-low latency network with unparalleled system throughput, which network can support access to three distinct options markets and multiple competing market-makers having affirmative obligations to continuously quote over 750,000 distinct trading products (per exchange), and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million quote messages per second. The “premium-product” network experience enables users of 10Gb and 10Gb ULL connections to receive the network monitoring and reporting services for those approximately 750,000 distinct trading products. There is a significant, quantifiable amount of research and development (“R&D”) effort, employee compensation and benefits expense, and other expense associated with providing the high touch network monitoring and reporting services that are utilized by the 10Gb and 10Gb ULL connections offered by the Exchange. These value add services are fully-discussed herein, and the actual costs associated with providing these services are the basis for the differentiated amount of the fees for the various connectivity alternatives.
In order to provide more detail and to quantify the Exchange's costs associated with providing access to the Exchange in general, the Exchange notes that there are material costs associated with providing the infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to the Exchange. The Exchange incurs technology expense related to establishing and maintaining Information Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting, as well as Regulation SCI mandated processes, associated with its network technology. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense is not fixed, and thus increases as the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees increase. For example, new 10Gb ULL connections require the purchase of additional hardware to support those connections as well as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer performance that MIAX and its affiliates provide. Further, as the total number of all connections increase, MIAX and its affiliates need to increase their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting in increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider. Accordingly, the cost to MIAX and its affiliates is not fixed. The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in order to offset the costs to the Exchange associated with providing access to its network infrastructure.
Further, because the costs of operating its own data center are significant and not economically feasible for the Exchange at this time, the Exchange does not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts with a third-party data center provider. The Exchange notes that other competing exchange operators own/operate their data centers, which offers them greater control over their data center costs. Because those exchanges own and operate their data centers as profit centers, the Exchange is subject to additional costs. The Proposed Access Fees, which are charged for accessing the Exchange's data center network infrastructure, are directly related to the network and offset such costs.
The Exchange invests significant resources in network R&D to improve the overall performance and stability of its network. For example, the Exchange has a number of network monitoring tools (some of which were developed in-house, and some of which are licensed from third-parties), that continually monitor, detect, and report network performance, many of which serve as significant value-adds to the Exchange's Members and enable the Exchange to provide a high level of customer service. These tools detect and report performance issues, and thus enable the Exchange to proactively notify a Member (and the SIPs) when the Exchange detects a problem with a Member's connectivity. In fact, the Exchange often receives inquiries from other industry participants regarding the status of networking issues outside of the Exchange's own network environment that are impacting the industry as a whole via the SIPs, including inquiries from regulators, because the Exchange has a superior, state-of the-art network that, through its enhanced monitoring and reporting solutions, often detects and identifies industry-wide networking issues ahead of the SIPs. The Exchange also incurs costs associated with the maintenance and improvement of existing tools and the development of new tools.
Additionally, certain Exchange-developed network aggregation and monitoring tools provide the Exchange with the ability to measure network traffic with a much more granular level of variability. This is important as Exchange Members demand a higher level of network determinism and the ability to measure variability in terms of single digit nanoseconds. Also, routine R&D projects to improve the performance of the network's hardware infrastructure result in additional cost. In sum, the costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network in the U.S. options industry is a significant expense for the Exchange that also increases year-over-year, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offset those costs through the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange invests in and offers a superior network infrastructure as part of its overall options exchange services offering, resulting in significant costs associated with maintaining this network infrastructure, which are directly tied to the amount of the Proposed Access Fees that must be charged to access it, in order to recover those costs.
For the avoidance of doubt, none of the expenses included herein relating to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees also relate to the provision of any other services offered by the Exchange. Stated differently, no expense amount of the Exchange is allocated twice. The Exchange notes that it made certain representations in a previous filing
The Exchange only has four primary sources of revenue: Transaction fees, access fees (which includes the
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total annual expense of MIAX and MIAX PEARL associated with providing these services versus the total projected annual revenue for both exchanges from these services. For 2020, the total annual expense for providing network connectivity services (that is, the shared network connectivity of MIAX and MIAX PEARL, but excluding MIAX Emerald) is projected to be approximately $17.9 million. The $17.9 million in projected total annual expense is comprised of the following, all of which are directly related to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees for MIAX and MIAX PEARL: (1) Third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX and MIAX PEARL to third-parties for certain products and services; and (2) internal expense, relating to the internal costs of MIAX and MIAX PEARL to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. As noted above, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2020 (actual for the first 11 months and projected for the final 1 month) revenue and costs, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements.
For 2020, total third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX and MIAX PEARL to third-parties for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to provide network connectivity services, is projected to be $4,079,910. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary, secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the MIAX and MIAX PEARL trading system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (“Zayo”) for connectivity services (fiber and bandwidth connectivity) linking MIAX and MIAX PEARL office locations in Princeton, NJ and Miami, FL to all data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”),
For clarity, only a portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, MIAX and MIAX PEARL do not allocate their entire information technology and communication costs to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Equinix expense because Equinix operates the data centers (primary, secondary, and disaster recovery) that host the Exchange's network infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the necessary storage space, which continues to expand and increase in cost, power to operate the network infrastructure, and cooling apparatuses to ensure the Exchange's network infrastructure maintains stability. Without these services from Equinix, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Equinix expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 68% of the total Equinix expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking MIAX with its affiliates, MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald, as well as the data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the trade data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange, flow through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 62% of the total Zayo expense. The Exchange believes this
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the SFTI expense and various other service providers' (including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap) expense because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire U.S. options industry as well as the content, connectivity services, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers' expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 89% of the total SFTI and other service providers' expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security monitoring and reporting across the network. Without this hardware and software, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the hardware and software provider expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 54% of the total hardware and software provider expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
For 2020, total projected internal expense, relating to the internal costs of MIAX and MIAX PEARL to provide network connectivity services, is projected to be $13,831,434. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including staff in network operations, trading operations, development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that support those employees and functions; (2) depreciation and amortization of hardware and software used to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally developed software used in the production environment to support the network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space for staff that provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-described below. For clarity, only a portion of all such internal expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange and MIAX PEARL do not allocate their entire costs contained in those items to the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fee. In particular, MIAX's and MIAX PEARL's combined employee compensation and benefits expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be approximately $6,892,689, which is only a portion of the $11,811,796 (for MIAX) and $9,727,857 (for MIAX PEARL) total projected expense for employee compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes the time spent by employees of several departments, including Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents that the Technology staff use to develop network features and enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the provision of services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 32% of the total employee compensation and benefits expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
MIAX's and MIAX PEARL's combined depreciation and amortization expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be $6,378,337, which is only a portion of the $5,276,753 (for MIAX) and $3,342,621 (for MIAX PEARL) total projected expense for depreciation and amortization. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing network connectivity services, approximately 74% of the total depreciation and amortization expense, as these services would not be possible
MIAX's and MIAX PEARL's combined occupancy expense relating to providing network connectivity services is projected to be $560,408, which is only a portion of the $615,264 (for MIAX) and $528,425 (for MIAX PEARL) total projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense represents the portion of the Exchange's cost to rent and maintain a physical location for the Exchange's staff who operate and support the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This amount consists primarily of rent for the Exchange's Princeton, NJ office, as well as various related costs, such as physical security, property management fees, property taxes, and utilities. The Exchange operates its Network Operations Center (“NOC”) and Security Operations Center (“SOC”) from its Princeton, New Jersey office location. A centralized office space is required to house the staff that operates and supports the network. The Exchange currently has approximately 150 employees. Approximately two-thirds of the Exchange's staff are in the Technology department, and the majority of those staff have some role in the operation and performance of the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without this office space, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of its occupancy expense because such amount represents the Exchange's actual cost to house the equipment and personnel who operate and support the Exchange's network infrastructure and the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange did not allocate all of the occupancy expense toward the cost of providing network connectivity services, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, approximately 49% of the total occupancy expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange's monthly projected revenue for the Proposed Access Fees is based on MIAX and MIAX PEARL Members and non-Members purchasing 140 10Gb ULL connections, based on a recent billing cycle. Accordingly, based on current assumptions and approximations, the Exchange and MIAX PEARL project total combined monthly revenue from 10Gb ULL connections of approximately $1,400,000.
On a going-forward, fully-annualized basis, the Exchange and MIAX PEARL project that their annualized revenue for providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to be approximately $16.8 million per annum, based on a most recently completed billing cycle. The Exchange and MIAX PEARL project that their annualized revenue for providing network connectivity services (all connectivity alternatives) to be approximately $19.4 million per annum.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of operating and supporting the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees because the Exchange performed a line-by-line item analysis of all the expenses of the Exchange, and has determined the expenses that directly relate to operation and support of the network. Further, the Exchange notes that, without the specific third-party and internal items listed above, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network, including providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Each of these expense items, including physical hardware, software, employee compensation and benefits, occupancy costs, and the depreciation and amortization of equipment, have been identified through a line-by-line item analysis to be integral to the operation and support of the network. The Proposed Access Fees are intended to recover the Exchange's costs of operating and supporting the network. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fee increases are fair and reasonable because they do not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the actual network operation and support costs to the Exchange versus the projected annual revenue from the Proposed Access Fees, including the increased amount.
MIAX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, the Exchange has received no official complaints from Members, non-Members (extranets and service bureaus), third-parties that purchase the Exchange's connectivity and resell it, and customers of those resellers, that the Exchange's fees or the Proposed Access Fees are negatively impacting or would negatively impact their abilities to compete with other market participants or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the various market participants and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. As described above, the less expensive 1Gb direct
The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees do not place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase market data from) all options exchanges. Not only does MIAX have less than half the number of members as certain other options exchanges, but there are also a number of the Exchange's Members that do not connect directly to MIAX or MIAX PEARL. There are a number of large market makers and broker-dealers that are members of other options exchange but not Members of MIAX or MIAX PEARL. Additionally, other exchanges have similar connectivity alternatives for their participants, including similar low-latency connectivity, but with much higher rates to connect. The Exchange is also unaware of any assertion that its existing fee levels or the Proposed Access Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market participants, they can simply disconnect.
While the Exchange recognizes the distinction between connecting to an exchange and trading at the exchange, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive options market in which market participants can readily connect and trade with venues they desire. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 1, 2021.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
SBA Form 172 is only used by lenders for loans that have been purchased by SBA and are being serviced by approved SBA lending partners. The lenders use the SBA Form 172 to report loan payment data to SBA on a monthly basis. The purpose of this reporting is to (1) show the remittance due SBA on a loan serviced by participating lending institutions (2) update the loan receivable balances.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before March 1, 2021.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
Small Business Administration Surety Bond Guarantee Program was created to encourage surety companies to provide bonding for small contractors. The information collected on the form from surety companies will be used to update the status of successfully completed contracts and to provide a final accounting of contractor and
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4562-DR), dated 10/20/2020.
Issued on 01/22/2021.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oregon, dated 10/20/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information
Submit comments on or before March 1, 2021.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The information collected from the public, including our program participants and stakeholders, will help ensure users have an effective, and satisfying experience with the programs and activities offered or sponsored by the Small Business Administration. The information will provide insights into the public's perceptions, experience and expectations, and help focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 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 to renew an information collection. The collection involves the gathering of information necessary for the FAA to ensure proposed outdoor laser operations will not interfere with air traffic operations. The information to be collected will be used to and/or is necessary because the FAA must evaluate proposed outdoor laser operations requiring a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) variance from a laser light show, display, or device.
Written comments should be submitted by March 30, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Brian Konie by email at:
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 70-1A, Outdoor Laser Operations, provides information for those proponents planning to conduct outdoor laser operations that may affect aircraft operations in the United States (U.S.) National Airspace System (NAS). In addition, FAA AC 70-1A explains the necessity to notify the FAA, how to notify the FAA of the planned laser operation, and any action the FAA will take to respond to such notifications. Furthermore, AC 70-1A includes instructions for completing the requisite FAA Form 7140-1, Notice of Proposed Outdoor Laser Operation(s).
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on December 10, 2020, Brownsville & Rio Grande International Railroad (BRG) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a modification to its waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-Of-Train Devices, and 215, Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0100.
Specifically, BRG seeks a modification to its waiver of compliance with certain requirements of 49 CFR part 215, and 49 CFR 232.205,
In its petition, BRG requests that the track covered under this waiver be extended an additional three miles through the end of the Palo Alto Subdivision, which terminates at MP 0.0, and onto BRG's South Lead, where the required inspections will be completed between MPs 2.0 and 3.0, as were previously completed between MPs 8.0 and 9.0 on the Palo Alto Subdivision. BRG states that it will adhere to the same conditions outlined in FRA's decision letter dated December 18, 2017, at the proposed new inspection point.
In support of its petition, BRG states this waiver would help expedite any delays caused by required port of entry inspections and other unforeseen delays. The modification would provide capacity to process two inbound trains back-to-back, allowing for more efficient use of bridge windows. Trains from the KCSM Matamoros Yard to the Port of Brownsville (Port) travel less than 25 miles. BRG further states that its request will facilitate international trade between the United States and Mexico by allowing inbound trains to go directly to the Port. The Port is a more secure location to inspect the incoming trains, and operational efficiencies are gained by moving the cars directly into the serving yard. BRG states that the change will support the ongoing extensive growth in the Rio Grande Valley.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 15, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on January 15, 2021, the Burlington Junction Railway (BJRY) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223, Safety Glazing Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0017.
Specifically, BJRY, a Class III railroad, seeks to renew its waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 223.11,
BJRY operates this locomotive in terminal/switching service at Rochelle, Illinois, where BJRY interchanges with both Union Pacific Railroad Company and BNSF Railway Company. BJRY 3238 operates on other-than-main track at speeds not exceeding 10 miles per hour. The locomotive is equipped with safety laminate glass (AS-1, AS-2) and is serviced and maintained by BJRY at Rochelle, Illinois.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 15, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 14, 2021, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0011.
Specifically, UP requests permission to discontinue all automatic train control (ATC) and automatic cab signal (ACS) systems in service on UP on a segment-by-segment basis, commensurate with progress on completion of work to equip certain hand-operated switches in ATC/ACS territories as described in a plan submitted to FRA in December 2019. UP states that plan described the nature of the work and the safety benefits provided, and it was acknowledged by FRA in June 2020. UP explains a detailed schedule of this work is provided to FRA monthly under separate correspondence, and the work is planned to be completed during 2021.
UP states the reason for discontinuance is that the operation of positive train control (PTC) in conjunction with both the equipping of non-electrically locked switches for PTC communication and the promulgation of operating rules governing operations in the case of PTC failures provide a level of safety exceeding that provided solely by the use of ATC/ACS systems. Since 2017, pursuant to provisions of the waiver in Docket Number FRA-2016-0108, UP has operated PTC in lieu of ATC/ACS in certain territories. Due to that waiver, the existing ATC and ACS systems have been largely unutilized for some time.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 15, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic control system (TCS) on the D&H line, of the Keystone Division, milepost (MP) HA 629.3 to MP HA 715.7. This includes control point (CP) 629, CP 631, CP 648, CP 650, CP 659, CP 661, CP 672, CP 673, CP 697, CP 699, CP 714, and CP 716, and six automatic signals. The main track and sidings between MPs HA 629.3 and HA 631.5, HA 648.0 and HA 679.3, HA 697 and HA 699; and HA 714 and HA 715.7 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. One operable approach signal will be installed at MP HA 676.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require TCS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 15, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing a price of $160.00 for the Armed Forces 2.5 oz. Silver Medals.
Ann Bailey, Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
31 U.S.C. 5111(a)(2).
(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) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that official actions, documents, and statements, including those that pertain to the COVID-19 pandemic, do not exhibit or contribute
(c) The Attorney General shall explore opportunities to support, consistent with applicable law, the efforts of State and local agencies, as well as AAPI communities and community-based organizations, to prevent discrimination, bullying, harassment, and hate crimes against AAPI individuals, and to expand collection of data and public reporting regarding hate incidents against such individuals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this memorandum.
(d) 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.
(e) The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(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) You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(a) The head of each agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, a detailed plan of actions the agency will take to implement the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175. The plan shall be developed after consultation by the agency with Tribal Nations and Tribal officials as defined in Executive Order 13175.
(b) Each agency's plan and subsequent reports shall designate an appropriate agency official to coordinate implementation of the plan and preparation of progress reports required by this memorandum. These officials shall submit reports to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP) and the Director of OMB, who will review agency plans and subsequent reports for consistency with the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175.
(c) The head of each agency shall submit to the Director of OMB, within 270 days of the date of this memorandum, and annually thereafter, a progress
(d) The Director of OMB, in coordination with the APDP, shall submit to the President, within 1 year from the date of this memorandum, a report on the implementation of Executive Order 13175 across the executive branch based on the review of agency plans and progress reports. Recommendations for improving the plans and making the Tribal consultation process more effective, if any, should be included in this report.
(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.